SANJAY KAROL, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Satinder Singh Bhasin – Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Key Points: - A company cannot directly or indirectly give a loan to its director without passing a special resolution in a general meeting or unless funds correlate to the principal business activities of the company (!) . - An appeal against the grant of bail cannot be considered on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail (!) . - The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution at the stage of bail (!) . - An appeal against the grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure (!) . - The petitioner was granted bail on conditions including depositing Rs. 50 crores, not committing similar offenses, not inducing or threatening witnesses, and attempting to settle claims of complainants (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioner failed to comply with the bail conditions, particularly regarding the settlement of claims with allottees (!) (!) . - The deposit of Rs. 50 crores was made using funds from BIIPL and other related entities without a board resolution, violating Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 (!) (!) . - Reports from UPSIDA, the Observer, and the Committee appointed by the Court indicated that the project was incomplete and not fit for possession (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioner's conduct, including leaving a site inspection midway and providing incomplete lists of allottees, demonstrated a lack of bonafide intention (!) (!) . - The petitioner engaged in siphoning off Rs. 74 crores from GVCTPL to related entities during the moratorium period, which is a violation of the bail condition not to commit similar offenses (!) (!) . - The bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled due to non-compliance with the conditions, and the entire deposited amount of Rs. 50 crores plus accrued interest was forfeited (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the petitions filed due to bail violations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's initial orders and conditions for the petitioner's bail. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. discussions on bail conditions referencing past court orders. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. petitioner's obligations regarding mediation and settlement. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. reflections on the commitments made by the petitioner concerning settlement. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. reports on persistent issues affecting the completion of the project. (Para 12 , 16) |
| 7. legal principles related to the cancellation of bail. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 8. condition of construction and readiness of units in relation to delivering possession. (Para 40 , 54) |
| 9. intent and genuine effort to settle the claims of allottees. (Para 63 , 64) |
| 10. conclusion on bail cancellation and financial repercussions. (Para 122 , 128) |
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ORDERS OF THIS COURT |
| DEVELOPMENTS AFTER GRANT OF BAIL |
| IRP AND INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS |
| UPSIDA DUES |
| ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS |
| CONDITION OF DEPOSIT OF 50 CRORES |
| CONSTRUCTION NOT COMPLETE |
| NO SETTLEMENT AND NO INTENT TO DO SO |
| CONDUCT WITH SPECIFIC AL |
(1) Company cannot directly or indirectly give a loan to its Director without passing a special resolution in a general meeting or unless funds correlate to principal business activities of company.(....
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'....
The Tribunal held that applicants who withdrew from a real estate project and obtained Recovery Certificates cannot pursue corporate insolvency under IBC, thus failing to meet the mandatory allottees....
The judgment emphasized the grant of bail on stringent conditions in economic offences of huge magnitude and highlighted the provisions of Section 40 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) A....
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
Authority must provide preferential land allotment to disabled persons per applicable legislation; arbitrary cancellations and excessive interests are unjust.
Delayed claims by commercial entities post-CIRP announcement and CoC approval not condonable; must reflect in records or protected encumbrances to be admissible as financial debt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.