MANOJ PUNDIR vs SUN ROSE TRADING PVT. LTD. — 90/2025

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

CA - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: DLND010018102025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

11-03-2025

Filing Number

724/2025

Filing Date

12-03-2025

Registration No

90/2025

Registration Date

26-03-2025

Court

District and Sessions Judge,New Delhi, PHC

Judge

10-Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC)

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138

Petitioner(s)

MANOJ PUNDIR

Respondent(s)

SUN ROSE TRADING PVT. LTD.

Hearing History

Judge: 10-Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC)

14-03-2026

Disposed

02-03-2026

Judgement

20-01-2026

Judgement

11-12-2025

Judgement

25-11-2025

Final Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
COPY OF ORDER
14-03-2026
COPY OF JUDGMENT

Case Summary: Manoj Pundir v. Sun Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd. (CA 90/2025) The appellate court acquitted Manoj Pundir of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, overturning the trial court's conviction and ₹22 lakh fine. The court found that statutory presumptions favoring the complainant were rebutted because: (1) the complainant's representative lacked personal knowledge of the repair/renovation work allegedly covered by the disputed cheque; (2) no bills or documents proving such work were produced; and (3) the accused produced bills in his own name predating the property transfer, contradicting the complainant's claim. The court held that once presumptions are rebutted, the complainant must independently prove the legally enforceable debt—mere inconsistencies in the accused's defense are insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Manoj Pundir v. Sun Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd. (CA 90/2025) The appellate court acquitted Manoj Pundir of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, overturning the trial court's conviction and ₹22 lakh fine. The court found that statutory presumptions favoring the complainant were rebutted because: (1) the complainant's representative lacked personal knowledge of the repair/renovation work allegedly covered by the disputed cheque; (2) no bills or documents proving such work were produced; and (3) the accused produced bills in his own name predating the property transfer, contradicting the complainant's claim. The court held that once presumptions are rebutted, the complainant must independently prove the legally enforceable debt—mere inconsistencies in the accused's defense are insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge,New Delhi, PHC All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case