Delhi District Court
Vipin Kumar Gupta vs State on 23 February, 2026
CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors.
CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MANU GOEL KHARB:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)-02, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 42/2025 & 107/2025
(Appeals arising out of Ct. Cases No.16841/2019 Sarvesh Mahajan Vs. M/s Lotus
Floriculture LLP & Ors)
CNR No.DLSW01-000936-2025 & DLSW01-002365-2025
In the Matter of :
CA No. 42/2025
Vipin Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. J.K. Gupta
R/o B-51A, Shankar Garden,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
.... Appellant
Versus
1.) State of Delhi through Public Prosecutor
2.) Sarvesh Mahajan S/o Sh. Yashpal Mahajan
R/o House No. B-1-419, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058
3.) M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP,
Regd Office at: House No.19,
First Floor, Road No.33, Punjabi Bagh Extension,
New Delhi-110026
....Respondents
Date of Institution of the Appeal : 01.02.2025
Date of Arguments : 18.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 23.02.2026
Page no. 1 of 21
CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors.
CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
CA No. 107/2025
M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP
Registered Office at:
House No.19, First Floor,
Road No.33, Punjabi Bagh
Extn., New Delhi-110026.
.... Appellant
Versus
1.) State of Delhi through Public Prosecutor
2.) Sarvesh Mahajan S/o Sh. Yashpal Mahajan
R/o House No. B-1-419, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058
....Respondent
Date of Institution of the Appeal : 03.04.2025
Date of Arguments : 18.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 23.02.2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of two appeals under Section 415(3) of BNSS, 2023 filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 23.12.2024 and 03.01.2025 respectively passed by Ms. Shivangi Mangla, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-05, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in case bearing CC No. 16841/2019 under Section 138 NI Act titled as "Sarvesh Mahajan Vs. Lotus Floriculture LLP & Ors." whereby the appellants/accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- to be paid to the Page no. 2 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
complainant as compensation and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
2. Appellant in CA no. 107/2025 was the accused no. 1 and appellant in CA no. 42/2025 was the accused no. 4 before the Ld. Trial Court and the respondent Sarvesh Mahajan was the complainant before the Ld. Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be addressed by the same nomenclature by which they were addressed before the Ld. Trial Court.
3. Common brief facts as per the case of complainant are that the accused No. 4 represented the complainant to be Director of the company Lotus Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and in month of May 2013, accused no. 4 offered to sell the property bearing Plot no. 55, 3rd Floor, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi-110025 and complainant entered into an agreement dated 17.05.2013 for the purchase of the said property for a total consideration of Rs.2,20,00,000/- and paid an earnest money of Rs.60 lacs was paid to the accused persons, for which Rs.40 Lacs were paid through RTGS and Rs.20 Lacs were advanced in cash. Due to non-performance of contract/ agreement, the cheque in question dated 22.08.2014 was issued by accused persons for discharge of the legal debt/liability for Page no. 3 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
repayment of the earnest money. On presentation, the cheque in question was returned unpaid with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide returning memo dated 23.08.2014. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.09.2014 to the accused through registered post, calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. Despite service/receipt of the notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within 15 days.
4. Pre-summoning evidence was recorded and after taking cognizance, summons were issued to accused No. 1 to 4 thereupon while cognizance was declined against accused No. 5 and 6. Names of accused No.2 and 3 were deleted from the array of accused persons on the statement given by the AR for the complainant and matter was proceeded against accused no.1 & 4.
5. Accused no. 1 did not appear during trial and was proceeded in absentia vide order dated 01.06.2018. Thereafter, notice was framed against the accused No. 4 on 01.06.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The complainant led post-summoning evidence in which he adopted his pre-summoning evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/22. Ld. Counsel for accused duly cross-examined the complainant after which the complainant evidence was closed.
Page no. 4 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
7. Thereafter, statement of accused Vipin Kumar Gupta under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.09.2022 in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. He admitted the execution of the agreement Ex. CW1//1 and further admitted that out of the amount of Rs.60.0 lakhs, the complainant paid Rs.40.0 lakhs through RTGS and paid Rs.20.0 lakhs in cash. He also admitted the legal notice dated 19.08.2014 having been received by complainant from him and the contents of legal notice to the effect that he is sole and absolute owner in possession of the property in question. He also admitted that the Lotus Floriculture was converted from Pvt. Ltd. company to LLP. He admitted the address on legal notice as his correct address. He further admitted the signatures on the cheque in question. He raised the defence that the cheque in question was issued as security which has been misused by the complainant.
8. Accused examined himself as DW1 in his defence evidence wherein he deposed inter alia that the subject property under the agreement was mortgaged with the bank and on apprehension being raised by the complainant regarding his earnest money, the cheque in question was issued as security on the condition that in case, the property is not released from the bank, then complainant will be able to atleast receive back his earnest money. After receiving the amount from the complainant, DW1 approached the bank for redemption of the Page no. 5 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
property and the bank released the said property within two months. Complainant was informed and requested to pay the remaining amount. However, the complainant never paid the remaining amount despite issuance of legal notice Ex. CW1/6.
Accused examined DW2 Anil Kumar Gupta, MTS, MCA, Office of ROC who brought on record his authorization Ex.DW2/1, Certificate of conversion Ex.DW2/2, Form-32 Ex.DW2/3, list of Directors Ex.DW2/4, Master Data of LLP and company Ex.DW2/5 and Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.DW2/6.
DW3/Anuj Kumar, Ahlmad from the Court of Ms. Bharti Beniwal, Ld. MM-11, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi brought on record the case file in titled Sarvesh Mahajan Vs. Lotus Floriculture Ex.DW3/1.
DW4/Rajvinder Kaur Bacher, Branch Operation Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd, Retail Assets Operation Moti Nagar, New Delhi brought on record certificate U/sec 2A Banker's Book Evidence Act Ex.DW4/1, Copy of Board Resolution of accused No.1 company Ex.DW4/2, Memorandum Ex. DW4/3, property address Mark A, Document showing release of property from mortgage Ex.DW4/4.
9. After hearing arguments, Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 23.12.2024 convicted the appellants/accused no. 1 and 4 and vide order on sentence dated 03.01.2025, appellants Page no. 6 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation and in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
10. Feeling aggrieved, both the accused have challenged the impugned judgment and order on sentence by filing separate appeals.
11. Grounds of appeal taken in CA no. 42/2025 & 107/2025
(i) That Ld. Trial Court ignored the submissions of appellant that the cheque was issued on the date of execution of agreement on the demand of the complainant at the last hour and the agreement was already prepared and was executed without mentioning of mortgage in the agreement.
(ii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the cheque in question was issued as security for redemption of mortgage on the property and not in discharge of any debt or liability. Since the property was got redeemed, the cheque, which was issued as security, stands null and void and could not have been used for any other purpose.
(iii) That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that after execution of agreement to sell and receipt of earnest Page no. 7 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
money, M/s Lotus Floriculture (P) Ltd./accused no.4 deposited the amount of Rs.60 lakhs with HDFC Bank to get the property redeemed from charge.
(iv) That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that the bank official who was examined as DW4, proved the creation of charge on property on 07.09.2012 and redemption on 12.07.2014 which proves that the property was under mortgage with the bank on the day of execution of agreement to sell, but after execution of agreement to sell, the same was got redeemed by Lotus Floriculture Pvt. Ltd which proves that the company had performed the condition, for the performance of which the cheque was issued as assurance.
(v) That Ld. Trial Court's reasoning that the complainant can extricate himself from the agreement by merely presenting the cheque given as security, without performing his own obligations, is completely contrary to the principles of contract law. The clause for forfeiture of earnest money was deliberately ignored by Ld. Trial Court.
(vi) That Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that at the relevant time, appellant was not in-charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of Lotus Floriculture Pvt. Ltd or Lotus Floriculture LLP.
(vii) That Ld. Trial Court has failed to notice that the complainant in order to mislead the court deceptively Page no. 8 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
referred accused no. 1 as formally known as Lotus Floriculture Pvt Ltd in the title of the complaint, suggesting a mere name change while implying that the company's legal status remained unchanged.
(viii) That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that conversion of Private Limited Company into Limited Liability Partnership Firm is not a mere change of name of the company but is a legal event by virtue of which, the company loses its legal identity/existence and is dissolved/removed from the Registrar of Companies by ROC.
(ix) That the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) liable despite the fact that the proceedings initiated by the complainant were fresh and not pending at the time of conversion and all liabilities of the company get transferred to the new LLP only if they exist at the time of conversion whereas the LLP was incorporated as a separate legal entity on 28.03.2014.
(x) That no criminal liability can be fastened on accused no.1 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP merely being the successor entity of Lotus Floriculture (P) Ltd.
(xi) That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that Lotus Floriculture LLP had not issued any cheque from the account being maintained by it and since no cheque Page no. 9 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
was issued by accused no.1, service of legal notice on it does not fasten any liability on it.
(xii) That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that at the time of execution of agreement to sell the property between complainant and Lotus Floriculture Pvt. Ltd., the same was mortgaged with HDFC Bank as a collateral security for the loan taken by M/s Visa Koje Tarde Impex Pvt Ltd as duly proved by DW4 and also accepted by Ld. Trial Court and the complainant, therefore, demanded cheque as a security for refund of earnest money in case the same is not redeemed from bank in time which was accordingly accepted by the company to assure the complainant of redemption of charge in time. Therefore, the cheque issued as security and cannot be said to have been issued in discharge of debt or any other liability.
12. Detailed arguments heard on behalf of both the parties. Case file and trial court record perused.
13. It is trite in law that in a prosecution under Section 138 NI Act, the statutory presumption under Section 118 & 139 NI Act stands in favour of the complainant and once the complainant proves that negotiable instrument/cheque is executed by the maker in favour of the holder of the cheque, the law presumes that the same is drawn for consideration and the holder of the Page no. 10 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
cheque received it in discharge of any debt or legal liability. Thereafter, the burden shifts on the accused to prove the contrary, which he can do so by demolishing the credit of the complainant through his cross examination or by leading any cogent evidence in his defence and the burden on the accused is only of preponderance of probabilities and not as heavy as that on the prosecution.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "K. Bhaskaran Vs. SankaranVaidhya Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 summarized the ingredients of the offence U/s 138 NI Act. The relevant extract is reproduced below for ready reference :-
"The offence U/s 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the banker, (3) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding the payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice."
15. In present case, the complainant has discharged his burden of proving prima-facie case by leading evidence by satisfying the basic ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act. The burden shifted upon the accused to rebut the presumptions U/s 118 & 139 NI Act standing in favour of the complainant.
Page no. 11 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
16. The standard of proof to discharge this evidential burden is not as heavy as that usually seen in situations where the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of an accused. The accused is not expected to prove the non-existence of the presumed fact beyond reasonable doubt. The accused must meet the standard of 'preponderance of probabilities', similar to a Defendant in a civil proceeding.
17. In order to rebut the presumption and prove to the contrary, it is open to the accused to raise a probable defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. The words 'until the contrary is proved' occurring in Section 139 do not mean that accused must necessarily prove the negative that the instrument is not issued in discharge of any debt/liability but the accused has the option to ask the Court to consider the non-existence of debt/liability so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the supposition that debt/liability did not exist.
18. In other words, the accused is left with two options. The first option-of proving that the debt/liability does not exist-is to lead defence evidence and conclusively establish with certainty that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The second option is to prove the non-existence of debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by referring to the particular Page no. 12 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
circumstances of the case. The preponderance of probability in favour of the accused's case may be even fifty-one to forty nine and arising out of the entire circumstances of the case, which includes the complainant's version in the original complaint, the case in the legal/demand notice, complainant's case at the trial, as also the plea of the accused in the reply notice, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. or at the trial as to the circumstances under which the promissory note/cheque was executed. All of them can raise a preponderance of probabilities justifying a finding that there was 'no debt/liability.'
19. The nature of evidence required to shift the evidential burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e., oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by the opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or presumption of law or fact.
20. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the instrument was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability and, if he adduces acceptable evidence, the burden again shifts to the complainant. At the same time, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and, if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling the burden may likewise shift to the complainant.
21. Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a Page no. 13 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption 'disappears' and does not haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption Under Section 139 does not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance.
22. It is against the backdrop of the afore-stated legal principles that court will proceed to consider whether accused has rebutted the presumption raised by Sec.139 NI Act. The cheque in question is not disputed by the accused, submitting that same had been issued as security. Accused has duly conducted the cross-examination of complainant, therefore, court can only consider the defence disclosed by accused while framing of notice under section 251 Cr.PC, during cross-examination of the complainant and statement of the accused recorded under section 313 Cr.PC.
23. It is to be kept in mind that the accused has to prove his case based on the standard of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Since the issuance of cheque and Page no. 14 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
its subsequent dishonour are not in dispute, the only question which the accused had to prove is whether the cheque was issued by him in discharge of any debt or legal liability.
24. The genesis of litigation between the parties is the agreement to sell dated 17.05.2013 as per which the complainant entered into an agreement with the erstwhile company, through its Director/accused no.4, to purchase a property at Sukhdev Vihar. The defence taken by the accused is that the cheque was issued by the company solely as security for performance of certain pre-conditions under the agreement which were in the knowledge of the complainant, though, not documented.
25. Ld. Counsel for the appellant Vipin Gupta has pointed towards the agreement to sell and purchase dated 17.05.2023 filed as Mark 'A' wherein many columns are blank and even the signatures of the second party(purchaser) are kept blank. Ld. Counsel for the accused no.4/appellant admitted that the earnest money had already been received on the date of agreement itself, but the purchaser had to inform whether he wanted to purchase the property in the name of Sarvesh Mahajan or in the name of person from whose account the earnest money was paid due to which columns were kept blank and the factum regarding mortgage on the property in question was also in the knowledge of the complainant. However, due to trust issues, a blank cheque Page no. 15 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
was given to him in case the company does not fulfill the agreement and transfer the property to the purchaser.
26. As per the terms of agreement, the last date for making the payment and execution of the agreement was determined as 01.08.2014. Nothing has come on record to show that the complainant had offered to make remaining payment to the appellant to complete the purchase of the property, rather after the completion of the specified time, it was the appellant who had served a notice upon the complainant calling upon him to fulfill his part of the agreement or to face the suit for specific performance of the contract.
27. Appellant examined the bank witness as DW4 before the Ld. Trial Court who confirmed the fact that the property which was the subject matter of the agreement was mortgaged as collateral guarantee but the said property was released from the bank and title documents were returned on 12.07.2013 i.e. within two months from the date of agreement. Since the property was free from encumbrance on the date when the agreement had to be fulfilled i.e. 01.08.2014, there is no reason as to why the appellant would call off the sale of the said property and refuse to transfer it to the purchaser.
28. It is admitted by the complainant Sarvesh Mahajan in the legal demand notice that the notice of suit for specific Page no. 16 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
performance of contract given by the appellant/ accused no. 4 was received by the complainant on 23.08.2014 i.e. on the date of presentation of the cheque. If the complainant had already received the notice on 23.08.2014, then as a reasonable prudent person, he should have come forward to fulfill the terms of the agreement and gave his reply accordingly to the notice given by the accused but, on the contrary, the complainant presented the cheque in question to his bank which rather showed his eagerness to repudiate the contract.
29. Nothing has come on record to show that the complainant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by offering to make the remaining amount. No bank account statements have been filed by the complainant in order to prove his readiness to complete the sale. Same is clear and evident from cross examination of complainant. He has only filed the copies of PPF passbook of himself and his other relatives but passbooks are only hand written records and are not even certified from the concerned banks. Moreover, the passbook entries of the relatives are no way a proof of financial readiness of the complainant to fulfill the terms of contract. The agreement was regarding the purchase of the property and it hardly matters whether ownership of the property was transferred to the complainant by the Company or accused no. 4 Vipin Gupta or accused no. 1 i.e. LLP.
Page no. 17 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
30. Another thing which has invited the attention of this court is Clause No. 4 of the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties as per which, in case the seller fails to comply with the agreement, he shall be liable to pay double the amount of earnest money to the second party. Believing the version of the complainant to be true that accused no.4 had failed to comply with the agreement by refusing to sell the property to the complainant, then as per the terms of the agreement, he should have taken the cheque of the value, which was double the amount of earnest money given by him to the accused, whereas cheque in question was issued for an amount equal to the bayana amount i.e. Rs.60.0 lakhs. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has tried to explain the same by saying that it is already mentioned in the legal demand notice that cheque in question was issued towards part repayment of the bayana amount. However, if that were so, then after the dishonour of cheque in question, the respondent would have demanded complete amount of Rs 1.2 cr from the accused. Admittedly, the complainant neither filed a suit for specific performance of the contract nor filed anything else to show that he had ever demanded Rs. 1.2 Cr from the accused; on the other hand the reasoning given by the accused that cheque was handed over as security at the time of execution of agreement subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions, inspires confidence of the Court.
Page no. 18 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
31. It is a settled law that if a security cheque is issued subject to the fulfillment of certain terms and conditions, then the liability under the cheque would arise only upon the fulfillment of those conditions. As already discussed above, the complainant has himself failed to perform his part of the agreement which was a pre-requisite for liability under the cheque to arise in his favour. Complainant's failure to perform his part of the obligation under the contract disentitles him to claim refund of earnest money.
32. In the considered opinion of the Court, accused no.4 has been able to raise a probable defence in his favour thereby rebutting the presumption under section 118(b) read with Section 139 of NI Act. longer. Once the accused had discharged his onus of proof, the onus shifted to the complainant to prove the fact that there was a debt/ legal liability which the complainant has failed to do in the present case as he neither sent his reply to the notice given by the accused no. 4 nor filed his bank account statements showing his creditworthiness to honor the contract.
33. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, accused no.4/appellant Sh. Vinod Gupta in CA No.42/2025 is hereby acquitted for offence u/s 138 NI Act.
34. Now coming to the liability of accused no.1 i.e. Lotus Floriculture LLP, as per the provisions of Section 58(4) of Page no. 19 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008, all tangible (movable or immovable) and intangible property vested in the company, all assets, interests, rights, privileges, liabilities, obligations relating to the company and whole of the undertaking shall be transferred to the limited liability partnership without further assurance. Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the liability of LLP after it has been converted as per the provisions of Limited Liability Partnership Act. The company, after being converted into LLP is bound by the pre-existing debts, liabilities and agreements as per the provision of Section 58(4) of Limited Liability Partnership Act read with 3rd Schedule and 4th Schedule. However, as already discussed above, since the complainant has failed to prove that cheque was issued in discharge of any existing debt or liability, there is no liability which can be fastened on the LLP also. Hence, LLP also stands acquitted in CA No.107/2025.
35. In view of above, impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 23.12.2024 and 03.01.2025 respectively passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-05, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in case bearing CC No. 16841/2019 are set aside. Consequently, appellants/accused persons in CC No.16841/2019 are acquitted of the charged offence.
36. Both the appeals i.e. CA No.42/2025 and 107/2025 are allowed and stands disposed of. This common order be placed in both the files under the signatures of the undersigned.
Page no. 20 of 21 CA 107/2025 M/s Lotus Floriculture LLP Vs State of Delhi & Ors. CA 42/2025 Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.
37. Trial court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor court alongwith a copy of this judgment.
38. Appeal files be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MANU MANU KHARB GOEL GOEL Date:
Announced in the open Court today KHARB 2026.02.23 17:41:15 -
i.e. 23.02.2026 0100
(Manu Goel Kharb)
Special Judge (NDPS)-02
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
Page no. 21 of 21