MANOJ PUNDIR vs SUN ROSE TRADING PVT. LTD. — 89/2025

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CA - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: DLND010018092025

e-Filing Number

11-03-2025

Filing Number

723/2025

Filing Date

12-Mar-2025

Registration No

89/2025

Registration Date

26-Mar-2025

Court

District and Sessions Judge,New Delhi, PHC

Judge

10-Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANOJ PUNDIR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUN ROSE TRADING PVT. LTD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Copy Of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 89/2025 Decision: The appellate court dismissed Manoj Pundir's appeal challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque for Rs. 45,35,950. The court upheld the trial court's conviction and fine of Rs. 66,50,000, finding the appellant failed to substantiate his defense that the cheque was merely a security deposit or that Sun Rose Trading owed him money for set-off. Key Reasoning: The court found all statutory elements of Section 138 satisfied: the cheque was drawn by the appellant, dishonored for insufficient funds, proper legal notice was issued, and the appellant failed to make payment. The appellant admitted signing the cheque but provided only unsubstantiated defenses without corroborating evidence, while the complainant produced the registered transfer deed establishing the legally enforceable liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  6. 20-Jan-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  7. 20-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  8. 11-Dec-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  9. 11-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  10. 25-Nov-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  11. 25-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  12. 29-Oct-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  13. 29-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  14. 22-Sep-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  15. 22-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  16. 29-Jul-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  17. 29-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  18. 24-May-2025

    Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF

  19. 24-May-2025

    Final Arguments

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  20. 27-Mar-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  21. 27-Mar-2025

    Misc./ Appearance

    Additional Sessions Judge (Sftc)

  22. 26-Mar-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  23. 26-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 12-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 89/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 89/2025 Decision: The appellate court dismissed Manoj Pundir's appeal challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque for Rs. 45,35,950. The court upheld the trial court's conviction and fine of Rs. 66,50,000, finding the appellant failed to substantiate his defense that the cheque was merely a security deposit or that Sun Rose Trading owed him money for set-off. Key Reasoning: The court found all statutory elements of Section 138 satisfied: the cheque was drawn by the appellant, dishonored for insufficient funds, proper legal notice was issued, and the appellant failed to make payment. The appellant admitted signing the cheque but provided only unsubstantiated defenses without corroborating evidence, while the complainant produced the registered transfer deed establishing the legally enforceable liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case