Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 334

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Satinder Singh Bhasin – Petitioner
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019 With Connected Matters as per the Record of Proceeding Dated 26.02.2026
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, AOR Mr. S S Jangara, Adv. Mr. Shyam D Nandan, Adv. Mr. Vishvajeet Vijaykumar Shinde, Adv. M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, AOR Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR Mr. Sahil Sethi, Adv. Mr. Samriddh Bindal, Adv. Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. Ms. Swikriti Singhania, AOR Mr. Swetank Shantanu, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Ms. Garima Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishita Soni, Adv. Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR Mr. Parth Yadav, AOR Ms. Aditi Mohan, Adv. Mr. Sparsh Goel, Adv. Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv. Ms. Megha Karnwal, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kohli, Adv. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Adv. Mr. Mani Mehta, Adv. Mr. Manish Singhal, Adv. Mr. Ishan Gaur, Adv. Ms. Akshaya Ganpath, Adv. Mr. Kushank Garg, Adv. Ms. Saumya Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Ahmar Shad, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mudgil, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Ritika Gambhir Kohli, AOR Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Kuller, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Tripathi , AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishal Gosain, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR Ms. Rudrani Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Mathur, Adv. Mr. Praney Sharma, Adv. Mr. Adith Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Anurag Kishore, Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mr. Ankur Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Adv. Mr. Kanik N. Jindal, Adv. Mr. K.m. Nataraj Ld, A.S.G. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Ranjana Narayan, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ram Ji Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Arjun Nanda, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Jhamb, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Garg, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Arti Anupriya, Adv. Ms. Kritika Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikey, Adv. Mr. Paras Juneja, Adv. Mr. Vineet Yadav, Adv. Mr. Amir Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Adv. Mr. Naman Verma, Adv. Ms. Manisha, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Sriram Parakkat, Adv. Mr. Aditya Santosh, Adv. Ms. Maneesha Sunilkunar, Adv. Mr. Anadhu S Nair, Adv. Mr. Venugopal Pillai J, Adv. M/s Lawfic, AOR Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Madhulika, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Adv. M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR M/S. Vkc Law Offices, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Surya Jyoti Singh, Adv. Ms. Payal Chawla, Adv. Ms. Bhargavi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sahil Sethi, Adv. Mr. Samriddh Bindal, Adv. Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. Ms. Swikriti Singhania, AOR Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Verma, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kuamr, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. Ms. Asmita Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR 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. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kr. Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv. Ms. Sanjleena Lal, Adv. Mr. Rohit, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, AOR Mr. Keith Verghese, Adv. Mr. Kartik Pant, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Srijan Sonkar, Adv. Mr. Krishnamohan K., AOR Mr. Mareesh Pravir Sahay, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, AOR Mr. Keith Verghese, Adv. Mr. Kartik Pant, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, 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. Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, AOR Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv. Ms. Sanjleena Lal, Adv. Mr. Rohit, Adv. Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR Ms. Priya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shrey Ravi Dambhare, AOR Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. S.N. Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Raja Ram Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. S.D. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Maruti Nandan, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amrit Kesari Nandan Pradhan, Adv. Ms. Ambika Vats, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR Mr. Divyansh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kr. Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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.
(2) Appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on same footing as an application for cancellation of bail – Bail can be cancelled where accused has not complied with conditions of bail imposed upon him.
(3) Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of evidence adduced by prosecution – Merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at stage of bail – Appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Alleged violations of bail conditions - Cancellation of bail sought by allottees of Grand Venice Project - Petitioner accused of diverting loans and failing to settle claims - Multiple conditions imposed for bail including deposit of 50 crores, which petitioner sourced unlawfully from BIIPL - Court found no genuine attempts made to settle claims of allottees, project remains incomplete and unfit for occupancy, and violations evident - Petitioner directed to surrender within one week. (Paras 123, 126, 129)

(B) Bail Conditions - Compliance required to maintain bail - Failure to fulfill settlement agreements as condition for bail - Requirement for genuine efforts to settle claims critically essential; mere agreements not enough. (Paras 66, 84)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited, granted bail subject to several conditions, including financial penalties and settlement efforts with aggrieved allottees who alleged non-delivery of property and funds siphoning. Over time, petitioner failed to settle numerous claims, leading to applications for bail cancellation. Investigations revealed continued financial mismanagement and uncompleted construction.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner did not comply with bail conditions, including deposit requirements, did not prove genuine efforts for settlement, leading to cancellation of bail. Alleged siphoning of funds raises questions of legality and ethical conduct.

Issues: Did the petitioner comply with bail conditions? Was there evidence of genuine attempts to settle with allottees? What were the consequences for breach of bail conditions?

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized strict adherence to bail conditions, and where substantial evidence of violation exists, including failure to settle claims, bail must be revoked. The bail conditions are in place to protect the interests of allottees suffering due to the petitioner's actions.

Result: Bail cancelled; petitioner to surrender within one week. Decision affects the foundational understanding of bail conditions in cases involving public interest and compliance. (Paras 126, 130)

Judgement Key Points

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 (!) (!) .

What are the grounds for cancellation of bail?

What are the consequences of a company providing a loan to its director without a special resolution?

What are the implications of siphoning funds during a moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?

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 ALLOTTEES

COMMISSION OF SIMILAR OFFENCE

CONCLUSION

1. The present batch of Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by allottees of the ‘Grand Venice’ project, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner - Mr. Satinder Singh Bhasin by this Court vide Order dated 06.11.2019 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019, due to violations of certain bail conditions that were imposed upon him.

2. The genesis of these applications is a Writ Petition¹ [W.P. (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019] under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which was filed by Mr. Bhasin, the then Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited ² [Hereinafter ‘BIIPL’] in 2019. Therein, he had sought clubbing of all the FIRs pertaining to ‘Grand Venice’ project of his Company, and for the grant of bail in those cases, along with interim relief of bail. The subject FIRs, registered in the States of New Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, were filed by the allottees of units in the project against the petitioner, alleging non-delivery of their units, siphoning of their funds, and impropriety in allotment of land with the collusion of State officials. Prayer sought is extracted hereunder:

b) In the alternative, consolidate the FIRs mentioned in Table No.1(Synopsis Page F) into one single mother FIR and all FIRs be investigated and tried by one single agency as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

c) Grant bail to the petitioner herein in all FIRs, known and unknown, including those stated in Table No.3 hereto, subject to such conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper irrespective of any order made or proceedings or applications pending in any of the Courts other than this Hon’ble Court.

d) Stay the proceedings against the Petitioner emanating from the FIRs mentioned in Table no.3 hereto and other FIRs not in the knowledge of the Petitioner, involving identical allegations, until the investigation is handed over to the Respondent No.3 CBI in terms of the prayer(a) of the present Writ Petition; and

e) Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as it deems fit in the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

ORDERS OF THIS COURT

3. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2019, granted interim relief of bail claimed by the petitioner in relation to the subject FIRs. The relevant conditions imposed upon him are extracted below:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 334

What are the grounds for cancellation of bail?

What are the consequences of a company providing a loan to its director without a special resolution?

What are the implications of siphoning funds during a moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?

Cases Referred (4)

Related Judgments

Satinder Singh Bhasin VS Government of NCT of Delhi - 2026 Supreme(SC) 334

Satinder Singh Bhasin VS Gautam Mullick - 2026 Supreme(SC) 114

Neeraj Kumar Dubey & Ors vs Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1751

Virender Bagai VS State of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 20

Suman VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2670

Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2828

Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. , by its Vice Chairman, Hyderabad VS S. V. Castle Creators & Engineers Private Limited - 2024 Supreme(Telangana) 434

M/S R.S. KALYANI HOTELS PVT LTD vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40158

Jaikishan Aggarwal (Total Blind) v. Greater Noida Industrial Devp. Authority and Others - 2015 Supreme(Online)(All) 59

L & L Partners Litigation, Through Authorized Representatives Harneet Singh Chandhoke and Sudhir Sharma vs Jalesh Kumar Grover, RP of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 480