Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Satinder Singh Bhasin For Not Settling Claims In Grand Venice Project

The Supreme Court today(April 2) cancelled the bail of businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin for violating the conditions of bail and ordered him to surrender within a week. Bhasin is accused of non-delivery of residential units, siphoning of their funds, and impropriety in allotment of land in collusion with State officials in relation to Project Grant Venice in the National Capital Region.

The Court cancelled his bail as he failed to comply with the condition that he will settle the claims of the flat allottees, and also for siphoning off Rs 50 lakhs from the funds of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL) for deposit as bail condition, despite the Court's direction that the said amount should be from his perosnal account.

It also ordered the forfeiture of Rs. 50 crore, which was submitted as a precondition for the grant of bail. Out of the said amount, the Court has ordered that 5 crores would go to NALSA, and the rest would be used for the insolvency proceedings.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh imposed an embargo on the petitioner and has said that he can apply for regular fresh bail after 12 months, subject to complying with the orders passed in the insolvency proceedings. It has been directed that the passport of the petitioner is not to be released by the Trial Court without permission of the Court.

"Consequently, considering the number of opportunities this Court has given to the petitioner to comply with the conditions, we deem it appropriate to forfeit the entire amount deposited by him i.e., Rs. 50 crores plus the accrued interest. We direct that out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 5 crores plus proportionate accrued interest be transmitted to the National Legal Services Authority for its utilization in achieving its objectives. The remaining amount along with proportionate accrued interest be transmitted to the IRP for the purposes of the IBC proceedings. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to ensure immediate compliance by the concerned Trial Court in disbursal of the above amounts."

The order was pronounced in a writ petition filed by Bhasin, in which he had sought clubbing of various first information reports and grant of bail in relation to the project by his company, Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited.

As per the brief facts, Bhasin, as the Director of the company, has been accused of cheating and misappropriation of the funds given by the allottees in relation to the 'Grand Venice' project. The project consisted of a Mall and a commercial tower. Approximately 63 FIRs were lodged in the States of New Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.

By vide order dated November 6, 2019, the Supreme Court granted him bail subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions so imposed was that he shall make every possible attempt to settle the claims of the concerned complainants.

Bhasin was asked to deposit Rs. 50 crores before the Supreme Court Registry as a precondition for the grant of bail. It was also stated that if the petitioner fails to abide by any of the bail conditions, no less than 50% of the amount deposited shall be forfeited.

Subsequently, a Miscellaneous Application was filed by the allottees on October 20, 2023, seeking cancellation of the bail so granted, on the grounds that Bhasin failed to make any concrete attempt to settle the grievances. It was claimed that, although the petitioner entered into settlement agreements with a few allottees, he failed to hand over possession of the units. He had also siphoned off company funds to the tune of Rs. 50 crores, to comply with the Court's order.

During the hearings, it came to light that the petitioner had engaged in a malpractice of double allotment. The Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority is also a party. It has been claimed that the subject land was allotted to the petitioner for building 'one project' consisting of a mall, commercial spaces and a hotel.

Some allottments had then preferred an insolvency petitioner against the petitioner's Company. A challenge to the insolvency proceedings was dismissed by a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court. It was noted that the petitioner failed to hand over the affairs of his company to the resolution professional.

On August 25, 2025, the Court called for detailed information from the petitioner on the number of units constructed, the price at which the allotments were made, and the status of completion etc. Although information was filed, it did not inspire confidence.

After giving ample opportunity to the petitioner, the Court was compelled to ultimately issue a show-cause notice on November 20, 2025, as to why his bail should not be cancelled.

Considering the utmost interest of the allottees, it appointed Justice Deepak Gupta, retired judge of the Supreme Court, as Chairperson, along with Senior Advocate Rekha Palli, to verify the final list of allottees, the current status of construction, and whether the petitioner has cooperated with the IRP authorities, etc

Findings of the Court

The Court stated that the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 50 crore in his individual capacity, but he had siphoned off the funds from his company, which he could not have done so without the prior approval by way of a special resolution.

"Upon a consideration of the above submissions and the breakup as filed by the petitioner himself, it cannot be disputed that the amount of Rs. 50 crores has originated from the funds of BIIPL and other related entities. We are inclined to agree with the submissions advanced by the respondents. The condition requiring deposit as a prerequisite for grant of bail, was imposed upon the petitioner in his individual capacity. This condition required bonafide, if not strict, compliance.

An alarming aspect is that no board resolution has been passed by BIIPL before disbursal of the amount to secure his bail."

It relied on Section 185(loans to the directors, etc) of the Companies Act, 2013, and said that the company can't directly or indirectly give a loan to its director without passing a special resolution in a general meeting or unless the funds correlate to the principal business activities of the company.

"On a plain reading of the above Section, it is evident that a company cannot directly or indirectly give a loan to its director without passing a special resolution in a general meeting or unless the funds correlate to the principal business activities of the company. In the present case, it cannot be said that the loan to secure bail for the petitioner was connected to the company's principal business activities by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the deposit of the amount through the purported loan taken by the petitioner from BIIPL, in the absence of any documentary approval or compliance with statutory requirements of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be sustained."

Further, the Court also concluded that the petitioner failed to complete the construction of the said units and his conduct before the Court-appointed committee did not inspire confidence.

"Consequently, upon a cumulative reading of the above, there can be no doubt that the project is not in a condition where possession can be handed over to the allottees. Therefore, it is clear that at this stage, settlement with those seeking possession is not possible given the condition of the property."

The bench also said that the petitioner violated the bail condition where he was asked to make efforts to settle the claims. The Court said that it was not a mere formality but was a direction by this Court to actually solve the claims of the allottees.

"Therefore, in these circumstances, we find it difficult to accept that the petitioner has made genuine and meaningful efforts to settle the claims of the allottees. Despite the passage of time, a large number of allottees have neither received possession nor refund. Even in cases where settlement agreements have been executed, the terms thereof have not been fulfilled. These agreements have remained largely on paper and not resulted in actual relief to the allottees."

Case Details: SATINDER SINGH BHASIN Vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI|MA 239/2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: Mr. Shyam Divan, senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vipin Sanghi, senior counsel for the IRP; Mr. Dhruv Mehta, senior counsel; Ms. Meenakshi Arora, senior counsel; Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel; Ms. Aditi Mohan, counsel; Mr. Shyam D. Nandan, learned counsel; Ms. Kumud Lata Das, counsel; Ms. Akshaya Ganpath, counsel; and Mr. Sahil Sethi, counsel for the allottees; Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, senior counsel for UPSIDA, and Mandeep Kalra, counsel for Court-appointed committee.