A Trail of Convictions, Defaults and Unanswered Questions: The Public Record Against Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan
The verified judicial and regulatory trail surrounding Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan is neither marginal nor isolated. It is extensive, multi-forum, and marked by repeated adverse findings that raise serious questions about corporate governance, director accountability, and the practical limits of enforcement in India’s real-estate and commercial space. What follows is a detailed, critical examination of that public record as it stood on 14 August 2026—not media speculation elevated to fact, but the documented pattern of convictions, decrees, refund orders, and unresolved proceedings that the courts and tribunals themselves have produced.
The Core Criminal Record Against Roop Kishore Madan
At the centre of the adverse findings sit three confirmed cheque-dishonour convictions. On 30 June 2025 a trial court convicted AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited, Roop Kishore Madan and Sanjay Thukral under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in three separate matters arising from Unit No. 815 in the Landmark Towers project at Sector 15, Noida. The complainants—Sukiran Enterprises LLP, Jiva International LLP and Brahama International LLP—had entered space-buyer and assured-return arrangements. Assured returns ceased after March 2016. Three cheques were subsequently issued as part of a proposed settlement. Sanjay Thukral signed them. The trial court imposed compensation of ₹2 crore in each case, payable to the complainants under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On 16 March 2026 the Sessions Court dismissed the first appeals. It found no perversity or impropriety in the trial judgments and upheld the vicarious liability of both directors. The convictions and the compensation orders therefore stood affirmed. By 10 August 2026 the matters had reached the Delhi High Court as Criminal Revisions CRL.REV.P.(NI) Nos. 97, 98 and 99 of 2026, listed together with connected bail applications. No final indexed disposal had appeared by the research cut-off. The legal position is therefore clear: convicted at trial, affirmed on first appeal, and still under revisional challenge. These are not minor technical defaults. They represent three separate judicial findings that the company and its directors failed to honour cheques of substantial value, with the appellate court explicitly endorsing the trial court’s conclusions on director liability.
Roop Kishore Madan carries an additional criminal conviction that is frequently overlooked. On 6 November 2019 the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Acts, Tis Hazari Courts, convicted him under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 for contravening the statutory ceiling on the number of directorships an individual may hold. This is a regulatory criminal conviction. It demonstrates that even the basic statutory limits on director concentration were breached and judicially enforced.
Beyond the affirmed convictions, the public indices show further pending criminal complaints under Section 138 against Roop Kishore Madan and associated entities, including matters still at the evidence stage or showing warrant processes. Three 2022 State prosecutions under Sections 406, 420 and related IPC provisions were disposed of on the same day in July 2022; one was expressly settled and compounded, while the operative language of the other two remains insufficiently visible in the public record to characterise the outcome with precision. Three Section 276CC Income-tax prosecutions for failure to furnish returns were likewise disposed of in January 2021 without publicly clear conviction or acquittal language. The pattern is one of repeated engagement with the criminal process, even where final results are not uniformly adverse or fully transparent.
Bela Madan: Civil, Regulatory and Company-Linked Exposure
Bela Madan’s personal criminal record is different in kind. No verified personal criminal conviction or presently established personal FIR was located against her. That absence is a fact of the public record and must be stated plainly. What the record does contain, however, is a series of adverse civil and regulatory findings that place her squarely inside the same corporate network.
She and Sanjay Thukral were disqualified as directors for the full five-year period from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2021. The Delhi High Court later disposed of the related writ petitions after the period expired, restoring eligibility subject to any separate subsequent disqualification. The disqualification itself remains a formal regulatory finding that both individuals were barred from holding directorships for half a decade.
More recently, on 27 April 2026 a District Judge at Saket partly decreed a civil suit against Bela Madan (as defendant no. 4) and others concerning original title documents relating to property at Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar. She was proceeded against ex parte. The court directed production and handing over of the original chain of title documents, restrained her and certain co-defendants from using, alienating or encumbering those documents, and awarded costs. While the judgment contains no criminal finding of fraud or forgery, an adverse ex-parte civil injunction decree of this nature is not a neutral administrative event. It is a judicial determination that the plaintiffs’ claim to the documents succeeded against her in the absence of her defence.
The Corporate Network and Its Regulatory Failures
The companies linked to these individuals—AIMS Sanya Developers and Magic Info Solutions—have generated their own substantial adverse record. AIMS Sanya was admitted into corporate insolvency in January 2019. Roop Kishore Madan’s subsequent NCLAT appeal was withdrawn. Magic Info Solutions, associated in MCA-derived records with both Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan, has been the subject of multiple RERA and NCDRC orders in the Godrej Summit and related projects. Tribunals have restricted forfeiture percentages, directed substantial refunds with interest, proceeded against the company ex parte, and in some instances struck off its defence for non-appearance and failure to file replies. These are company-level findings of deficiency and non-compliance. They are not personal criminal convictions of the directors. Yet they form part of a pattern in which entities directed by these individuals have repeatedly been held liable to return money to allottees and buyers.
Active civil-contempt and arbitral-enforcement proceedings further illustrate the continuing pressure. In two Delhi High Court contempt petitions, Roop Kishore Madan appeared in January 2026 as managing director and gave undertakings for payment of approximately ₹97–98 lakh principal plus interest components exceeding ₹26 lakh in each matter. Enforcement submissions continued into July 2026. No final adjudication of contempt guilt was located, but the mere existence of ongoing coercive proceedings of this scale indicates unresolved monetary obligations that the court is still monitoring.
Media Allegations and the Limits of the Public Record
A recent media publication has alleged a real-estate and subvention arrangement involving Magic Info Solutions, Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan, Godrej Properties and Canara Bank, characterising the transactions as an alleged fraud. The public-record review located no official FIR, charge-sheet or judgment independently establishing those claims. It located no publicly indexed CBI, ED, SFIO or Prevention of Corruption Act proceeding naming any of the three individuals in relation to that scheme. The allegation therefore remains precisely that—an allegation. It has not been converted into verified criminal process in the material examined. Treating it as established fact would be inaccurate. Ignoring the volume of other verified adverse findings would be equally distorting.
Critical Assessment
The public record against Roop Kishore Madan is substantial. Three separate Section 138 convictions have been affirmed by the Sessions Court and remain under High Court challenge. A Companies Act conviction for exceeding the directorship ceiling stands. Multiple pending criminal complaints, active civil-contempt proceedings, company insolvency history, and a dense cluster of RERA and consumer refund orders form a pattern of repeated judicial and regulatory adversity. Sanjay Thukral’s additional four trial-level Section 138 convictions in May 2026 deepen the picture of the AIMS Sanya network. Bela Madan’s record is lighter on personal criminal findings but includes formal director disqualification, an adverse ex-parte civil injunction decree, and direct association with the same companies that have been ordered to refund substantial sums.
A Section 138 conviction is not a fraud or cheating conviction. Company-level RERA and consumer orders are not personal criminal findings. Media allegations are not charge-sheets. These distinctions matter. They do not, however, erase the cumulative weight of what has already been judicially determined. The pattern is one of persistent cheque-dishonour liability, regulatory non-compliance at the corporate level, and continuing enforcement pressure. That pattern invites rigorous public and regulatory scrutiny even while the legal categories remain distinct.
The most immediate documentary gaps that any further examination must close are the certified Delhi High Court orders in the three 2026 criminal revisions, the certified final orders in the two opaque 2022 IPC prosecutions, and the sentence and appellate records of the four May 2026 convictions against Sanjay Thukral and AIMS Sanya. Until those documents are produced and examined, the public picture, already extensive and adverse in significant respects, remains incomplete.
This is the verified state of the record. It does not require exaggeration. The volume and persistence of the adverse findings speak for themselves.
