Supreme Court Cancels Satinder Bhasin’s Bail For Non-Compliance With Settlement Obligations In 'Grand Venice' Project

The Court emphasised that the grant of bail on November 06, 2019 was specifically intended to facilitate the resolution of grievances of hundreds of investors who had alleged non-delivery of units and siphoning of funds. By failing to demonstrate bona fide efforts to settle with every investor over a six-year period, the petitioner was found to have violated the specific mandate of the Court.

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “The cumulative result of the above discussion is that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of bail imposed upon him vide order dated 06.11.2019. Resultantly, the bail granted to the petitioner is cancelled. The petitioner to surrender within one week from the date of this judgment”.

“…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”, it noted further.

Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Meenakshi Arora, Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the petitioner and K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G and Senior Advocates Shailesh Madiyal, Dhruv Mehta, Vipin Sanghi appeared for the respondents.

The matter originated from the 'Grand Venice' commercial project in Greater Noida, developed by Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL). Around 80 FIRs were registered in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh against the petitioner, by allottees alleging non-delivery of units, financial impropriety, and siphoning of funds. The petitioner had sought the clubbing of these FIRs and the grant of bail through a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

On November 6, 2019, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner subject to several conditions, including the deposit of ₹50 crores and an obligation to "make every possible attempt to settle the claims" of the complainants within six to eight months.

Over the following years, the Court granted multiple extensions and indulgences, even referring the matter to mediation. However, as disputes persisted and allottees filed applications for bail cancellation, the Court issued a show-cause notice in November 2025 and constituted an independent committee of retired judges to assess the true status of the project and settlements.

The Court found that the petitioner had failed to satisfy "Condition (viii)" regarding the settlement of claims in a meaningful sense. Expert reports from UPSIDA and the Court-appointed committee revealed that the project was not in a habitable condition, lacking essential NOCs for fire safety, electricity, and water.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that UPSIDA was blocking tripartite lease deeds, noting that the petitioner himself had failed to clear outstanding dues of approximately ₹44.89 crores required for such registrations. Furthermore, the Court noted instances of potential fabrication, such as an agreement dated 2015 referencing GST, which was only introduced in 2017.

The Bench noted in the judgment that in the interest of the allottees, the Court had made efforts at settlement till the last date of hearing, however, “…The petitioner proposed that he is willing to contribute an amount of Rs. 5 crores. He further proposed that such an amount along with the amount already submitted before this Court at the time of granting bail be used to settle all allottees who are before this Court. However, the IRP informed this Court that such an amount is entirely insufficient as the total claims received are more than 1400 crores, with approximately 670 creditors. As a result, the petitioner failed to arrive at an arrangement where the interest of all allottees would be taken care of. Also, the claims of the other creditors are more than 460 crores (approx.)”.

“While the legality and nature of these transactions would be examined in appropriate proceedings, for the present purpose, it is sufficient to note that the transfer of Rs.74 Crores to the entities in question is an admitted position. These entities are prima facie shown to be controlled by persons closely related to the petitioner. The explanation offered that the said transfers were made as “commercial advances” or towards “repayment of dues” remains unsatisfactory. The absence of supporting material makes us wonder about the manner in which the affairs of the corporate debtor were managed. Accordingly, the conduct of the petitioner, as emerging at this stage, is not fully consistent with the obligations attached to the grant of bail”, it noted further.

The Court formally cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and directed him to surrender before the concerned Trial Court immediately. The Court clarified that the ₹50 crores already deposited would remain with the Trial Court to be dealt with at an appropriate stage. The Bench also requested the NCLAT and the Allahabad High Court to decide pending appeals related to the project's insolvency and statutory dues on an expedited basis.

Cause Title: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 310]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Arjun Singh Bhati, AOR, S.S Jangra, Shyam D Nandan, Jazib Siddiqui, Vishvajeet Vijaykumar Shinde, V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR, Mohit D. Ram, AOR, Sushil Kumar Singh, AOR, Prabhas Bajaj, AOR, Sadhana Sandhu, AOR, Sahil Sethi, Samriddh Bindal, Vikash Kumar, Swikriti Singhania, AOR, Swetank Shantanu, AOR, Pratap Shanker, Shilpi Shrivastava, Ankit Kumar, Sanjivani Pattjoshi, Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Surya Jyoti Singh, Payal Chawla, Bhargavi Chauhan, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Gagan Gupta, Nitin Saluja, AOR, Garima Singh, Ishita Soni, Manoj C. Mishra, AOR, Parth Yadav, AOR, Aditi Mohan, Sparsh Goel, Mani Munjal, Megha Karnwal, AOR, Aaditya Thorat, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Saket Sikri, Nikhil Kohli, Ajay Pal Singh Kuller, Ritika Gambhir Kohli, AOR, Nalin Talwar, Mani Mehta, Manish Singhal, Ishan Gaur, Akshaya Ganpath, Kushank Garg, Saumya Tiwari, Ahmar Shad, Tushar Mudgil, Tushar Srivastava, Shashwat Tripathi, AOR, Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Vishal Gosain, Viresh B. Saharya, AOR, Rudrani Tyagi, Akshat Agarwal, Rishabh Mathur, Praney Sharma, Adith Deshmukh, Arpith Jacob Varaprasad

Respondents: Chirag M. Shroff, AOR, Viresh B. Saharya, AOR, Garvesh Kabra, AOR, Anurag Kishore, Pooja Kabra, Ankur Agnihotri, Dhawal Uniyal, Kanik N. Jindal, K.M. Nataraj, Ld. A.S.G., Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Ranjana Narayan, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Vatsal Joshi, Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Gopal Jha, AOR, Atul Kumar, Ram Ji Dwivedi, Parijat Kishore, AOR, Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR, Prem Prakash, AOR, Sumeer Sodhi, AOR, Arjun Nanda, Vanshika Jhamb, Kartikay Garg, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR, Vinay Mohan Sharma, Arti Anupriya, Kritika Yadav, Kartikey, Paras Juneja, Vineet Yadav, Amir Yadav, Rahul Yadav, Naman Verma, Manisha, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR, Shuchi Singh, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Shivani Mishra, Aman Kumar, Abkur Mishra, Nidhi, AOR, Shree Pal Singh, AOR, Sriram Parakkat, Aditya Santosh, Maneesha Sunilkunar, Anadhu S Nair, Venugopal Pillai J, Lawfic, AOR, Manoj C. Mishra, AOR, Avinash Sharma, AOR, Rajeev Singh, AOR, Manoj K. Mishra, AOR, Paresh Upadhyay, Umesh Dubey, Madhulika, Anand Kumar Rai, Amulya Dev Mishra, V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR, Manju Jetley, AOR, Vkc Law Offices, AOR, Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Surya Jyoti Singh, Payal Chawla, Bhargavi Chauhan, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Gagan Gupta, Sahil Sethi, Samriddh Bindal, Vikash Kumar, Swikriti Singhania, AOR, S. K. Verma, AOR, Vishal Prasad, AOR, Shekhar Kumar, AOR, Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv., Ruchira Gupta, Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR, Pooja Tripathi, Areen Gulati, Mohtisham Ali, Raghav Sharma, Moulishree Pathak, Manisha Gupta, Himanshi Nagpal, Deepti Arya, Gyanendra Singh, Ashish Pandey, AOR, Mohit Paul, AOR, Rangoli Seth, Sanjleena Lal, Rohit, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Shubhanshu Gupta, AOR, Keith Verghese, Kartik Pant, Chaitanya, Srijan Sonkar, Krishnamohan K., AOR, Mareesh Pravir Sahay, AOR, Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Anand, Mandeep Kalra, AOR, Karan Kohli, Palak Kalra, Ridhima Mehrotara, Radhika Narula, Anushna Satapathy, Chitrangada Singh, Radhika Jalan, Widaphi Lyngdoh, Yashas J, Gauri Rajput, Vaibhav Yadav, Paras Mohan Sharma, Shefali Tripathi, Jogy Scaria, AOR, Himanshu Bhushan, AOR, Kumar Mihir, AOR, Garima Bajaj, AOR, Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR, Shrey Ravi Dambhare, AOR, Mohit D. Ram, AOR, K. B. Upadhyay, Manoj Kumar Rai, S.N. Tripathi, Raja Ram Tripathi, S.D. Mishra, Maruti Nandan, Pushkar Anand, AOR, Ajit Sharma, AOR, Anish R. Shah, AOR, Divyansh Thakur, Vivek Punia, Divyanshu Bharti, Bimlesh Kr. Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment