Delhi District Court
Shika Sadh vs A N Buildwell Private Limited Ors on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AZAD SEHRAWAT, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-10,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET, DELHI
DLSE020014732015
In Re:
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016
SHIKA SADH
D/o Lt. Sh. Rajender Kumar Sadh,
R/o D-1095, First Floor, Block-D,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
...........Complainant
Versus
1. M/S A. N. BUILDWELL PVT.
LTD. Office at : 504, 5th Floor,
Bhikaji Cama Bhawan, 11 Bikhaji
Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
2. Mr. Surender Kumar
Hooda, S/o Sh. Chajju Lal,
R/o 1/7, Shanti Niketan,
New Delhi.
3. Harish Chandra Mehrotra,
S/o Sh. Moti Chandra Mehrotra,
R/o D-10, Ground Floor, Lajpat
Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024.
............Accused
(1) Offence complained of or
proved : 138 N.I. Act
(2) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony
Page no. 1 of 29 Digitally
signed by
AZAD
AZAD SEHRAWAT
SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24
17:46:14
+0845
(3) Date of institution of case : 19.10.2025
(4) Date of conclusion of arguments: 28.02.2026
(5) Date of Final Order : 24.03.2026.
(6) Final Order : All accused persons acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ').
2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the case are as under:-
The complainant alleges that complainant had invested under a "Buy Back Scheme" and that she had been allotted one unit of flat number 101, First floor, Tower no.1 in the project "SPIRE WOODS" by the accused company. It is further alleged that, in order to strengthen the above mentioned "Buy Back Scheme", accused persons entered into a written agreement dated 06.02.2014 with the complainant as per which accused company agreed to purchase said flat back from the complainant after 24 months from the date of allotment for total consideration amount of Rs. 1,49,75,799. It is further alleged that in discharge of the said liability the accused persons issued cheques bearing No.077287 and 077288 both dated 28.08.2015amounting to Rs. 1,47,14,892 and Rs. 2,60,000/- respectively both drawn on Axis Bank, Jasola (DL), New Delhi, 110025 with an assurance of their encashment.
It is further alleged that the complainant presented the cheques in her CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 2 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:46:19 +0845 account and that both cheques were returned with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide bank return memos both dated 29.08.2015. It is further alleged that thereafter, complainant, through counsel served a legal notice dated 09.09.2015 upon the accused persons demanding the said amount.
It is further alleged that despite service of aforesaid notice, the said amount was not repaid by the accused persons. Thereafter, complainant has filed the present complaint case with the submission that the accused persons be summoned, tried and punished according to law.
3. In her pre-summoning evidence, CW-1 Ms. Shika Sadh examined herself on affidavit Ex. CW-1/O. She reiterated the contents of complaint and placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Receipts of payment as EX.CW1/A (OSR) and Ex.CW1/B (OSR),
(ii) Allotment letter asEx.CW1/C(OSR)(frompage59to66).
(iii) The agreement of Buy Back Scheme dated 06.02.2014 is EX.CW1/D (OSR).
(iv) Cheque no. 077287 and Cheque no. 077288 are Ex.CW1/EandEx.CW1/F,
(v) Returning memos of Cheque no. 077287 and Cheque no. 077288 are Ex.CW1/G and Ex.CW1/H,
(vi) Statement of account of the accused company is Ex.CW1/I.
(vii) The office copy of legal notices areEx.CW1/JandEx.CW1/K (in Colly.
(viii) Legal notices received by accused and internet confirmation receipts are Ex.CW1/L, Ex.CW1/M and Ex.CW1/.
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 3 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24 17:46:24 +0845 In cross examination following documents were put to the witness and same were placed on record as follows:-
(i) Ex.CW1/X- FIR No. 114/2016 dated 04.03.2016.
(ii) Ex.CW1/D2 Registration cum application form.
(iii) Ex.CW1/D1- Acknowledgement due Card.
4. The present complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused persons. The Accused No. 3 was earlier associated with Accused No. 1 company as an Alternate Director and had joined the company in October 2013. It is stated that the Accused No. 3 resigned from the company on 29.05.2015 due to differences with the other directors and duly completed all formalities, including submission of statutory forms before the Registrar of Companies.
It is further the case of the applicant that after his resignation, he was no longer associated with the affairs or business of the company and was not in charge of or responsible for the conduct of its business at the relevant time when the cheques in question were allegedly issued and dishonoured. It is alleged that the cheques signed by him were misused by Accused No. 1 and 2 after his resignation, despite the understanding that such cheques would not be used.
It is also stated that the statutory legal notice and summons in the present complaint were sent to the office address of the company and were never served upon Accused No. 3 at his residential address. The applicant relies upon various judicial precedents to contend that a director who has resigned prior to the date of the offence and who was not in charge of the affairs of the company cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
On these grounds, the Accused No. 3 has moved the present CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 4 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24 17:46:29 +0845 application seeking discharge from the present complaint, stating that he has been unnecessarily arrayed as an accused and that no case is made out against him.
5. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence, accused no.1, 2 & 3 were summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for this offence was framed upon accused no.1 through its Official Liquidator, accused no. 2 Mr. Surender Kumar Huda and accused no.3 Harish Chandra Mehrotra on 15.05.2018 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C, accused no. 1through its Officail Liquidator, accused no. 2 S. K. Hooda and accused no.3 Arvind Kumar Jain on 20.02.2017 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C, accused no. 1 through its Official Liquidator stated that the office of Official Liquidator did not receive any information from the Ex-Director of accused company regarding the cheque in question and he has no objection as per trial as per law.
Accused no.2 Surender Kumar Huda stated that he has disclosed his defence in his application u/s 145 (2) NI Act.
Accused no. 3 Harish Chandra Mehrotra stated that he was not the director of the accused company at the time of execution of agreement. He has resigned much before the presentation of cheque in question and necessary information was sent to the competent authority in this regard. Agreement does not bear his signature though cheques bear his signature. He was mere alternate director of the accused company.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for complainant evidence. Complainant examined herself as CW-1. She was duly cross-examined by ld. Counsel for accused persons.
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 5 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:46:33 +0845
7. In his evidence, CW-2 Sh. Arvind Kumar Bharitya examined himself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Certified copy of Form No. 18 of M/s A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd as EX.CW2/1,
(ii) Ex. CW2/2 - Certified copy of Lease Agreement dated 19.12.2013 (9 pages)
(iii) Ex. CW2/3 - Certified copy of Possession Slip
(iv) Ex. CW2/4 - Certified copy of letter issued by DDA to Sudesh Punhani along with certificate (4 pages)
(v) Ex. CW2/5 - Certified copy of Enclosure-3 attached with Form No. 18
(vi) Ex. CW2/6 - Printout of documents attached with Form No. 18
(vii) Ex. CW2/7 - List of directors of M/s A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
(Master Data)
(viii) Ex. CW2/8 - Certified copy of Form No. 20B (3 pages)
(ix) Ex. CW2/9 - Certified copy of Annual Return of M/s A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (10 pages)
(x) Ex. CW2/10 - Certified copy of Form No. 20B (6 pages)
(xi) Ex. CW2/11 - Certified copy of Annual Return of M/s A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (9 pages)
(xii) Ex. CW2/12 - List of shareholders of M/s A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
(xiii) Ex. CW2/13 - Master data of SCHLEICHER Intec Pvt. Ltd. along with list of directors (2 pages)
(xiv) Ex. CW2/14 - Annual Return of SCHLEICHER Intec Pvt. Ltd.
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 6 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:46:38 +0845 along with list of shareholders (15 pages)
(xv) Ex. CW2/15 - Certified copy of Form No. 20B of SCHLEICHER Intec Pvt. Ltd. (3 pages) (xvi) Ex. CW2/16 - Certified copy of Annual Return of SCHLEICHER Intec Pvt. Ltd. along with list of shareholders (10 pages) (xvii) Ex. CW2/17 - Certified copy of Form No. INC-22 of SCHLEICHER Intec Pvt. Ltd. along with annexures (6 pages) (xviii) Ex. CW2/18 - Master data of M/s SI Viridian India Management Pvt. Ltd. along with list of directors (2 pages) (xix) Ex. CW2/19 - Certificate under Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act.
8. In his evidence, CW-3 Sh. Anuj Kumar examined hinself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Ex. CW3/1 - Copy of buy-back agreement executed between complainant and accused company (signed by Ms. Shika Sadh at point A).
(ii) Ex. CW3/2 (colly) - Copies of two cheques issued by accused company on 12.09.2013 (later taken back on the pretext of change of authorised signatory).
(iii) Ex. CW3/3 - Copy of cheque of ₹52,182/- dated 15.09.2013 issued by accused company towards refund of excess service tax.
(iv) Ex. CW3/4 - TDS Certificate showing commission received by the witness from accused company.
(v) Ex. C-3 - CD containing recording of conversation between witness and Mr. Surender Kumar Hooda.
(vi) Ex. CW3/5 - Certificate under Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act (for electronic record).
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 7 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:46:42 +0845
(vii) Ex. CW3/6 - Transcription of recorded conversation contained in the CD.
(viii) Ex. CW3/7 (colly) - Reply filed by Surender Kumar Hooda before Company Law Board in Company Petition No. 119 (ND) of 2015 dated 21.01.2016.
(ix) Ex. CW3/8 (colly) - Minutes of Meetings dated 10.10.2013 and 12.12.2014.
(x) Ex. CW3/9 (colly) - Form No. DIR-12 of Schleicher Intec Pvt. Ltd.
(shareholder of A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.).
(xi) Ex. CW3/10 - List of shareholders of Schleicher Intec Ltd. as on 31.03.2017.
(xii) Ex. CW3/11 (colly) - Copy of email dated 09.06.2015 sent by Michael Collins, Director of A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
(xiii) Ex. CW3/12 (colly) - Resignation letter of Harish Chandra Mehrotra from SI Viridian India Management Pvt. Ltd. (shareholder of A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.).
9. In his evidence, CW-4 Mohd. Salman examined himself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Ex. CW4/1 (Colly)- Copy of cheque bearing No. 077287, Copy of cheque bearing No. 077288, Bank record showing reasons for dishonour of the above two cheques (Running into three pages).
10. In his complainant evidence, CW-5 Sh. Vir Pal Singh examined himself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Ex.CW5/1- Record of registered post/speed post prior to the year 2016.
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 8 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:46:47 +0845
11. In his evidence, CW-6 Sh. Shashikant examined himself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Ex.CW6/1- Authority letter dated 15.01.2020.
(i) Ex.CW6/2- Statement of account no. 004601555799.
12. In his evidence, CW-7 Sh. Sunil Gandhi examined himself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Ex.CW7/A- JDA along with its schedules 1 to 12.
In cross examination following documents were put to the witness and same were placed on record as follows:-
(i) Ex.CW7/D1- FIR No. 27/2022 PS EOW dated 10.02.2022.
(ii) Ex.CW-7/D2- Order dated 17.03.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
13. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which written questionnaire and answer were filed on behalf of all the accused persons in which all the incriminating evidence were put to them to which accused persons reiterated the stand and further detailed answers were also provided by them to notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. In statement, u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused persons preferred to lead their defence evidence.
14. In his defence evidence, DW-1 Sh. Dalip Bhola examined himself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Ex.DW1/A (OSR)- Registration cum application form of Shikha Sadh dated 19.08.2013.
(ii) Ex.DW-1/B (OSR)- Ledger account of the complainant.
(iii) Ex.DW1/C (OSR)- Builder Buyer Agreement.
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 9 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24 17:46:50 +0845 In cross examination following documents were put to the witness and same were placed on record as follows:-
(i) Ex.DW-1/D1- Document along with Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
(ii) Ex.DW-1/D2- Agreement to sell dated 27.03.2015 executed by Sh. Kapil Gupta and A. N Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) Ex.DW-1/D3- Appointment letter dated 21.01.2015 of Nalanda Real Tech Pvt. Ltd.
(iv) Ex.DW-1/D4- List of shareholders as on 31.03.2015 for Nalanda Real Tech Pvt. Ltd.
(v) Ex.DW-1/D5- Certified copy of chargesheet along with a copy of concenience and bank account statement of the accused company.
15. In his evidence, DW-3 Sh. Sahil Bhardwaj examined himself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Ex.DW3/A : List of Allottees of Spire Woods Project filed in Company application no. 332/2018 in company application (M) no. 115/2026 alongwith Index (colly, running into 46 pages).
(ii) Ex.DW3/B : Application alongwith Annexure-A (Extract of Board Meeting dated 13.11.2017 alongwith Index) (colly, running into 14 pages filed in company application no. 2102/2017 in company application(M) no. 115/2016).
(iii) Ex.DW3/C : List of Secured Creditors of A.N. Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd as on 31.03.2016 (Annexure-K) and List of Unsecured Creditors as on 31.03.2016 (Annexure-L) alongwith Annexure-R which is list of allottees of Spire Wood Projects alongwith Index (colly, running into 23 pages).
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 10 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:46:55 +0845
(iv) Ex.DW3/D : E-mail dated 06.04.2010 sent by Sh. Ashish Bhalla and Sh.
Surender Kumar Hooda, respectively filed as Anexxure-K in CA No. 2615/2016 in C.P No. 704/2014 in the objection filed in C.P No. 704/2014 by shareholders on 05.07.2017 alongwith Index of objections and main application i.e. CA No. 2615/2016 (colly, running into 10 pages).
(v) Ex.DW3/E : Order sheet dated 16.10.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Company Application (M) No.115/2016 and CA 332/2018 (running into 17 pages).
(vi) Ex.DW3/F : Order sheet dated 17.02.2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Company Petition No.6/2019 (running into 21 pages).
(vii) Ex.DW3/G : Order sheet dated 17.03.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Company Petition No.6/2019 and CA 365/2020 (running into 10 pages).
16. In his evidence, DW-4 Sh. Manjeet Singh examined himself. He placed on record documents as follows:-
(i) Ex.DW4/1 : Authority letter/reference letter dated 07.10.2024.
(ii) Ex.DW4/2 : E-mail dated 22.04.2024 sent by Ms. Shikha Sadh to the official liquidator.
(iii) Ex.DW4/3 : Application in Company Petition No.6/2019 (now numbered as CA No.368/2024) seny by Ms. Sikha Sadh through e-mail dated 22.0402024 to the official liquidator.
(iv) Ex.DW4/4 : Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
17. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments. Detailed written arguments were filed on behalf of the parties. In brief, it was argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant has successfully established CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 11 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:46:58 +0845 all ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act, including issuance of cheque towards a legally enforceable liability arising out of a buy-back scheme, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and due service of legal demand notice. It was further argued that the testimony of the complainant and supporting witnesses remained unimpeached despite extensive cross-examination and proved the existence of the buy-back scheme, execution of agreement, and issuance of post-dated cheques against liability. It was further argued that witnesses established banking transactions, dishonour of cheque, and statutory compliance, while CW-7 and related documents established the financial dealings, revival scheme, and acknowledgment of buy-back liabilities by the accused company. It was further argued that accused persons admitted their signatures on the cheque, thereby attracting statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, which they failed to rebut by any cogent evidence. It was further argued that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company, and thus are liable under Section 141 NI Act. It was further argued that the defence taken by the accused is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof, especially when they failed to effectively step into the witness box. It was further argued that the nomenclature of the agreement is immaterial as the substance clearly establishes a buy-back obligation constituting legally enforceable debt, and that the dishonoured cheque was issued in discharge of such liability. It was further argued that the objection regarding absence of legally enforceable debt is flawed as the liability under a buy-back scheme constitutes a legally enforceable obligation. It was further argued that statutory notice was duly served at the registered address of the company and deemed valid in law, and individual notice to directors is not mandatory. It was further argued that Accused No. 2, being a signatory and an actively involved director, cannot escape liability by claiming resignation, or nominee CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 12 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:47:03 +0845 status, particularly when evidence shows control, participation in management, and issuance of cheques. It was further argued that the complainant's right to refund under the buy-back scheme subsists irrespective of possession of the flat. It was further argued that allegations of inducement for issuing the cheque in question, or misuse of the same are unsupported by any evidence. It was further argued that challenges to credibility of witnesses, including CW-3, and alleged inconsistencies are minor and are misleading and unsupported by record. It was argued that accused persons failed to raise the probable defence to disprove the case of complainant and to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. Therefore, accused persons be convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
18. Per contra, ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 adopted the written arguments filed in the connected matter CC No. 620536/2016. In brief, argued that mere dishonour of cheque does not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act unless all mandatory and cumulative ingredients, including existence of a legally enforceable debt, are strictly proved. It was further argued that no legally enforceable debt existed on the date of issuance of the cheque as the complainant failed to establish any valid buy-back agreement and the documents on record only reflect an allotment arrangement with continued ownership and possession of the property. It was further argued that the cheque in question was not issued towards any crystallised liability and at best pertained to a contingent or future obligation, which does not attract Section
138. It was further argued that none of the documents relied upon by the complainant establish liability against Accused No. 2 or demonstrate his knowledge, role, or involvement in the alleged transaction. It was further argued that the statutory legal notice was not validly served upon Accused No. CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 13 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:47:06 +0845 2, as it was sent to an incorrect address after his resignation and delivery has not been proved as per law, thereby vitiating a mandatory condition of the offence. It was further argued that Accused No. 2 had resigned prior to the relevant period, had no role in the day-to-day affairs of the company, and cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Act, especially in the absence of specific averments or evidence to the contrary. It was further argued that the complainant's own documents and defence evidence conclusively establish that she was merely an allottee and not a party to any buy-back scheme, and thus no liability ever arose. It was further argued that the evidence led by the complainant is unreliable and inadmissible, being unsupported by mandatory certifications and contradicted during cross-examination, and that mere exhibition of documents does not amount to proof. It was further argued that the complainant has failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt and has selectively implicated Accused No. 2 without legal basis.
19. Further, learned counsel for official liquidator for accused no. 1 argued that the office of Official Liquidator did not receive any information from the Ex-Director of accused company regarding the cheque in question. It was further argued that no legally enforceable debt existed on the date of issuance of the cheque and that the complainant has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence and that the accused no. 1 is entitled to be acquitted.
20. Further, since accused No. 3 expired during the pendency of proceedings, the matter was abated qua accused No. 3 vide order dated 24.02.2026.
21. I have perused the entire record as well as evidence led by the complainant as well as by the accused.
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 14 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:47:14 +0845
22. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of decision, let relevant position of law be discussed first:-
For the offence under Section 138 of the Act to be made out against the accused, the complainant must prove the following points, that:-
1. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank.
2. the said cheque had been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
3. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
4. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonoured.
5. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
6. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
23. The NI Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. Complainant in the present case; firstly, in regard to the negotiable instrument being drawn or made for consideration as contained in Section 118
(a) and secondly, of the nature referred to in Section 139, a presumption that the holder of the cheque received the same in discharged, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
Section 118 of the N.I Act provides :
"Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: (a) of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, I ndorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;"
Section 139 of the N.I Act further provides as follows:
"Presumption in favour of holder - it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".
24. For the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the presumptions under CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 15 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD SEHRAWAT AZAD SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:47:18 +0845 Sections 118(a) and 139 have to be compulsory raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter burden is shifted to accused to prove otherwise. These presumptions shall be rebutted only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists. Presumptions both under Sections 118 and 139 are rebuttable in nature. Same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee [(2001) 6 SCC 16]. In this case, the Apex Court had held:
"........ Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn,.... it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non- existence of the presumed fact.
In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists" . Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'
25. In the present case, accused persons have admitted their signatures on the cheque in question, in the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C and his statement U/s 313 CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Digitally signed by AZAD Page no. 16 of 29 AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:47:23 +0845 Cr. P.C. Reference can be made to Judgment of Apex Court in Rangappa v. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898,that, "Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant."
Also in the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 309, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability."
26. It has been held in M/s. Kumar Exports v. M/s. Sharma Carpets, [2009 A.I.R. (SC) 1518] that the accused may rebut these presumptions by leading direct evidence and in some and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Further, the burden may be discharged by the accused by showing preponderance of probabilities and the onus on the accused is not as heavy as it is on the complainant to prove his case. In light of the legal position discussed above, let us carry out a scrutiny of the evidence led at the trial.
27. In the present case, the complainant by way of an affidavit led her own evidence testifying that cheque was issued to her in discharge of liability for buying back rights in the flat in dispute. The cheque in question, dishonour memo of the cheque, agreement to sell and legal demand notice were exhibited on record.
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 17 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24 17:47:27 +0845
28. The principal defence taken by the accused personsas brought out from his notice under Section 251 Cr. P.C, their statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C and defence evidence is that the cheque in question was given at the instance of on Sh. Ashish Bholla who was the Managing Director of Accused No. 1 company and that there is no pre-existing legally enforceable debt or liability.
29. It is trite law that Section 138 is a quasi-civil liability and that same has to be understood strictly and all its conditions must be satisfied. The same can be construed from the fact that the word 'and' is used in this section and not 'or', thereby making it necessary that all the ingredients of the offence must exist cumulatively for the provision to be attracted. Partial compliance or omission of any of these statutory requirements would render a complaint under Section 138 untenable. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh (2009) 14 SCC 68, which has also been relied upon on behalf of accused No. 2.
30. Further, offence under Section 138 of the Act can be fastened on an accused only if he commits a default in repayment of the dishonoured cheque which was issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt. This position of law was also endorsed by the Apex Court in Sasseriyil Joseph Vs. Devassia, SLP (Crl.)1785/2001, DoD 10.09.2001.
31. Coming to the case at hand, in the present matter, before pondering upon any other contention and the liability in regard to each accused person individually, let us first examine whether there was a pre-existing legally recoverable liability in favour of the complainant at the time when the cheque was presented for encashment, since this fact goes to the very root of the matter. However, in order to answer this question, first it has to be examined CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 18 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:47:31 +0845 whether the agreement to sell Ex. CW1/E is merely a simple agreement to sell or whether it is a buyback agreement entered into towards fulfilment of a pre- existing buyback scheme as alleged by the complainant.
32. Entire case of the complainant is based on the averment that the amount was invested by the complainant in a buyback scheme from the very inception when the flat in question was allotted to her. It is not in dispute that nomenclature is irrelevant and substance has to be seen in order to interpret the intentions of the parties to an agreement. Even use of the words 'buy back' in the terms of the agreement will not by itself mean that the entire agreement is a buyback agreement from the very inception, and similarly, to the contrary, mere use of words agreement to sell will not strictly define the intention and substance of the agreement.
In the present matter, the complainant is trying to establish that she had invested in the flat in dispute with the intention that the accused company would buy back the flat 24 months after the allotment, and that this was the intention of the accused company from the very beginning. However, the complainant has not placed on record any document which shows the execution, or rather, the existence of any such agreement. The original builder- buyer agreement Ex.DW1/C has not been placed on record by the complainant. It has, however, been placed on record by accused persons. There is no such term or condition mentioned in the original builder buyer agreement Ex.DW1/C as well. This court is of the opinion that by virtue of the agreement to sell Ex. CW1/E, the complainant merely agreed to transfer her interest and share in the allotted flat to the accused company in exchange for the amount mentioned in the cheque in question. The parties have also been referred to as 'buyer' and 'seller' in the agreement to sell Ex. CW1/E. There is nothing in that agreement to show that the intention of the parties was to enter into a CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 19 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:47:35 +0845 buyback scheme from the very beginning when the initial builder buyer agreement Ex.DW1/C was executed and money was invested by the complainant. The words 'buy back' may have been used at several instances in the agreement to sell Ex. CW1/E and also in other documents, however, it cannot be presumed from the same that the intention of all the parties concerned was to enter into a buyback scheme from the very beginning as alleged by the complainant. At the most, it is merely a 'buy-back' arrangement entered into subsequently for buying back the share in the flat in question from the complainant, which is essentially an agreement to sell in its substance, and nothing more. There is nothing in either of the agreements which indicates existence of any such pre-existing buy back scheme as has been alleged by the complainant.
33. Further, the agreement to sell Ex. CW1/E has been alleged by the complainant to be an agreement which creates a pre-existing legally enforceable debt and it has been alleged by the accused persons that the same does not create a pre-existing legally enforceable debt. Several arguments have been raised on behalf of both sides in support of their respective claims as discussed above. However, this court is of the opinion that this issue requires emphasis on the relevant paragraph 2(a) of the agreement to sell Ex. CW1/E wherein it is mentioned that all the rights in the property in question will revert back to the accused company 'upon encashment' of the cheque in question. The words 'upon encashment' make it amply clear that the intention of the executing parties was that the actual transfer was to take place only after the cheque had been presented and the amount had been credited into the account of the complainant. In regard to argument passed by Ld. Counsel for complainant that the mentioning of the words 'has paid' in the agreement proves that the legally enforceable debt already existed, the same appears to be a clerical mistake in the opinion of this court since the fact that only a cheque CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 20 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24 17:47:40 +0845 was issued on the date of the agreement Ex. CW1/E and no payment was made at that time is not in dispute. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the consideration has already been paid to the complainant is devoid of merit in the opinion of this court.
34. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indus Airways (P) Ltd. Magnum Aviation (P) Ltd. (2014) 12 SCC 539, which has been relied upon by accused No. 2, that:
"15. The above reasoning of the Delhi High Court is clearly flawed inasmuch as it failed to keep in mind the fine distinction between civil liability and criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. If at the time of entering into a contract, it is one of the conditions of the contract that the purchaser has to pay the amount in advance and there is breach of such condition then purchaser may have to make good the loss that might have occasioned to the seller but that does not create a criminal liability under Section 138. For a criminal liability to be made out under Section 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. We are unable to accept the view of the Delhi High Court that the issuance of cheque towards advance payment at the time of signing such contract has to be considered as subsisting liability and dishonour of such cheque amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Delhi High Court has travelled beyond the scope of Section 138 of the NI Act by holding that the purpose of enacting Section 138 of the NI Act would stand defeated if after placing orders and giving advance payments. The instructions for stop payments are issued and orders are cancelled. In what we have discussed above, if a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its cancellation or otherwise and material or goods for which purchase order was placed is not supplied by the supplier, in our considered view, the cheque cannot be said to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability."
The present case does not deal with transactions such as a loan transaction in which the amount is already recoverable. In the present matter, the cheque in question was handed over as consideration for the above- mentioned agreement and the rights were to be transferred 'upon encashment' of the same, as discussed above. However, since the same was not honoured upon its presentation, it amounts to withdrawal from the said transaction of the other party, that is, the accused company. It is not in dispute that the complainant is still the allottee of the flat in question. It is not a case where all CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 21 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD SEHRAWAT AZAD SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:47:44 +0845 the rights and liabilities in the flat in question had already been transferred back and thereafter the cheque was issued or presented in lieu of the transfer already completed. The allotment rights in the flat in dispute are undeniably still vested with the complainant. Such breach may give rise to other liabilities, however, in light of the law discussed above, it cannot be supposed to be a pre- existing legally enforceable liability. Therefore, case law defined in the judgment of Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd.(supra) is applicable in the factual matrix of the present matter in the opinion of this court.
35. In regard to the testimony of CW3 Anuj Kumar, nothing is mentioned in the original agreement which shows that the money was invested by the complainant in any such buyback scheme as has been alleged. It is a settled position of law that documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence, and therefore, the testimony of CW3 cannot override the documentary record. Merely stating that the said agreement to sell Ex. CW1/E has been referred to as buy back in certain documents does not by itself prove that the initial investment was made with the intent of entering into the buyback scheme. As discussed above, at the most it merely shows that a buyback arrangement has been entered into subsequently between the parties for buying back rights in the flat in dispute. Also, this Court deems it pertinent to mention here that the original builder buyer agreement Ex.DW1/C was not placed on record by the complainant. The only explanation provided in this regard is that the present matter pertains to dishonour of cheque and that this document was not required to be placed on record. This is an intentional concealment in the opinion of this court and one should come to the court with clean hands and not conceal or suppress material documents. This assumes more significance in light of the fact that the provisional allotment letter, receipt and the subsequently entered agreement to sell Ex. CW1/E have been placed on record by the complainant. CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 22 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24 17:47:48 +0845 Moreover, the said builder buyer agreement Ex.DW1/C was necessary to verify the claim of the complainant that the complainant had invested money in a buyback scheme and that this was the intention of the parties from the very inception since it is the document which initiated the said transaction. However, as discussed above, this document was placed on record by one of the accused persons and same evidently did not support claim of buyback scheme of the complainant. This fact further deteriorates the case of the complainant in light of and in addition to all the facts discussed above.
36. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the accused persons have probabilized his defence by punching holes in the case of the complainant and have discharged the onus of proof put upon them by virtue of the presumptions raised under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the NI Act. The case of the complainant is not made out as she has not been able to justify as to how a legally enforceable liability existed at the time of presentation of the cheque in question. The complainant did not place on record the vital documents in order to show existence of a pre-existing legally enforceable liability in her favour. This fact was fatal to the case of the complainant. There is no cogent evidence produced by the complainant to substantiate her version regarding pre-existing liability of dues for the cheque amount.
37. In order to rebut the presumption of Section 139 of the Act, the accused is not required to bring direct evidence but should adduce sufficient cogent evidence or he/she can rely upon the circumstances which shows the probability of non-existence of the consideration for the same. Accused has to prove his defence on the scale of preponderance of possibilities, as has been held in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (supra). In the present matter, from the case of the complainant itself, the accused persons have been able to raise a CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 23 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24 17:47:53 +0845 reasonable probable defence and have been able to rebut the presumptions under sections 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act and the reverse onus cast upon the accused persons has been discharged.
38. Since the accused persons have rebutted the statutory presumptions, the onus again shifts back upon the complainant. Now the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act will not again come for the rescue of the complainant and the case of the complainant has to stand on its own legs. In the instant case, the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof and could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted in the present case for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Digitally signed by AZAD AZAD SEHRAWAT
SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24
17:47:59 +0845
(Azad Sehrawat)
JMFC-10/South-East
Saket Courts/24.03.2026
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony
Page no. 24 of 29
A. Specimen Chart of Witnesses Examined :-
Prosecution Name of Witness Description Prosecution Witness No. Witness No. CW-1 Ms. Shika Sadh Complainant / CW-1 Witness CW-2 Sh. Arvind Kumar Formal Witness CW-2 Bharitya CW-3 Sh. Anuj Kumar Witness CW-3 CW-4 Mohd. Salman Bank Witness CW-4 CW-5 Sh. Vir Pal Singh Postal Witness CW-5 CW-6 Sh. Shashikant Bank Witness CW-6 CW-7 Sh. Sunil Gandhi Witness CW-7 DW-1 Sh. Dalip Bhola Defence Witness DW-1 DW-3 Sh. Sahil Defence Witness DW-3 Bhardwaj DW-4 Sh. Manjeet Singh Defence Witness DW-4 B. Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents :-
Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by / Attested by Exhibit Ex. CW1/A Receipt of payment CW-1 Ms. Shika Sadh (OSR) Ex. CW1/B Receipt of payment CW-1 Ms. Shika Sadh (OSR) Ex. CW1/C Allotment letter (Pages CW-1 59-66) Ex. CW1/D Agreement of Buy Back CW-1 Scheme dated CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 25 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD SEHRAWAT AZAD Date:
SEHRAWAT 2026.03.24 17:48:04 +0845 06.02.2014 Ex. CW1/E Cheque No. 077287 CW-1 Ex. CW1/F Cheque No. 077288 CW-1 Ex. CW1/G Return memo of cheque CW-1 no. 077287 Ex. CW1/H Return memo of cheque CW-1 no. 077288 Ex. CW1/I Statement of account of CW-1 accused company Ex. CW1/J Office copy of legal CW-1 notice (colly) Ex. CW1/K Office copy of legal CW-1 notice (colly) Ex. CW1/L Legal notice received by CW-1 accused Ex. CW1/M Internet confirmation CW-1 receipt Ex.CW-1/D1 Acknowledgement due CW-1 card Ex.CW-1/D2 Registration cum CW-1 application form Ex.CW-1/X FIR No. 114/2016 dated CW-1 04.03.2016 Ex. CW2/1 Certified copy of Form CW-2 No. 18 Ex. CW2/2 Lease Agreement dated CW-2 19.12.2013 Ex. CW2/3 Possession slip CW-2 Ex. CW2/4 Letter issued by DDA CW-2 with certificate Ex. CW2/5 Enclosure-3 attached CW-2 with Form No. 18 Ex. CW2/6 Printout of documents CW-2 attached with Form No. 18 CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 26 of 29 Digitally signed by AZAD SEHRAWAT AZAD SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24 17:48:10 +0845 Ex. CW2/7 List of directors (Master CW-2 Data) Ex. CW2/8 Form No. 20B CW-2 Ex. CW2/9 Annual Return (10 CW-2 pages) Ex. CW2/10 Form No. 20B (6 pages) CW-2 Ex. CW2/11 Annual Return (9 pages) CW-2 Ex. CW2/12 List of shareholders CW-2 Ex. CW2/13 Master data of CW-2 Schleicher Intec Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. CW2/14 Annual Return with CW-2
shareholders list
Ex. CW2/15 Form No. 20B of CW-2
Schleicher Intec Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. CW2/16 Annual Return with CW-2
shareholders list
Ex. CW2/17 Form INC-22 with CW-2
annexures
Ex. CW2/18 Master data of SI CW-2
Viridian India
Management Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. CW2/19 Certificate under Section CW-2
65-B Evidence Act
Ex. CW3/1 Buy-back agreement CW-3
Ex. CW3/2 Copies of two cheques CW-3
(colly)
Ex. CW3/3 Cheque ₹52,182/- dated CW-3
15.09.2013
Ex. CW3/4 TDS Certificate CW-3
Ex. C-3 CD of recorded CW-3
conversation
Ex. CW3/5 Certificate under Section CW-3
65-B
Ex. CW3/6 Transcription of CW-3
conversation
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony
Page no. 27 of 29 AZAD
Digitally signed
by AZAD
SEHRAWAT
SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24
17:48:14 +0845
Ex. CW3/7 Reply before Company CW-3
Law Board (colly)
Ex. CW3/8 Minutes of Meetings CW-3
(colly)
Ex. CW3/9 Form DIR-12 (colly) CW-3
Ex. CW3/10 List of shareholders CW-3
Ex. CW3/11 Email dated 09.06.2015 CW-3
(colly)
Ex. CW3/12 Resignation letter (colly) CW-3
Ex. CW4/1 Cheques and dishonour CW-4
records (colly)
Ex. CW5/1 Postal record CW-5
Ex. CW6/1 Authority letter dated CW-6
15.01.2020
Ex. CW6/2 Statement of account CW-6
Ex. CW7/A JDA along with CW-7
schedules
Ex.CW7/D1 FIR No. 27/2022 PS CW-7
EOW dated 10.02.2022
Ex.CW7/D2 Order dated 17.03.2021 CW-7
passed by Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi
Ex. DW1/A Registration cum DW-1
application form
Ex. DW1/B Ledger account DW-1
Ex. DW1/C Builder Buyer DW-1
Agreement
Ex.DW-1/D1 Document along with DW-1
Certificate u/s 65B of
Indian Evidence Act
Ex.DW-1/D2 Agreement to sell dated DW-1
27.03.2015
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony
Page no. 28 of 29 Digitally signed
by AZAD
AZAD SEHRAWAT
SEHRAWAT Date: 2026.03.24
17:48:19 +0845
Ex.DW-1/D3 Appointment letter dated DW-1
27.03.2015 executed by
Sh. Kapil Gupta and A.
N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.DW-1/D4 List of shareholders as DW-1
on 31.03.2015 for
Nalanda Real Tech Pvt.
Ltd.
Ex.DW-1/D5 Certified copy of DW-1
chargesheet along with a
copy of concenience and
bank account statement
of the accused company
Ex. DW3/A List of allottees (colly) DW-3
Ex. DW3/B Application with DW-3
annexures (colly)
Ex. DW3/C List of creditors (colly) DW-3
Ex. DW3/D Email dated 06.04.2010 DW-3
(colly)
Ex. DW3/E Order dated 16.10.2018 DW-3
Ex. DW3/F Order dated 17.02.2020 DW-3
Ex. DW3/G Order dated 17.03.2021 DW-3
Ex. DW4/1 Authority letter dated DW-4
07.10.2024
Ex. DW4/2 Email dated 22.04.2024 DW-4
Ex. DW4/3 Application in Company DW-4
Petition
Ex. DW4/4 Certificate under Section DW-4
65-B
CNR No. 3079/2015 616605/2016 Shika Sadh Vs.A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony
Digitally signed
Page no. 29 of 29 AZAD
by AZAD
SEHRAWAT
SEHRAWAT Date:
2026.03.24
17:48:22 +0845