Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors

What happened

Satinder Singh Bhasin, the then Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL), filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019 under Article 32 for clubbing of the FIRs filed in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh by allottees of the Grand Venice project, and by order of 6 November 2019 the Supreme Court granted him bail on conditions that he would not commit a similar offence, would deposit Rs 50,00,00,000 as a pre-condition, and would settle with every complainant within six to eight months as ordered by the Patiala House Court on 15 May 2019, failing which no less than 50% of the deposit would be forfeited. The Court refused to waive the deposit on 25 November 2019. Allottees then moved applications for cancellation. The NCLT admitted the company petition of allottees against BIIPL and Grand Venice Commercial Tower Private Limited (GVCTPL) and appointed an IRP; GVCTPL was admitted on 4 December 2023, with the NCLAT's order of 7 December 2023 directing status quo. UPSIDA, the lessor authority, said about Rs.44.89 Crores remained unpaid and that sublease deeds could not be executed until dues were cleared and completion certificate obtained. The Court appointed three Committees whose reports, with a report of UPSIDA dated 1 May 2025, found the units unfit for occupation, and the IRP claimed that Rs.74,68,21,277 was transferred from GVCTPL to entities linked to the petitioner's relatives during the moratorium. The petitioner offered Rs. 5 crores, whereas claims of more than 1400 crores were received from about 670 creditors.

Questions before the court

• Should the bail granted to the promoter of the Grand Venice project be cancelled for violating the conditions that he settle with the allottees and not commit a similar offence, and what happens to the Rs. 50 crores he deposited?

Why the court ruled this way

The condition to settle with the complainants within six to eight months was the foundation of the grant of liberty, and the Court had repeatedly said in its orders of 9 February 2024 and 13 May 2024 that the petitioner must make bona fide efforts for every allottee. The Court relied on the earlier finding of a coordinate Bench in the insolvency appeals, and on the three Committee reports, that construction was not complete and the units were not ready for possession, so the plea that possession was delayed only by UPSIDA's demand failed (paragraphs 58 to 62). The petitioner did not pay the statutory dues of UPSIDA, did not furnish the final list of allottees, and issued allotments through GVCTPL, which was not the authorised lessee, so tripartite sublease deeds could not be executed (paragraphs 67 and 68). He did not comply with settlement agreements giving possession with clear title within 15 months or a refund, and left the Committee's site visit midway (paragraphs 61 and 69 to 71). On similar offences, the Court refrained from making a conclusive finding on siphoning, because quashing proceedings were pending before the Allahabad High Court, but held that transfers of about Rs. 74 crores admitted by the petitioner as commercial advances or repayments, made during the moratorium and the NCLAT's status quo order and without documents, did not show bona fide conduct and were not fully consistent with bail conditions (paragraphs 107 to 121). The Court noted that a two-judge Bench may modify a three-judge Bench's order on clubbing, and any application on clubbing could be made (paragraph 124).

Controlling point

The petitioner did not comply with the conditions of bail imposed on 6 November 2019, so the bail was cancelled and, given the many opportunities, the whole deposit of Rs. 50 crores with accrued interest was forfeited.

Order and next steps

The bail was cancelled and the petitioner was to surrender within one week; he may seek regular bail again after twelve months subject to complying with the orders in the insolvency proceedings; the passport was not to be released by the trial court without leave; Rs. 5 crores with proportionate interest was transmitted to NALSA and the remainder with interest to the IRP for the IBC proceedings; and the Miscellaneous Petitions were allowed and pending applications disposed of.

Practical implications

A promoter who is granted bail on a condition of deposit and settlement with homebuyers should treat it as a condition that must be met in substance, with proof of bona fide efforts and attention to the statutory dues and the state of the project, and should avoid moving funds from companies under moratorium.

Limits of this ruling

• The observations were made only for the purpose of cancelling bail, the Court expressly did not give a conclusive finding on the allegations of siphoning, and the legality of the transfers was left to appropriate proceedings, including the IRP's application before the NCLT.