Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Builder Satinder Singh Bhasin for Violation of Bail Conditions

                                                                      

A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh cancelled the bail of businessman, Satinder Singh Bhasin, engaged in Grand Venice Project for building mall and commercial tower and continuous seizure of passport. The Court also ordered for forfeiture of amount of Rs. 50 Crore deposited as pre-bail condition in 2019, due to violation of condition while granting bail. The Supreme Court ordered for forfeiture of amount considering the number of opportunities granted to the petitioner to comply with conditions.

          The condition imposed was to handover the possession of units each to investors/allottees in a legally usable condition or refund their money within a reasonable timeframe.

          However, the Court granted him liberty to apply for regular bail after a period of twelve months subject to fully complying with the orders passed the insolvency proceedings.

          A petition was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by allotees seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private (BIIPL) and another concern of the petitioner, Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Pvt. Ltd (GVCTPL) on account of failure to complete construction and handover units. Thereafter, other corporate debtors have joined the proceedings as well.

          In pursuant to insolvency proceeding against the petitioner’s companies, a moratorium was imposed in line with Section 14 of the IBC.

          Several FIRs were registered by allotees of Units in the project in New Delhi and State of Uttar Pradesh alleging non-delivery of their units, siphoning their funds and impropriety of allotment of land with the collusion of state officials.

          The petitioner was granted interim relief of bail by the Supreme Court with condition to deposit Rs. 50 crore as per-condition for granting bail. The petitioner was also directed to settle the claims of the concerned complainants as far as possible within six to eight months

          The Miscellaneous Application was filed by several allotees of Grand Venice Project against Satinder Singh Bhasin Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private for cancellation of bail due to violations of bail conditions that were imposed him by the Supreme Court.

 

          Learned Senior Counsel of the respondent, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Aditi Mohan, Learned Counsel submitted against the petitioner that he has been creating third party rights illegally by fabricating documents. The petitioner has unlawfully and fraudulently transferred an area of 4,25,154 sq.ft in favour of Grand Express Developers Private Limited in which the petitioner has direct interest.

 

The conduct of the petitioner before the Committee appointed by this Court, does not inspire any confidence. The Committee noted that repeated requests had to be made for furnishing the final list of allottees. Moreover, during the site visit by the Committee, the petitioner left half-way. This was an opportunity for the petitioner to show his bonafide intention towards this Court and the allottees, however the petitioner yet again, failed to do so – Supreme Court noted.

          It was contended on behalf of the Allottees that the petitioner has neither settled the claims of the allottees nor ever genuinely intended to do so.

          It is contented that despite the lapse of several years from the grant of bail, the petitioner has neither returned the money to the allottees nor handed over the possession of units in terms of the settlement agreements. According to the respondents, there has been no genuine or bonafide effort on the part of the petitioner to fulfill his obligations and the steps taken are merely superficial/cosmetic, intended to create an appearance of compliance.

 

          After hearing the submissions and contention and perusal of materials placed on record, it became clear to the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner has failed to settle the claims of the investors of either hand over possession or refund their money inspite of repeated opportunities granted to fulfill his obligations. There was no genuine or meaningful efforts to settle the claims of investors.

          Settlement agreements executed in 2020 were largely remained in papers only and not resulted in actual relief to the allottees – Supreme Court noted.

          The Apex Court expressed that mere execution of agreements without implementation cannot be treated as compliance with the condition imposed by this Court.

          Accordingly, the Court concluded by cancelling the bail of the petitioner and forfeiture of deposit amount and told to surrender within one week.

Case: Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. Miscellaneous Application No.239 Of 2024

Date of Judgment: 2 April, 2026

Click for Judgment

You may also read: Supreme Court provided illustrative disclosure framework in bail petition