1. Allottees in a real estate project filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code claiming default in delivery of possession and payment of financial returns. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 114
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kumar, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Satinder Singh Bhasin – Appellant
Versus
Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13628 of 2025 with Civil Appeal No. 13779 of 2025 & Civil Appeal No. 13812 of 2025
Decided On : 02-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Areen Gulati, Adv. Mr. Mohtisham Ali, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Moulishree Pathak, Adv. Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Yadav, Adv. Mr. Utsav Tarsolia, Adv. Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kohli, Adv. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Adv. Mr. Ishan Gaur, Adv. Mr. Mani Mehta, Adv. Mr. Manish Singhal, Adv. Ms. Akshaya Ganpath, Adv. Mr. Kushank Garg, Adv. Ms. Saumya Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Kuller, Adv. Ms. Ritika Gambhir Kohli, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Ms. Payal Chawla, Adv. Mr. Tishampati Sen, Adv. Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, AOR Mr. Kartik Pant, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Raunak Satpathy, Adv. Mr. Keith Varghese, Adv. Mr. Srijan Sonkar, Adv. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Mr. Karan Kohli, Adv. Ms. Palak Kalra, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Adv. Mr. Yashas J, Adv. Ms. Gauri Rajput, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Areen Gulati, Adv. Mr. Mohtisham Ali, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Moulishree Pathak, Adv. Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Yadav, Adv. Mr. Utsav Tarsolia, Adv. Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kohli, Adv. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Adv. Mr. Ishan Gaur, Adv. Mr. Mani Mehta, Adv. Mr. Manish Singhal, Adv. Ms. Akshaya Ganpath, Adv. Mr. Kushank Garg, Adv. Ms. Saumya Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Kuller, Adv. Ms. Ritika Gambhir Kohli, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Ms. Payal Chawla, Adv. Mr. Tishampati Sen, Adv. Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, AOR Mr. Kartik Pant, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Raunak Satpathy, Adv. Mr. Keith Varghese, Adv. Mr. Srijan Sonkar, Adv. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Mr. Karan Kohli, Adv. Ms. Palak Kalra, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Adv. Mr. Yashas J, Adv. Ms. Gauri Rajput, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Adv.
The court upheld the initiation of insolvency proceedings against two linked corporate debtors, affirming that the required threshold of financial creditors was satisfied at the time of the petition's filing.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process - Company Petition against two corporate debtors filed by financial creditors, allottees of a real estate project alleging default in delivering possession of units - NCLT and NCLAT affirmed threshold requirement met - Court found construction incomplete and noted that possession could not legally have been granted without tripartite sublease deeds. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 26, 36)
(B) Joint Petition - Maintainability - The Code allows joint petitions against related corporate debtors if beneficial for value maximization; thresholds for allottees' claims were satisfied. (Paras 12, 27)
(C) Legal Process - The variation in allottees should not prevent the maintainability of the petition if the threshold is met at the time of filing. (Paras 21, 37)
Facts of the case:
The case revolves around real estate projects launched by corporate debtors, with claims of failure to deliver promised units to allottees, who filed the petition resulting in insolvency proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decisions of the NCLT and NCLAT regarding the admission and maintenance of the insolvency petition based on evidence of financial defaults and construction incompleteness.
Issues: Whether the threshold for initiating insolvency legally fulfilled, and whether a joint petition is maintainable against two corporate debtors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the NCLT's interpretation of the financial creditors' standing under Section 7 was sound, confirming the threshold for allottees was maintained at the time of filing, supporting the collective insolvency process of linked corporate entities.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The petition by financial creditors (allottees) to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process was admissible as they met the threshold requirement under Section 7 of the Code (!) (!) . - A joint petition against two linked corporate debtors is maintainable if it serves the objective of value maximization (!) (!) . - The threshold of 100 allottees or 10% of total allottees (whichever is lesser) must be satisfied at the time of filing the petition (!) (!) .
What are the rights of financial creditors who are allottees of a real estate project when a corporate debtor defaults on payment?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- insolvency and bankruptcy law
- practice and procedure
- contract law
Table of Contents
2. Corporate debtors contested the maintainability of the joint petition, argued that the threshold of 100 allottees was unsatisfied, and claimed the construction was actually complete. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 , 20 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 )
3. The court found documentation and onsite inspection reports established incomplete construction and the joint initiation of insolvency proceedings was permissible against interlinked corporate entities. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. An application under Section 7 of the Code by allottees of a real estate project is valid if threshold requirements are met at the date of filing. (Para 9 , 21 , 24 , 37 )
5. The appeals were dismissed, and the orders of the lower tribunals admitting the insolvency petition and rejecting the settlement application were upheld. (Para 37 , 38 )
6. Must the threshold requirement of 100 allottees for a Section 7 petition be met as of the date of filing or the date of admission?
The threshold requirement of a minimum of 100 allottees must be satisfied as of the date of presentation of the application, and not at the time of its hearing or formal admission. (Para 9 , 21 )
7. Can a single company petition be filed against two different corporate entities for insolvency resolution?
Yes, a joint petition is maintainable if the corporate debtors are closely connected, share management, or were jointly responsible for the development and implementation of the project, facilitating value maximization. (Para 11 , 16 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
8. Does curing defects in an insolvency petition filed under Section 7 constitute an abuse of process if parties are altered?
No, it is not an abuse of process if alterations to the parties are made while the petition is being rectified for defects, as it only becomes registered upon the official completion of the filing process under NCLT Rules. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
9. Does the issuance of part-completion certificates and notional possession letters satisfy the completion of construction obligation?
No, contractual obligations to deliver units cannot be deemed fulfilled merely by part-completion certificates or notional possession letters, especially when essential procedural requirements like tripartite sublease deeds remain unexecuted. (Para 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. By order dated 04.12.2023 passed in Company Petition IB (IBC) No. 646/PB/2021, the National Company Law Tribunal, Court – V, New Delhi Bench1[For short, ‘the NCLT’] , initiated corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20162[For short, ‘the Code’], against M/s. Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited3[For short, ‘Grand Venezia Ltd.’] and M/s. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited4[For short, ‘Bhasin Ltd.’] . Assailing the said order, Company Appeal (AT)(INS) Nos.1593 and 1594 of 2023 came to be filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi 5 [ For short, ‘the NCLAT’]. Ashok Kumar, the appellant in Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No.1593 of 2023, is an erstwhile Director of Grand Venezia Ltd., while Satinder Singh Bhasin, the appellant in Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No.1594 of 2023, is an erstwhile Director of Bhasin Ltd. On 07.12.2023, the NCLAT took note of the appellants’ claim that the constructions were complete and the units were ready to occupy and directed that no further steps should be taken pursuant to the order admitting the company petition. The appellants were also directed not to create third party interests in respect of the respondents’ units. However, by common judgment dated 29.10.2025, the NCLAT dismissed both the appeals. Civil Appeal Nos. 13779 and 13812 of 2025 were filed by the appellants therein against the said judgment.
2. Notably, during the pendency of the proceedings before the NCLAT, Satinder Singh Bhasin filed I.A. No. 5936 of 2025 in his appeal seeking permission to deposit Rs.15,62,00,000/- to prove his bonafides. This I.A. was filed after judgment was reserved in the appeals. By order dated 07.10.2025, the NCLAT rejected his application. Aggrieved, Satinder Singh Bhasin filed Civil Appeal No. 13628 of 2025.
3. Though Civil Appeal No. 13628 of 2025 filed by Satinder Singh Bhasin was earlier in point of time, the substantial appeals are the later ones, i.e., Civil Appeal Nos. 13779 and 13812 of 2025, and we propose to deal with them in the first instance.
4. Company Petition IB (IBC) No. 646/PB/2021 was filed by 141 individuals against Grand Venezia Ltd. and Bhasin Ltd., the corporate debtors, seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against them under Section 7 of the Code. They claimed to be financial creditors, being allottees in the commercial complex, named ‘Grand Venezia Commercial Tower’, which formed part of a composite and integrated real estate project launched by Bhasin Ltd. in the year 2005. This project comprised three sections, namely, a luxury five-star hotel, including integrated office spaces; a mall having food courts, gaming zones, gondola rides, etc.; and a cineplex for screening of movies. The petitioners in the company petition were allottees of office spaces. The land on which this project was to be erected was leased to Bhasin Ltd. by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority 6 [ For short, ‘the UPSIDA’] (formerly, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation). The possession of the units was to be delivered to the allottees by May, 2013.
5. The complaint of the petitioners before the NCLT was that the units allotted to them were not made ready and were unfit for occupation. They asserted that there was no completion certificate provided by the UPSIDA in relation to their portion of the project and that the part-completion certificate which had been issued was only in respect of the showrooms, food courts, gaming zones and the cinema hall, which were of no relevance to them. According to them, the corporate debtors had not even applied for the final completion certificate, as per the RTI reply dated 24.03.2018 received by them from the UPSIDA. They asserted that, as per the Rules of the UPSIDA, in the absence of a completion certificate and without the clearance of the UPSIDA, no conveyance/sublease
