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
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
Petitioner(s)
MANOJ PUNDIR
Respondent(s)
SUN ROSE TRADING PVT. LTD.
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC)
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Final Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 20-01-2026 | Judgement |
| 11-12-2025 | Judgement |
| 25-11-2025 | Final Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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
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
Explore other courts