SC: Bail of ‘Grand Venice’ Promoter Cancelled; Forfeits Rs.50 Cr

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard applications by allottees and stakeholders challenging bail granted to Satinder Singh Bhasin in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019. The petitions assailed alleged breaches of the conditions of bail granted on 6 November 2019 in relation to the ‘Grand Venice’ project, including the requirement to make bona fide efforts to settle investor claims and the precondition to deposit Rs.50,00,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court.

The Court set aside the petitioner’s bail on the ground that bail conditions were not complied with “in letter and spirit,” directed surrender within one week and withheld the petitioner’s passport unless released by the Court. The Court ordered forfeiture of the entire Rs.50 crores deposited as bail money with accrued interest, directed Rs.5 crores plus proportionate interest to be transmitted to the National Legal Services Authority and the balance with interest to be transmitted to the Interim Resolution Professional for use in the insolvency proceedings. The Court permitted the petitioner to move afresh for regular bail after twelve months and subject to full compliance with orders in the insolvency proceedings. The Court observed that “the petitioner cannot have it both ways” and expressed concern over alleged siphoning, deficient construction and lack of genuine settlement efforts.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 the 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.”

Background

The litigation began with a writ petition under Article 32 filed by Mr. Bhasin in 2019 seeking clubbing of multiple FIRs and interim bail. This Court granted bail on 6 November 2019 subject to conditions including a deposit of Rs.50 crores, personal bonds and an obligation that the petitioner “shall make every possible attempt to settle the claims of the concerned complainant(s)/informant(s) as far as possible within six to eight months.” Subsequent orders directed mediation, allowed consolidation of FIRs with FIR No.353/2015 as the principal FIR, and required periodic affidavits detailing settlement progress.

In the interim, insolvency proceedings under the IBC were initiated against the petitioner’s companies and the NCLT admitted the petition, leading to the appointment of an IRP; the NCLAT and this Court later affirmed the CIRP. Multiple expert and administrative reports — a UPSIDA site report, an NCLAT-appointed Observer’s report and a Committee report ordered by this Court — found the commercial tower and mall to be only partially constructed, lacking essential services and statutory clearances. UPSIDA asserted outstanding dues, including additional FAR charges; the petitioner contested those demands. The IRP alleged transfers from corporate accounts to related entities after the moratorium, which the petitioner characterized as inter-corporate commercial transactions.

This Court repeatedly directed the petitioner to file affidavits of compliance, implead allottees, and cooperate with mediation and the IRP. After hearing the parties and reviewing the record, the Court concluded that the bail conditions were breached, the settlement obligations remained largely unfulfilled and material corporate governance and transaction irregularities existed. The Court held that cancellation of bail was warranted, ordered forfeiture and specified distribution of the forfeited sum to NALSA and the IRP, and left open the petitioner’s right to seek bail afresh after compliance with insolvency orders.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2026 INSC 310
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 310
Case Title: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Senior Counsel (for IRP); Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel (for Grand Venezia Buyers Association); Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Counsel (for UPSIDA); Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Counsel; Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Counsel; Mr. Sahil Sethi and other counsel for various allottees and respondents.

Source:  2026 CaseBase(SC) 275