As per case facts, the petitioner, a company director, was granted bail under strict conditions, including settling claims with allottees of his real estate project and avoiding similar offenses. These ...
2026 INSC 310 M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 1 of 86
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
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
SATINDER SINGH BHASIN … PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF
DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 2 of 86
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ORDERS OF THIS COURT ............................................................................. 4
DEVELOPMENTS AFTER GRANT OF BAIL ................................................. 26
IRP AND INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS ..................................................... 26
UPSIDA DUES ....................................................................................... 29
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS ................................................... 34
CONDITION OF DEPOSIT OF 50 CRORES ................................................... 35
CONSTRUCTION NOT COMPLETE .............................................................. 41
NO SETTLEMENT AND NO INTENT TO DO SO ............................................. 52
CONDUCT WITH SPECIFIC ALLOTTEES ..................................................... 67
COMMISSION OF SIMILAR OFFENCE ......................................................... 74
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 82
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 Petition
1
under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which was filed by Mr.
1
W.P. (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 3 of 86
Bhasin, the then Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure
Private Limited
2
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:
“a) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent
no.3 CBI to investigate into all the offences alleged
against the Petitioner in the FIRs mentioned in Table 3
hereto (Synopsis Page G) and other FIRs not in the
knowledge of the Petitioner, involving identical
allegations;
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
2
Hereinafter ‘BIIPL’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 4 of 86
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:
“The petitioner is granted bail in respect of all the FIRs
referred to in prayer clause (c) in respect of the project
by name “Grand Venice" in NCR, in particular, Mall and
Commercial Tower thereof, on the following
conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner shall not commit any offence
of similar type of which he has been accused.
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to denude such
person from disclosing such facts to any Police Station
or tamper with evidence.
... ... ...
(vi) The petitioner shall deposit an aggregate amount of
Rs 50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crore only) before the
Registry of this Court as a pre-condition for grant of bail.
On deposit of such amount, authenticated copy of the
receipt issued by this Court be produced before the
concerned Court/Investigating Officer. The amount so
deposited by the petitioner in the Registry, be invested
in an appropriate interest bearing deposit scheme in a
nationalized bank until further orders including to renew
the deposit from time to time.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 5 of 86
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish personal bail bond of
Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees five lac only) with one surety in
the like amount in connection with each FIR
independently.
(viii) After being released on bail in terms of this order,
the petitioner shall make every possible attempt to settle
the claims of the concerned complainant(s)/informant(s)
as far as possible within six to eight months as ordered
by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala
House Courts while granting bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.38/2018 registered with the Economic Offences
Wing, New Delhi vide order dated 15
th
May, 2019.
(ix) If the petitioner fails to abide by any of the above
conditions intentionally and if it is so established before
this Court, no less than 50% of the amount deposited by
him in this Court in terms of this order [Clause (vi)
above] shall stand forfeited.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. In Condition (viii) there is a mention of Patiala House
Court order dated 15.05.2019. The order reads as under:
“I have heard the respective counsels and perused the
entire material placed on record. In the case in hand, the
complainants, who are the members of Grand Venizia
Buyers Association who have filed the company petition
no. 49/16 against the applicant/accused herein in Hon'ble
Delhi High Court, agreed to take possession of the units
and the applicant/accused also issued possession offer
letters in compliance of order dated 21.08.2018 of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the abovesaid company
petition. However, as per the submissions made by Ld
Counsel for the complainants, the complainants herein
were taken aback by the letter dated 03.07.2018 of then
Commissioner, Meerut Division, UP and the possession
of the existing units were not taken by the complainants
herein. It is not in dispute that in company petition before
Hon'ble Delhi High Court the Complainants herein who
are members of Grand Venezia Buyers Association were
willing to take possession of units subject to clear title as
per the agreement between the parties. The accused has
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 6 of 86
given the statement before the Court that he would settle
the matter with all the complainants. Considering the
submissions made and the documents referred to by Ld
Sr. Advocate during arguments regarding the
allegations/facts alleged in letter dated 03.07.2018 of the
then Commissioner, Meerut Division, UP, which are not
disputed by Ld counsel for the complainant, IO and Ld
APP for the State and the proposal of settlement given
by the accused and the amount of Rs. 5 crores deposited
by the accused in the Court to show his bonafide, I am
of the opinion that the applicant/accused is hereby
admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum
of Rs.5 lacs with one surety in the like amount subject to
the condition that he shall settle the matter with all the
complainants herein within a period of 6 to 8 months. It
is pertinent to mention that the accused would either give
possession of units with clear title as per agreements to
the complainants herein or he would refund their money
within the period as assured by him. It is clarified that in
case the accused fails to abide by the
assurance/undertaking given by him before the Court,
the amount of Rs. 5 crores deposited by him would be
forfeited and his bail would be cancelled upon an
application filed in this regard by the prosecution.
Further, the applicant/accused shall join the
investigation as and when required by the IO and he shall
not tamper with evidence or influence any witness in any
manner whatsoever and that he shall appear on each and
every date of hearing to attend the proceedings in
accordance with the terms of bail bond which would be
executed by him and that he shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the Court.
Bail application stands disposed of.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. An Interim Application bearing number 172273/2019
praying for modification of Condition (vi) and (vii), filed by the
petitioner came to be partly rejected by this Court on 25.11.2019.
Upon hearing the parties, this Court declined to interfere with
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 7 of 86
Condition (vi) and rejected the prayer for waiver to deposit
Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores only) as a pre-condition
for the grant of bail. However, insofar as Condition (vii) was
concerned, the Court modified the same to the extent that in
addition to the personal bail bond, the petitioner was directed to
furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore only) each, cumulatively, which can be offered in respect
of all the cases pertaining to project ‘Grand Venice’.
Consequently, vide Order dated 12.12.2019, the said amount
deposited pursuant to Condition (vi) was directed to be invested
in an appropriate scheme.
6. In furtherance of Condition (viii), this Court vide order
dated 15.01.2020 recorded that the process of mediation had been
initiated before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, and that
notices have been issued to all the stakeholders. The Court also
took note of specific grievances raised by certain allottees and
directed the petitioner to address the same within a stipulated
time. Subsequently, this Court on 24.01.2020 expressly held that
Condition (viii) would include permitting all the parties to
approach the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre for resolution
of their disputes through settlement. It was observed that:
“The order dated 06.11.2019 is clarified to mean that
clause (viii) thereof includes permitting the parties to
approach the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre for
resolution of disputes inter-se through mediation
process.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 8 of 86
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents whose
names are not included in the list for mediation furnished
by the petitioner are free to give their details to the
learned counsel for the petitioner so that appropriate
steps can be taken by the petitioner to update the said list.
... ... ...
The offer regarding settlement can be pursued by all
commercial shops/establishments buyers, including the
applicants who have filed impleadment application.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. In continuation thereof, while preferring an application
seeking permission to travel abroad, the petitioner made a
categorical statement, which came to be recorded by this Court
vide order dated 27.02.2020, that the mediation process would,
through his authorised officers, be taken to its earliest logical
conclusion. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 20.08.2020,
took note of the stand of the petitioner that he was willing to offer
possession as also execute necessary agreement/sub-lease and
recorded as under:
“During the course of argument, it was brought to our
notice that the petitioner is willing to offer possession as
also facilitate execution of necessary agreement/sub-
lease, as may be required.
In the meantime, the home-buyers are free to avail that
option/offer.”
8. This Court vide interim order dated 12.05.2022, allowed
clause (b) of the prayer of the Writ Petition, and consolidated all
the FIRs pending against the petitioner. FIR No. 353/2015 was
made the principal FIR, wherein it was observed as under:
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 9 of 86
“Suffice it to note that the principal FIR filed in first
point of time was registered by the Kasna Police Station
in Greater Noida being FIR No.353/2015 dated
09.06.2015. More or less, similar allegations are made in
the subsequently filed FIRs by different buyers of the
units in the concerned commercial building. As many as
41 FIRs have been filed across the State of Uttar Pradesh
and 5 FIRs in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. We hasten to
add that Govt. of NCT of Delhi has no objection to club
these FIRs along with the principal FIR i.e., FIR
No.353/2015, referred to above.
Accordingly, following the principle enunciated by this
Court in Amish Devgan vs. Union of India & Ors., as
also in the peculiar facts of the present case, we, in
exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India, accede to the relief claimed in terms of the
prayer clause (b) — of consolidation of all FIRs,
including registered in New Delhi with FIR
No.353/2015 as the principal FIR and for being
proceeded with in accordance with law, as we are of the
opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be
in the larger public interest as well.
It is brought to our notice that investigation in respect of
some FIRs has been completed and even chargesheet(s)
have been filed by the special Investigation Team (SIT),
constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of all
these cases. In terms of this order, the chargesheet(s)
filed in other cases shall stand merged with the
chargesheet filed in criminal case arising out of FIR
No.353/2015.
Further, it will be open to the Investigating Officer in the
case registered as FIR No.353/2015, to file a
supplementary chargesheet, which will be a composite
chargesheet to deal with all the statements collated
during the investigation in the other cases, including the
statement of the complainant in the respective FIR as
being statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The
supplementary chargesheet to be filed on the basis of the
entire record so collected during the investigation in the
respective cases will be then made the basis to proceed
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 10 of 86
for trial against the petitioner and named accused
therein.”
9. Vide order dated 28.07.2022, this Court transferred Writ
Petition No. 3790 of 2022 pending before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad to this Court as T.C. (Civil) No. 82/2022.
This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking conversion
of the subject land of the ‘Grand Venice’ project from leasehold
to freehold. Judgment was reserved in this matter on 18.10.2022
and was ultimately dismissed on 17.03.2023. With no further
challenge against the issue of conversion of land, stood finally
settled against the petitioner.
10. This Court vide order dated 20.03.2023, recorded a
suggestion made by the petitioner that the issue relating to
documentation, particularly the execution of sub-lease deeds,
could be resolved amicably or with the assistance of a mediator.
Relevant part thereof is extracted hereunder:
“Apart from other submissions, the learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioner
(Satinder Singh Bhasin) in Writ Petition (Crl.)
No.242/2019, has suggested on instructions, that as
regards the issue concerning the documentation,
particularly the execution of sub-lease deed, the matter
could be resolved by the parties sitting together or may
be with the assistance of some Mediator.
Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel, appearing
for the respondent-UPSIDA, prays for some time to
complete all his instructions and to state his response in
that regard.”
(emphasis supplied)
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 11 of 86
However, vide order dated 27.03.2023, it was submitted on
behalf of Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority
3
that it may not be in a position to agree to the said proposal of
settlement concerning the execution of sub-lease deeds.
11. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 24.04.2023, noted
that the petitioner, represented through Mr. Shyam Divan,
learned senior counsel, and Grand Venezia Buyers Association,
represented by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel,
were ad idem on the existence of elements of settlement and
recorded their willingness to participate in mediation
proceedings in the spirit of earlier orders passed by this Court.
The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:
“Learned senior counsel Mr. Shyam Divan appearing for
the petitioner and learned senior counsel Ms. Meenakshi
Arora appearing for the respondent No.4 (Grand
Venezia Buyers Association), are ad idem that the
elements of settlement do exist and for that purpose, the
parties shall be willing to attend the mediation
proceedings before the Mediation Centre attached to
Delhi High Court in terms of and in the spirit of the
orders earlier passed in this matter. For that purpose, the
parties have agreed to appear before the Mediation
Centre on 26.04.2023 at 11:00 a.m.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be disposed of vide
final order dated 08.08.2023, whereby the transfer and clubbing
of FIRs were made absolute. Prayer made by the petitioner for
3
UPSIDA
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 12 of 86
withdrawal of the amount of Rs.50 Crores deposited in
consonance with Condition (vi) was rejected and the said amount
was directed to be transferred to the concerned Trial Court, to be
kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt. While considering the issue of
settlement, this Court observed that although efforts had been
made to arrive at an amicable resolution, disputes continued to
subsist inter se the parties. However, this Court refrained from
deciding the said issue, noting that the issue of settlement was
intertwined with the modification of lease conditions, which was
the subject matter of a pending civil dispute, and in view of the
stand of the UPSIDA that such settlement was not possible.
Consequently, this Court left open the issue of alleged breach of
Condition (viii) and granted liberty to any party to prefer an
application for cancellation of bail before this Court in the event
of breach of any of the conditions imposed. While passing the
order, this Court observed as under:
“8. … It is true that some of the orders passed by this
Court indicate that an effort was made to work out an
amicable settlement between the petitioner and
investors/complainants/first informants. An order was
made to refer the disputes to the Mediation pursuant to
which the petitioner claims that the claims of about 108
investors, out of a total of 220 aggrieved investors have
been settled. Again, there is a dispute about the same
raised by the fourth respondent by contending that the
petitioner has not abided by the terms and conditions of
the settlement.
9. So far as the settlement is concerned, the entire issue,
even according to the petitioner, revolves around the
modification of the terms and conditions of the lease
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 13 of 86
deeds. For that purpose, a substantive suit has been filed
by the petitioner which is pending in the competent Civil
Court. Now, that UPSIDA has made a statement that it
is not possible for them to modify the terms and
conditions, and the fact that the issue of conversion from
lease hold to free hold has attained finality against the
petitioner, no purpose will be served by keeping this
petition pending.
10. As bail has been granted to the petitioner by this
Court on certain terms and conditions, those who want
to contend that there is a breach of terms and conditions
committed by the petitioner can always file an
application for cancellation of bail and if such
application is filed, the Registry will permit filing of the
said application. The application shall be placed before
the appropriate Bench. As we are leaving this remedy
open, we are not adjudicating upon the issue whether the
petitioner has not complied with condition No. (viii) in
the order granting bail. This issue will have to be gone
into in the application for cancellation of bail if filed by
the concerned parties.
... ... ...
12. Thus, the deposit of a sum of Rs.50,00,00,000/-
(Rupees fifty crores) was a condition for the grant of
bail. Therefore, it is obvious that after having availed the
benefit of bail, now the petitioner cannot back out and
say that he may be permitted to withdraw a sum of
Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crores) which was
deposited by him, as a condition for grant of bail. If the
petitioner wants the refund, he will have to surrender.
The petitioner cannot have it both ways.
... ... …
14. We reject the prayer made by the petitioner for a
grant of refund of the sum of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees
fifty crores) and interest accrued thereon.
... ... ...
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 14 of 86
17. We clarify that this Court has made no adjudication
on the issue of modification of terms and conditions of
the leases, as a substantive suit in that behalf is pending
which is filed by the petitioner.
18. We reject the prayer made by the petitioner for the
refund of a sum of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty
crores) together with interest thereon. We direct that
after the present fixed deposit matures, the said amount
shall be forthwith transferred to the Court of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar with a
direction that the said Court shall invest the said amount
in a fixed deposit in a public sector bank in such a
manner that it will fetch the best possible interest.
19. The issue of withdrawal of the said amount will have
to be considered by the competent criminal Court at an
appropriate stage in accordance with the law.
20. It will be open for respondent No.4 or any other party
to apply for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner
under the order dated 6th November 2019. If such an
application is made, the Registry shall accept it and place
it before the appropriate Bench.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thereafter, the present Miscellaneous Petitions came to be
filed on 20.10.2023 by various allottees of the project. This Court
vide order dated 09.02.2024 called upon the petitioner to file an
affidavit of compliance setting out the details of the settlement of
claims, if any, along with supporting documents. The order read
as under:
“We direct the petitioner in the Writ Petition to file a
counter affidavit within a period of three weeks from today.
The counter affidavit will give all particulars regarding
compliance, if any, made by the petitioner with condition
clause (viii) of paragraph 16 A of the Reportable order
dated 6th November, 2019. The petitioner shall set out the
details of settlement of claims, if any, along with necessary
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 15 of 86
documents. The petitioner will serve advance copy of the
counter affidavit to the counsel representing the State.
The State will make verification of the details given in the
counter and will also ascertain whether there are any
claimants whose claims have not been settled. The State
shall complete the exercise within a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of the counter affidavit.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. On 18.03.2024, notice came to be issued in all the
applications seeking cancellation of bail as well as on the
Contempt Petition No. 75 of 2024. On 13.05.2024, while
considering these applications, this Court made the following
observations:
“We have perused the supplementary reply filed on
behalf of the petitioner. We are not satisfied with the
stand taken by the petitioner that he has made a genuine
effort to settle the dispute with all the investors. In fact,
from the order dated 6th November, 2019 granting bail,
it is apparent that the object of releasing the petitioner on
bail was to facilitate settlement of the claims of the
investors.
Firstly, we call upon the petitioner to file a detailed
affidavit setting out the reasons why the petitioner could
not settle the claims of 41 investors named in the status
report filed by the respondent no.2 on 8th May, 2024.
... ... ...
More than four years have elapsed from the date of grant
of bail. Therefore, we are putting the petitioner to notice
that if we find that there is no genuine or bona fide effort
made by the petitioner to settle the claim of even one
investor, that may be a ground for cancellation of bail.”
(emphasis supplied)
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 16 of 86
15. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, this Court on 19.07.2024,
recorded that the petitioner in the disposed of Writ Petition filed
an additional affidavit claiming that he has endeavoured to settle
with many aggrieved persons/investors and directed the State
Government to examine and respond to the said affidavit. In
furtherance of these directions and with a view to ascertain the
veracity of petitioner’s claim regarding settlement with the
allottees/investors, this Court vide order dated 02.09.2024,
observed and directed as under:
“Now, the issue is whether the original writ petitioner
has settled the dispute with 103 investors. For the time
being, we are dealing with the cases of 41 investors who
are referred in paragraph 28 of the rejoinder affidavit
filed by the petitioner to the response of the State of Uttar
Pradesh dated 23rd August, 2024.
We direct the petitioner to implead these 41 persons as
party respondents in MA No.239 of 2024 and file an
amended copy within a period of one week from today.
Issue notice to these newly added respondents returnable
on 4th October, 2024.
The Registry to forward the notices to the office of Shri
Saurabh Srivastava posted as Assistant Commissioner of
Police (Crime) Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
whose office shall be responsible for effecting service.
These 41 persons shall come before the Court by filing
affidavits and inform this Court whether there is a
complete settlement between them and the petitioner.
A copy of this order shall accompany the notice issued
to 41 persons.”
(emphasis supplied)
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 17 of 86
16. Vide order dated 13.12.2024, this Court directed the State
to prepare a tabular format after the perusal of affidavits filed by
the investors giving details of settlement, if any, and
compliance/non-compliance thereof. With a view to achieve
settlement with the investors, this Court on 24.01.2025 again
reiterated:
“We have perused the affidavit of compliance along with
a tabular chart filed by the State. The tabular chart is only
in respect of 43 investors. The chart shows that still, the
petitioner has not settled with many. Time and again, this
Court has granted time to the Petitioner with the hope
that he will settle the claims of all the purchasers.
A perusal of the orders passed by this Court from time to
time will show that, only by way of indulgence, this
Court has kept on postponing the consideration of prayer
for cancellation of bail. Now, it is not possible for the
Court to grant further time. In one of the orders, we had
made it very clear that unless the claim of every investor
is settled, the petitioner cannot continue to avail the
facility of bail.
However, by way of indulgence, we finally grant time to
the petitioner till 15
th
March 2025 to produce before the
Court an affidavit recording that claims of all the
investors have been settled. No further time shall be
granted to the petitioner.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Pursuant to the above orders, the petitioner submitted
before this Court that some allottees have expressed their
unwillingness to take possession of their units. Consequently,
vide order dated 29.04.2025, this Court directed three senior
officers of the UPSIDA to visit the premises and submit a report
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 18 of 86
on: (a) the habitability of the units; (b) presence of electricity and
water supply; (c) status of Occupation Certificate; and
(d) whether possession of units has been handed over or not. The
Court further directed UPSIDA to specifically state whether it
was in a position to execute tripartite agreements and the manner
in which they can be executed. Relevant part of the order is
extracted below:
“1. Firstly, we deal with the issue of settlement entered
into by the original petitioner with 41 buyers of the units
whose names appear in Annexure A-20 to the affidavit
filed on 24th March, 2025 by the petitioner. It is claimed
in the affidavit that the possession of 23 units has been
handed over to the persons mentioned in Annexure A-
20. It is stated that 10 purchasers whose names appear
on page 203 have shown unwillingness to take
possession apprehending that registration of the
document will not take place.
2. We direct the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial
Development Authority (for short, “the said Authority”)
to immediately nominate three senior officers to visit the
buildings in which the units mentioned in Annexure A-
20 are situated. The officers of the said Authority will
visit the site on 1st May, 2025 at 11.00 a.m. when a
representative of the petitioner shall remain present
along with all documents such as
Occupation/Completion Certificate, agreements, if any,
entered into with 41 persons mentioned in Annexure A-
20. The representative of the petitioner will also bring
the documents showing delivery of possession as regards
these 41 units (excluding the units to be allotted to 8
persons who have allegedly taken refund). The officers
of the Authority shall verify the documents produced by
the petitioner and submit a report to this Court on the
following aspects:
(a) whether the units mentioned at Serial Nos. 1
to 23 on page 202 and the units mentioned at
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 19 of 86
Serial Nos. 1 to 10 on page 203 are in habitable
condition;
(b) whether there is electricity and water supply
available to these tenements;
c) whether there is an Occupation/Completion
Certificate in respect of these 33 units; and
d) whether possession of these units has been
handed over and names of the persons, if any,
found in possession.
... ... ...
4. The Authority will file a report/affidavit stating the
aforesaid facts and shall produce necessary documents.
The Authority will also make a statement whether it is in
position to execute Tripartite Agreement (to which the
petitioner, the purchaser and the Authority will be
parties) and in what manner the Tripartite Agreements
can be executed.
5. We may also add here that the officers will also
ascertain whether the other units in the building in which
these units are situated are functional.
... ... ...
9. This Court’s order dated 2nd September, 2024 refers
to the dispute between the petitioner and 103 investors.
So far we have dealt with 41 investors, out of 103
investors. We direct the petitioner to file an affidavit in
relation to the remaining 62 investors about the progress
made in the settlement.”
(emphasis supplied)
A Report
4
came to be filed thereto, and was taken on record
by this Court 07.05.2025. The contents of this Report will be
discussed in the following paragraphs.
4
Hereinafter ‘UPSIDA Report’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 20 of 86
18. On 03.06.2025, this Court granted liberty to the aggrieved
parties to move an application for intervention and permitted the
Interim Resolution Professional
5
as well as the Ld. Observer
appointed by National Company Law Tribunal
6
in the IBC
proceedings pending against BIIPL to place on record their
Report and all the documents in support of their contentions. Vide
Order dated 22.07.2025, this Court had directed the IRP to
prepare a list of each of the allottees after ascertaining whether
they are desirous of taking possession at this stage or seek refund
of the amount deposited. The said order reads as under:
“3. We request Mr. Vipin Sanghi, learned senior counsel,
to prepare a chart, in a tabular form, indicating the status
of each one of the allottees, after ascertaining their desire
as to whether they want to take possession of the
property or seek refund of the amount deposited and that
too with or without interest.
4. We add that, the petitioner shall also specifically
respond to the status report as also the report of the
observer annexed with the application filed by the I.R.P.
as mentioned above. Also, we expect the petitioner to
furnish all information to the I.R.P., as is so required, for
ascertaining the exact status to be allotted to the allotees.
5. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submits that demands raised by
UPSIDA are pending adjudication before the High Court
of Allahabad in W.P.No.26964 of 2024 and the same is
listed on 24.07.2025. We request the High Court to
consider and decide the same expeditiously.
6. We allow the I.R.P. to issue the public notice
informing all the allottees, even those who are not before
us, about the pendency of the present proceedings as also
5
Hereinafter ‘IRP’.
6
Hereinafter ‘NCLT’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 21 of 86
ascertaining clear current status with regard to their
claims, if any.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. Thereafter, in furtherance of order dated 22.07.2025, on
25.08.2025, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit before
this Court with the following particulars, which is extracted
hereunder:
“1. Having heard the matter for some time in
continuation of our earlier orders, we issue the following
directions:
(I) Writ Petitioner Satinder Singh Bhasin shall file his
personal affidavit dealing with the averments made in
I.A. No.168053 of 2025 including annexures, in
particular the report, part thereof. He shall also file his
personal affidavit in terms of our order dated
22.07.2025. This he shall do within a period of one week
from today. Should the affidavit lack any
particular/material information, it shall be open for the
IRP to seek further information/clarification from the
petitioner which shall be furnished immediately.
(II) Clarifying further, that the said affidavit shall be
filed, indicating complete particulars of (a) total FSI/area
of the project for which sanction for construction was
accorded by the authorities; (b) number of units, area-
wise, permitted to be constructed;(c) the names and
detailed particulars i.e. address, etc. of the persons to
whom allotments were made; (d) the price at which such
allotments were made and the amounts received qua
each one of the allottees; (e) Status of completion of each
of the units and possession of each built up unit of such
allotments stands handed over or not.
(III) We clarify that we have not stayed the proceedings
pending before any one of the fora and, more particularly
NCLAT, where proceedings in relation to the Project are
pending. In fact as we have requested the High Court of
Allahabad to decide the writ petition filed by the
petitioner on expeditious basis, we also request NCLAT
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 22 of 86
to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on
expeditious basis.
... ... ...
(V) Copy of the affidavit be supplied by uploading the
same on the official website of the Court enabling each
one of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to
download the same.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Finally, on 20.11.2025, this Court issued show cause
notice to the petitioner, as to why the liberty of bail granted to
him by this Court should not be cancelled for non-compliance of
the conditions imposed therein. An independent Committee
comprising of two retired judges was also constituted by this
Court, with the purpose of providing final resolution to all the
allottees of the project. It was observed:
“15. On a considered view of this matter, the conduct of
the Petitioner to say the least is most undesirable, if not
that of an obstructionist. Six years have passed since the
liberty of bail was granted to him by this Court, subject
to the condition that he will make every possible attempt
to settle the claims of the concerned complainants.
Allegedly, the Petitioner has been deflecting
responsibility, while the onus for delay has been
attempted to be shifted onto the allottees themselves or
UPSIDA, which is perhaps unacceptable. All
stakeholders have submitted that the Petitioner continues
to be in direct management of the affairs of the Petitioner
Company. Allegations of mismanagement of company
affairs have also been made against the Petitioner, for
instance, it has been alleged that the Petitioner has
siphoned off company funds to the tune of Rs. 50 crores,
to comply with the order granting bail of this Court. It
has been submitted before this Court that there are a total
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 23 of 86
of 190 FIRs pending against the Petitioner as on date,
concerning different offences.
16. This Court has granted ample opportunity to the
Petitioner to give a clear undertaking to this Court, with
respect to the settlements still pending and steps being
taken vis-à-vis allottees still awaiting resolution. On
multiple occasions, this Court has made it clear to the
Petitioner that the liberty of bail is subject to settlement
with the allottees, however prima facie there has been no
change in the conduct of the Petitioner. No clear
response has been received from the Petitioner in this
regard. Furthermore, this Court finds it deeply
concerning that in the response of the allottees, it has
come across that the allottees who have been shown as
settled by the Petitioner still await compliance of the said
agreements, despite years having passed. This Court is
also of the opinion that it may be appropriate to expedite
the trial against the Petitioner in the subject FIRs to bring
an end to this state of affairs.
17. In view of the above, it is amply clear that the
condition of bail imposed by this Court is not being
complied with, both in letter and spirit.
18. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to issue a
Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner as to why the liberty
of bail granted to him by this Court should not be
cancelled for the non-compliance of the conditions
imposed therein, and in terms of condition (ix), why,
atleast 50% of the amount deposited with this Court
should not be forfeited. Response be positively filed in
two weeks.
... ... ...
20. This Court is also of the opinion that the interest of
the allottees is of utmost importance who have been
made to run from pillar to post to receive their paid-for
units. The final list of allottees has remained a point of
contention between the parties, with discrepancies being
alleged by the Respondents. While the IRP has
submitted that the CIRP must not be diluted, this Court
cannot lose sight of the long and protracted ordeal faced
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 24 of 86
by the allottees. The genesis of the present litigation was
under Article 32 of the Constitution, and this Court
cannot fail in its duty towards the interest of the
consumer at hand.
21. Having regard to the above, and with a view to
ensure efficient resolution of this lis, we deem it
appropriate to direct that a final list of allottees be
verified and prepared by an independent Committee
along with a report ascertaining the construction status
of the units, which would ultimately assist with the
CIRP. We clarify that such a Committee is not stepping
into the shoes of the IRP, nor does it seek to weaken the
insolvency proceedings that are pending against the
Company. It is crucial that some clarity be provided to
the allottees and their identities be ascertained, once and
for all. The Committee shall consist of Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Deepak Gupta, Retired Judge of the Supreme
Court of India, along with with Senior Advocate Smt.
Rekha Palli (Retd. Judge of the Delhi High Court) and
its scope, inter alia, shall be:
a) Verification of the final list of allottees;
b) The current status of construction of the
units with its necessary statutory
compliance(s), enabling transfer of title and
possession;
c) Whether the units are in a condition to be
handed over to the allottees;
d) How many of the allottees actually seek
transfer of possession & title and how many
seek refund of the amounts paid by them;
e) Examining the extent of co-operation
extended by the Petitioner with the authorities
such as the IRP etc., including allegations of
misappropriation of the Company’s funds
during the insolvency process and steps
required to be taken by the Petitioner in that
regard;
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 25 of 86
f) Examine the grievances of the allottees
who await compliance of settlement already
arrived at with the Petitioner; and
g) Any other relevant factor, that the
committee may deem fit.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. In furtherance of the above order, the Committee
submitted its Report to this Court on 22.01.2026. The contents
thereof are discussed in the later part of this judgment.
22. It is in this backdrop that we proceed to examine the
submissions raised by the parties. We have heard Mr. Shyam
Divan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. We have also
heard, Mr. Vipin Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the IRP;
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel; Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
learned senior counsel; Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned
senior counsel; Ms. Aditi Mohan, learned counsel; Mr. Shyam D.
Nandan, learned counsel; Ms. Kumud Lata Das, learned counsel;
Ms. Akshaya Ganpath, learned counsel; and Mr. Sahil Sethi,
learned counsel for the allottees; Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni,
learned senior counsel for UPSIDA and counsels for various
respondents. Before we proceed to the issues, we examine certain
developments, that have taken place, after the grant of bail in the
case at hand.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 26 of 86
DEVELOPMENTS AFTER GRANT OF BAIL
IRP AND INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS
23. It is a matter of record that insolvency proceedings have
been invoked against the petitioner’s companies under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
7
. A petition was
preferred by the allottees under Section 7 of the IBC on
09.06.2021, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process
8
against BIIPL and another concern of the
petitioner, Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Pvt. Ltd
9
on
account of failure to complete construction and handover units.
Thereafter, other corporate debtors have joined the proceedings
as well.
24. On 04.12.2023, the NCLT admitted the petition and the
IRP, Mr. Mukesh Gupta came to be appointed. A moratorium
was imposed in line with Section 14 of the IBC. I.A. No. 168053
of 2025 has been filed by the IRP, seeking permission to
intervene in this matter, pursuant to leave granted by this Court.
25. To give a brief history, the order of admission was
challenged by the Companies of the petitioner before the NCLT
vide Company Appeal (Ins.) No. 1593 and 1594 of 2023. During
7
Hereinafter ‘IBC’.
8
Hereinafter ‘CIRP’.
9
Hereinafter ‘GVCTPL’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 27 of 86
the pendency of the appeal, the NCLAT vide interim order dated
07.12.2023 directed “no further steps” be taken in furtherance of
order dated 04.12.2023. The NCLAT had appointed an Observer
vide Order dated 25.04.2025, who had submitted a Report dated
15.05.2025 pertaining to indicating the status of construction of
the units. The said appeal came to be finally dismissed on
29.10.2025. The petitioner had preferred an SLP against this
order which came to be dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2026 in Civil Appeal Nos.
13779 and 13812 of 2025 titled ‘Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col.
Gautam Mullick and Ors’. Consequently, the initiation of IBC
proceedings and CIRP have been affirmed in law.
26. Coming to the contentions of the IRP, it has been
submitted that the petitioner, acting in violation of the law, has
still not handed over the affairs of BIIPL. Consequently,
contempt proceedings before the NCLT came to be filed, due to
non-handover of the management and affairs of BIIPL to the IRP.
27. Furthermore, after imposition of moratorium under the
IBC, the petitioner has siphoned off funds to the tune of Rs. 74
crores from GVCTPL to related concerns, namely: (i) Niche
Builders and Contractors Private Ltd.
10
; (ii) Vinamr
Infrastructure Private Limited
11
; and (iii) Bewealthy Properties
10
Hereinafter ‘Niche’.
11
Hereinafter ‘Vinamr’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 28 of 86
Private Limited
12
. The ultimate beneficiary of this siphoning off
has been the petitioner. The IRP further submitted the action
against these companies has been initiated vide issuing of
demand notices dated 27.01.2026, calling upon them to restore
the amounts in question. Moreover, it has been argued that the
petitioner has attempted to justify these transactions as routine
business transactions, which is a bald assertion and no material
has been placed on record to substantiate these transactions.
28. Lastly, it is the case of IRP that the petitioner cannot state
that even after imposition of moratorium the directors of BIIPL
and GVCTPL retained control over these companies, in view of
the order of dated 07.12.2023 of the NCLAT, whereby “no
further steps to be taken” was granted in favour of the petitioner.
The NCLAT vide clarificatory order dated 07.03.2025, has a put
a rest to this issue, whereby applications seeking clarification of
the abovementioned order dated 07.12.2023 were decided. The
NCLAT observed:
“9. A bare perusal of the order dated 07.12.2023 passed
by this Tribunal shows the Tribunal only granted a stay
on further steps to be taken by the IRP.
Thus we cannot read the order dated 07.12.2023 as
granting status quo ante or disturbing the fiction of law
so created by the Sections above of the IBC, 2016.
….
15. Thus considering the Statute and the law discussed
above we find the natural consequence of order dated
04.12.2023 would be the entire management of the
12
Hereinafter ‘Bewealthy’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 29 of 86
affairs of the Corporate Debtor, including preservation
and protection of its assets, shall vest with IRP by the
legal fiction so created.
16. We are of the considered view that no further steps
to be taken would not mean the Board of Directors of the
Corporate Debtor shall continue to manage the affairs of
the company.”
(emphasis supplied)
29. While we would be considering the submissions raised by
the IRP, issue-wise in the following paragraphs, we must clarify
one aspect at the threshold. The petitioner has submitted that the
IRP ought not to be heard in the present proceedings as they are
limited to cancellation of bail. We are not inclined to accept this
submission. In our view, it is imperative to consider the
contentions of the IRP, which is the statute-mandated in-charge
of the petitioner’s companies as on date. It is also the custodian
of records of those companies. They are the very same
companies, with the petitioner as its director, from where
siphoning and mismanagement has been alleged in the FIRs,
which formed the subject matter of petitioner’s Writ Petition
under Article 32, in which he was granted bail.
UPSIDA DUES
30. It is the contention of UPSIDA that the subject land was
allotted to the petitioner by them for building ‘one project’
consisting of a mall, commercial spaces from the 3rd to 15th floor
and a Hotel above that. It has been submitted by UPSIDA that
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 30 of 86
initially, 37,500 sq. mts. of land were allotted to the petitioner
vide allotment letter dated 05.08.2006. In furtherance thereof, a
lease deed dated 23.08.2006 was executed. A further area of 3298
sq. mts of land was added via allotment letter dated 10.09.2008
and a lease deed dated 30.03.2009. The relevant clauses of these
lease deeds are as follows:
(a) Clause 3(j)(b) reads that tripartite lease deeds of the
built up premises will be executed by UPSIDA with the
ultimate allottees of the units. UPSIDA will be
transferring the proportionate undelivered interest in the
land while the petitioner will be transferring the interest
in the built-up space.
(b) Clause 8(d) specifies that all works had to be
completed within five years from the date of allotment.
31. A Part Completion Certificate was issued on 16.04.2015,
subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The UPSIDA has
submitted that the Part Completion Certificate cannot be said to
be valid as on date, due to non-compliance of the enumerated
conditions. Meanwhile, the petitioner instituted Civil Suit No.
257 of 2018 challenging clauses of the lease deed seeking relief
of execution of bipartite sub-lease deeds. The suit remains
pending.
32. The UPSIDA had moved a letter to the State Government
dated 27.04.2023 with respect to cancellation of the Part
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 31 of 86
Completion Certificate. However, it is their case that pursuant to
a meeting with the State Government, it was decided that
cancellation of the Part Completion Certificate, at this stage,
would not be appropriate as it would jeopardize the interest of the
allottees.
33. It is the UPSIDA’s case is that the petitioner has never
called upon UPSIDA to execute tripartite sub lease deeds,
contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease. Despite being
enlarged on bail by this Court and being asked to settle the claims
of the allottees, the petitioner has still not submitted a final
undisputed list of allottees to UPSIDA. Pursuant to the order
dated 09.02.2024 of this Court, only an unsigned list of 332
allottees was received by UPSIDA vide letter dated 21.02.2024.
The submission of a final list of undisputed allottees is an
essential condition for execution of tripartite sublease deeds with
the allottees of the units.
34. The UPSIDA further submitted that the petitioner also
sought conversion of the subject leasehold land to freehold. For
this purpose, a Writ Petition bearing number 3790/2022 was filed
before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The said writ
petition was transferred to this Court as T.C. (Civil) No. 82/2022
and came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2023.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 32 of 86
35. It has been submitted that the petitioner has defaulted in
payment of outstanding dues to UPSIDA. It is the UPSIDA’s
case that as per the lease deed dated 23.08.2006, the sanctioned
ground coverage was 60% and Floor Area Ratio
13
was fixed as
1.8. Thereafter, the FAR was increased to 4.0 without taking any
additional payment from the petitioner or obtaining permission
from the Board. The Commissioner UPSIDA vide letter dated
03.07.2018 wrote to the State of U.P., pointing out irregularities
in the process of allotment to the petitioner. Therein it was also
pointed out that the FAR was increased without any additional
payment and clarification was sought as to charge of additional
payment on the petitioner. Vide letter dated 28.06.2024 by
Infrastructure and Industrial Development Commissioner, State
of U.P. to the Chief Executive Officer, UPSIDA, the State
Government clarified that UPSIDA is the competent Authority to
take decision as to whether charge for extra FAR should be
levied. Consequently, on 06.08.2024, an additional demand of
Rs. 54.38 crore towards FAR has been raised upon the petitioner,
out of which only an amount of Rs. 8.10 crore has been paid till
date.
36. It is also a matter of record, that on 12.08.2024, the
petitioner had assailed the dues of the UPSIDA before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Writ C. No. 26964 of 2024)
13
Hereinafter ‘FAR’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 33 of 86
titled as ‘Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of
UP & Ors’, which came to be disposed of vide order dated
08.09.2025, with liberty to the UPSIDA to approach the IRP, for
its dues, since insolvency proceedings are still pending.
Indisputably, SLP (C) Diary No. 52919/2025 titled as ‘Satinder
Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’ against the same
order stands dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2025. UPSIDA has
since filed its claim before the IRP, in accordance with the
scheme of the IBC.
37. It is also submitted that delay in completion of the subject
project and execution of sub-lease deeds is completely
attributable to the petitioner. Till date, the petitioner has not
sought a Final Completion Certificate. UPSIDA has not impeded
the registration process and is ready to execute the sub-lease
deeds, subject to a payment of Rs. 44,89,67,742/- towards its
dues, as well as submission of a final undisputed list of allottees
and rectification of discrepancies in the allotment list.
38. The response of the petitioner to these averments is that
the property was in fit condition and resultantly, the UPSIDA had
issued a Part Completion Certificate. Moreover, this Completion
Certificate has not been cancelled or taken back. The FAR charge
has been increased unilaterally and to create an impediment in
the registration of tripartite lease deeds. The petitioner has been
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 34 of 86
ready and willing to handover possession to the allottees, while
the UPSIDA has refused to do so.
39. In the above backdrop, we now proceed to examine the
case at hand for cancellation of bail, issue-wise, given the
submissions raised at the Bar.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS
40. The petitioner has submitted that the grounds on which
bail can be cancelled have been settled by this Court in P. v. State
of Madhya Pradesh
14
; Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana
15
; and
Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh
16
. We find the position of
law to have been reiterated by this Court recently in Ashok
Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi)
17
. It was observed:
“19. The principles which emerge as a result of the
above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered
to be on the same footing as an application for
cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a
threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by
prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be
adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of
mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of
bail that have been elucidated by this Court.
14
(2022) 15 SCC 211.
15
(1995) 1 SCC 349.
16
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1779.
17
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 35 of 86
[See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra)
; Jaibunisha v. Meherban [(2022) 5 SCC
465)] and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu
[(2023) 13 SCC 549]]
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained
by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity;
illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not
been taken into consideration including gravity of the
offence and impact of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an
accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration
while considering an appeal against the grant of such
bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for
cancellation of bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed
to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must
be confined only to the grounds discussed above.”
CONDITION OF DEPOSIT OF 50 CRORES
41. Condition (vi) of the order granting bail read:
“The petitioner shall deposit an aggregate amount of Rs
50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crore only) before the
Registry of this Court as a precondition for grant of bail.”
42. At the first instance, the respondents/applicants submitted
that it was on the petitioner, in his personal capacity to deposit
the aforesaid amount. However, the petitioner has used funds of
BIIPL and other related concerns to secure bail. For this purpose,
it has been submitted that BIIPL could not have advanced any
such loan to the petitioner, in the absence of a special resolution
passed by the Company. This act of the petitioner was in direct
contravention of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013, which
expressly stipulates that a loan to a director of a company could
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 36 of 86
have been advanced only upon approval by way of a special
resolution.
43. Similarly, the IRP has submitted that the petitioner has
been arrayed in the FIR in his personal capacity. The relief sought
in the writ proceedings before this Court was in personal interest
and, therefore, the condition directing deposit of Rs. 50 crore was
imposed specifically upon him as a bail condition. However, the
petitioner unlawfully sourced the funds from BIIPL. The
petitioner, in his response, to IA No. 168053 of 2025 has stated
that the sum of Rs. 50 crore was ‘borrowed’ from BIIPL.
44. On the other hand, the petitioner has submitted that from
the date of deposit till the transfer of the amount to the Trial
Court, no objection was raised to the deposit of the aforesaid
amount. Furthermore, the IRP cannot be permitted to object to
raising grievance against the deposit, which was made in 2019,
since the look-back period permitted under Section 43 and 45 of
the IBC being limited to two years.
45. On the merits of this issue, it is submitted that the deposit
was made by BIIPL, for its director - the petitioner. In the books
of accounts, the transfer has been shown as a surety deposit.
Pertinently, there is no embargo under the Companies Act, 2013
for such a deposit to be made. In case there is an embargo, that
would not vitiate the deposit but would be reason for
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 37 of 86
consequences in terms of the Companies Act, 2013. Moreover,
the petitioner and BIIPL have acted bonafide to ensure the
petitioner is enlarged on bail so as to enable settlement of
grievances of the respondents. On the aspect of contradiction in
the petitioner’s stand, it has been submitted that the account
statements reflect that for the purposes of Rs. 50 crores, an
amount of Rs. 24 crores was advanced by different companies at
the request of the petitioner and the remaining 26 crores was
advanced by BIIPL. Therefore, there has been no contradiction
in the stand of the petitioner. As such, the amount of 24 crores,
has been subsequently returned by BIIPL. The breakup of
amounts so arranged, as reflected in the affidavit filed by
petitioner dated 17.02.2026, is as follows:
Amount arranged by petitioner from Own Funds &
Group Companies
Vol 102; Pg.27
Anand Infoedge Private Limited 16.78 Crores
Vinamr Infrastructure Private Limited 4.5 Crores
Niche Builders & Contractors Private
Limited
4.0 Crores
Amount arranged by BIIPL
Vol 102; Pg.27
D.S. Chewing LLP 8.25 Crores
Dharampal Satyapal Limited 19.80 Crores
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 38 of 86
46. Upon a consideration of the above submissions and the
breakup as filed by the petitioner himself, it cannot be disputed
that the amount of Rs. 50 crores has originated from the funds of
BIIPL and other related entities. We are inclined to agree with
the submissions advanced by the respondents. The condition
requiring deposit as a prerequisite for grant of bail, was imposed
upon the petitioner in his individual capacity. This condition
required bonafide, if not strict, compliance.
47. An alarming aspect is that no board resolution has been
passed by BIIPL before disbursal of the amount to secure his bail.
Similar is the case for amounts received from different entities
by BIIPL for this purpose. For this, we advert to Section 185 of
the Companies Act, 2013, as rightly submitted by the
respondents which reads as under:
“185. Loans to directors, etc.—(1) No company shall,
directly or indirectly, advance any loan, including any
loan represented by a book debt to, or give any guarantee
or provide any security in connection with any loan
taken by,—
(a) any director of company, or of a company
which is its holding company or any partner or
relative of any such director; or
(b) any firm in which any such director or relative
is a partner.
(2) A company may advance any loan including any loan
represented by a book debt, or give any guarantee or
provide any security in connection with any loan taken
by any person in whom any of the director of the
company is interested, subject to the condition that—
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 39 of 86
(a) a special resolution is passed by the company
in general meeting:
Provided that the explanatory statement to the
notice for the relevant general meeting shall
disclose the full particulars of the loans given, or
guarantee given or security provided and the
purpose for which the loan or guarantee or
security is proposed to be utilised by the recipient
of the loan or guarantee or security and any other
relevant fact; and
(b) the loans are utilised by the borrowing
company for its principal business activities.”
48. On a plain reading of the above Section, it is evident that a
company cannot directly or indirectly give a loan to its director
without passing a special resolution in a general meeting or
unless the funds correlate to the principal business activities of
the company. In the present case, it cannot be said that the loan
to secure bail for the petitioner was connected to the company’s
principal business activities by any stretch of imagination.
Therefore, the deposit of the amount through the purported loan
taken by the petitioner from BIIPL, in the absence of any
documentary approval or compliance with statutory requirements
of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be sustained.
49. We also notice that not a single rupee has been invested
from the personal funds of the petitioner. In reality, he has availed
an interest free commercial benefit from BIIPL, which does not
make any sense for the Company. The absence of even basic
safeguards, such as pledging of shares or provision of security is
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 40 of 86
representative of how these transactions lack any bonafide/lawful
financial structure.
50. The petitioner cannot be permitted to evade responsibility
by submitting that ‘no objection’ was raised at the time of
submission of the said amount before this Court. In our view, the
petitioner’s submission that IRP cannot raise an objection, as the
look back period for transactions under the IBC is two years, has
to be rejected. In our view, the IRP has rightly placed reliance on
Sections 49 and 66 of the IBC, wherein no time limit has been
specified for transactions which are intended to defraud creditors.
In the case at hand, where the purported loan has been taken in
complete disregard of statutory requirements, the above Sections
will apply, and the contentions raised by the IRP can be relied
upon.
51. Moreover, the submission on Rs. 24 crores being returned
to the other entities holds no water, when it is established at the
threshold that taking the purported loan itself violated the
condition imposed by this Court.
52. We hasten to add, if the petitioner had bonafide intention,
an appropriate application ought to have been moved before this
Court seeking leave of making such an arrangement. In the
absence thereof, we find no reason to accept the submissions
advanced by the petitioner.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 41 of 86
53. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we find this issue to
be against the petitioner and in favor of the respondents.
CONSTRUCTION NOT COMPLETE
54. The next issue that has been raised by the respondents
against the petitioner is that the project is still not complete,
which unequivocally demonstrates his intention to avoid
settlement and the lack of his bonafide conduct. Reliance has
been sought to be placed upon three reports: UPSIDA Report;
Observer Report and the Report of the Committee appointed by
this Court.
55. Pursuant to an Order dated 29.04.2025 of this Court,
UPSIDA officials had visited the project premises and found the
units to be in an incomplete condition and filed a Report dated
01.05.2025 to that effect. The relevant portion of the Report is
extracted as under:
“Apart from the above, in the portion of the Commercial
Tower, which goes up to the 15th floor, it was found that
there was no provision for drinking water on any of the
floors. Out of the 6 lifts in the said tower, only 1 lift was
operational and no proof was provided at the site
regarding the functioning of the remaining lifts. No
safety certificate was displayed in the lift. Even the lift
that was functioning was not operating smoothly. Tiles
were installed in the corridors of the respective units. and
although a fire system was installed. it was not
functional: hose reels. etc.. were not present. Electrical
wiring was present in the units. but there were no switch
boards. Doors were installed in all the units.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 42 of 86
The properties located in the commercial tower are
currently not fit for use unless complete facilities are
developed or repaired. At present, no other unit in the
said tower is in use.
The entry to the commercial tower was not clear or
clean, and since the lift was also not functioning
properly, movement within the commercial tower was
not convenient.
Fire stairway doors were closed/blocked, and some
finishing work was pending.
In addition to the above, for the building to be brought
into current use and before the execution of the Tripartite
Lease Deed, updated No Objection Certificates (NOCs)
from the following departments are required, which have
not been provided:
1. No Objection Certificate from the Pollution
Department
2. No Objection Certificate from the Electrical
Safety Department
3. No Objection Certificate from the Fire
Department
4. Functionality Certificate for lifts and escalators”
(emphasis supplied)
56. Meanwhile, the NCLAT had appointed an Observer vide
order dated 25.04.2025, who submitted a Report dated
15.05.2025 to similar effect, elaborating the condition of the
units. The relevant part is extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
“8. That upon reaching the 9th Floor of the building, the
undersigned observed that a brick wall of about 5 ft. was
constructed and there was a vacant space with pillars
erected and electrical wires hanging from the ceiling. It
was observed that Units on the said floor were not
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 43 of 86
constructed, the flooring was raw, pillars were erected to
support the ceiling and for construction of separate units
… … …
9. … that no units have been constructed at the 9th Floor
and above, till the terrace i.e. the 15th Floor of the
building.
10. ... There was no lift access to the Floors above the
12
th
Floor. Thus, it would be appropriate to state herein
that the Units allotted on the 15
th
Floor have not yet been
constructed.
... ... ...
16. That it would be apposite to conclude that the
Financial Creditors having units allotted at the 9th Floor
and above i.e. 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th and 15th Floors
cannot be given possession immediately as the said
floors are incomplete, construction work is left
abandoned and no units have been constructed so far.
... ... ...
28. That in view of the above, the undersigned concludes
that at present, the Commercial Tower/Office Building
integrated with the mall is only partially built and lacks
basic safety measures such as Fire safety, Lift services,
adequate lighting, air conditioning, proper bathroom
facilities, security etc. It is stated that no fire NOC, fire
hydrants and no firefighting equipment and no separate
fire exit was found to be in existence during the
inspection. The units situated on all floors require
substantial amount of work to be done before giving
possession to the allottees in a fit and proper state and by
no stretch of imagination, immediate possession can be
given to the allottees
... ... ...
31. That considering the above, it is concluded that to
handover Mall, the First Floor needs substantial amount
of renovation as it lacked basic amenities such as
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 44 of 86
adequate lighting, air conditioning, repair work on the
ceiling, bathroom facilities and renovation of the interior
of units. Thus, it is concluded by the undersigned that at
present, it would not be possible to handover immediate
possession of the Units to the owners of shops.”
(emphasis supplied)
57. We now come to the Committee appointed by this Court
vide order dated 20.11.2025. Before proceeding to the contents
thereof, the IRP has sought to point out the petitioner’s conduct
before this Committee does not inspire any confidence and shows
a lack of bonafide intent. For instance, halfway during the site
visit by the Committee, the petitioner left the premises.
Moreover, the Committee had to repeatedly request the petitioner
to furnish a list of allottees. It is alleged that on one occasion, the
petitioner informed the Committee that he has already submitted
the final list of allottees to this Court. Pertinently, while a list of
1764 allottees (correctness whereof itself is in dispute) was
submitted to this Court on affidavit, a list of 774 allottees has
been submitted by the petitioner before the Committee. The
relevant observations made by the Committee in its Report dated
23.01.2026 are as follows:
“7. The Committee had a virtual meeting with the IRP
on 24 November 2025.
... ... ...
Decisions Taken
The Committee directs Mr. Bhasin to furnish a
comprehensive list of all allottees, clearly indicating the
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 45 of 86
original allottees, those who have subsequently
withdrawn from the project, those whose allotments
have been cancelled and the remaining unsettled
allottees. The list is also to contain the email ids and
phone numbers of each of the allottees. Since Mr. Bhasin
submitted that such a list has already been filed before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same may be placed
before the Committee, provided it adequately reflects the
aforesaid particulars, within one week from today.
... ... ...
8. The Petitioner, supplied the list of allottees only
on 20.12.2025. Even this list did not comply with the
directions of the Committee and accordingly, Office of
the Chairperson of the Committee sent a communication
on 20.12.2025 at 2:22 pm directing that a list with
complete information be sent. A list of allottees
including all details available is being filed separately in
Excel Sheet.
... ... ...
10 . On 20.12.2025 at 8:34 pm the petitioner sent another
list of allottees and some maps.
11. A site inspection of the Project was conducted by
the Committee on 21.12.2025 between 10:00 a.m. and
1:00 p.m., where a number of allottees were also present.
Taking into account the technical nature of the
grievances, the Committee deemed it necessary to avail
proper technical assistance of Mr. Anant Kumar, Former
Special Director General, CPWD and Former Engineer-
in-Chief, PWD, Delhi. He was assisted by Mr. Sudhir
Kumar Arya, former Superintending Engineer, DDA.
Mr. Satinder Singh Bhasin was also present at the initial
stage. Here he came up with the plea that the hotel
portion of the project is totally different which is being
handled by some other entity and he has no concern with
the same. On the other hand, the allottees stated that the
company in charge of the hotel is also a part of the
Petitioner’s group. Thereafter, physical inspection was
conducted by the Committee, but the Petitioner left when
less than half of the building had been inspected.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 46 of 86
... ... ...
13. (a)
(i) As detailed above, in order to verify the list of
allottees, Mr. Bhasin was given many opportunities to
provide the complete list of allottees. He finally
submitted a list of allottees on 20.12.2025 but according
to the allottees as well as the IRP, the list is neither
correct nor complete.
….
(iv) The Committee is of the view that the renumbering
of floors, renumbering of commercial spaces has led to
a great deal of confusion and the petitioner is responsible
for the same. However, no clear-cut finding about the
disputes raised can be given by the Committee.
13(b)
ii. On inspection it was found that at the opposite side of
the entrance to the mall there was a huge double height
construction which was to house the hotel lobby and an
aquarium. The luxury spaces adjoin this area. It is
obvious that the buyers had paid a premium price for
these luxury spaces as they were to be part of the hotel
block. As things stand today, these luxury spaces are at
the rear side of the mall, above the food court. They are
totally unfit for luxury outlets.
…
vi. At the time of inspection, the elevators were found to
be non-functional and the staircases were in a dilapidated
condition. The Committee had to walk up almost all the
floors. None of the floors were fully complete. On the
majority of floors, plastering and painting of walls had
not been carried out. Air-conditioning installations and
electrical fittings were absent. On certain floors,
partitioned cubicles had been erected, though the overall
construction remained incomplete.
14. In this regard, the Engineer’s report which sets out
the Structural and Construction Status of the project in
detail is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-A. The
conclusions of the Engineer is his report are as follows:
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 47 of 86
“The report is limited to the commercial complex
and shopping mall only, although the hotel is
integrated with the mall and commercial complex.
Large-scale deviations have been found with
respect to the sanctioned plan and the completion
plan such as ...
Basic facilities such as drinking water and
bathrooms are incomplete. The staircases are
unfinished. There are no lockable units from the
9th floor upwards. The buildings have started
deteriorating, Stones and Tiles from the external
façade are falling, and corrosion in the
reinforcement has started. There are other quality
issues also. The units in commercial complex are
not yet ready for handing over to the allottees,
even not fit for issue of partial completion as a
substantial amount of work remains pending with
respect to building finishing and completion, as
well as completion of essential services.”
15. However, the Committee is of the opinion that
despite the deficiencies, the project site is not beyond
repair. While the complex cannot be considered
functional in its present condition and currently suffers
from substantial work pendency and quality concerns, it
possesses the structural foundation required for
completion. Through a disciplined technical and
regulatory remediation plan, the complex can be
transformed into a habitable and functional commercial
asset, for which steps would be required to be
appropriately monitored.
16. From the perusal of the above tables, it is clear that
about 45 allottees have received possession of their
Units. This number includes those who have taken
possession under protest or who have alleged “forcible
possession” on account of the unit being incomplete or
unfit for possession.
17. About 151 allottees are ready to take possession. 101
allottees are seeking refund of the amount invested by
them. There are about 3 allottees who are willing to
either take possession or take refund of the sum invested
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 48 of 86
by them along with interest and damages. Details of
around 11 allottees are missing.
18. Many of the allottees are claiming refund of more
than the principal amount they had invested. This is on
account of seeking compensation for the delay in
delivery of possession, which, for some allottees was to
be effected as early as 2010. Moreover, several allottees
are seeking resumption and payment of arrears of
Assured Returns that were stopped by the Petitioner.
... ... ...
20. The IRP stated that he is not receiving appropriate
cooperation from the Petitioner. We have also found the
petitioner has not fully cooperated with the Committee.
... ... ...
25. In respect of the role of UPSIDA, there is no
reference to this Committee. However, the committee
feels that given the report of the expert, many questions
arise as to how, the petitioner was permitted to raise
construction apparently in violation of the sanctioned
plans. It is for the Hon’ble Court to deal with this
matter.”
(emphasis supplied)
58. At this stage, it is relevant to advert to the findings of the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Civil Appeal No. 13628 of
2025 titled ‘Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick and
Ors’, wherein the IBC proceedings had been called into question.
After perusing the evidence on record, this Court categorically
found that the project is not in a ‘ready’ condition, where
possession can be handed over to the allottees. The relevant
findings are as follows:
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 49 of 86
“31. ‘Handing over/Taking over of possession’ letters
issued by Bhasin Ltd. in favour of allottees, recording
delivery of possession of particular units, have been
placed on record. However, we find that some of those
letters pertain to the 1st floor of the building, with which
the petitioning allottees in the company petition have no
concern. Those letters, therefore, do not further the case
of the appellants. A letter was issued in relation to a unit
on the 7th floor in favour of one Sheetal Badhwar but the
undertaking of that allottee records that the sublease
deed with the UPSIDA was yet to be executed. Further,
notional possession letters were also issued to allottees,
which are of no significance whatsoever. These so-
called letters of actual delivery of physical possession, in
our considered opinion, have no legal import given the
categorical stipulation by the UPSIDA in its allotment
letter and also the lease deeds that physical possession
should not be delivered to allottees without execution of
the tripartite sublease deeds.
... ... ...
33. We may note that some of the letters issued in the
year 2015 by Bhasin Ltd. merely offered notional
possession to the allottees. Letter dated 13.10.2015
addressed to Kanwaljeet Singh, one such allottee, is
placed on record in this regard. The part-
completion/part-occupancy letters and the
notional/physical possession delivery letters issued to
the allottees, therefore, can be taken to be proof of
completion of the construction in all respects, as is being
claimed by the appellants. Further, their claim in that
regard is also belied by the Commissioner’s Report dated
17.05.2018 filed before the High Court of Delhi in an
earlier windingup proceeding. Therein, the
Commissioner had recorded that none of the units were
ready and fit for occupation as on the date of his
inspection. This report formed part of the record before
the NCLAT.
... ... ...
36. Viewed thus in totality, the contention of the
appellants that the construction was completed in all
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 50 of 86
respects and possession was delivered to some of the
petitioning allottees is found to be without merit and
factual foundation. Notwithstanding the letters and
documents sought to be relied upon in that regard, the
ground reality is otherwise. Neither has the construction
been completed nor could possession of units be
delivered to the allottees without fulfilling all necessary
formalities in that regard after completion of the building
in all respects.
37. On the above analysis, we hold that the company
petition instituted under Section 7 of the Code against
both the corporate debtors by the allottees of 103 units
was maintainable on all counts. The petitioning allottees
duly established their financial debt and also the default
in connection therewith, inasmuch as the units for which
they had paid valuable consideration were not made
ready and delivered to them till date. We, accordingly,
find no error having been committed either by the NCLT
in admitting the company petition or by the NCLAT in
confirming the same in appeal. Hence, Civil Appeal Nos.
13779 and 13812 of 2025 are bereft of merit and deserve
to be dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
59. The above findings are in line with the Reports of all the
three Committees. Therefore, there cannot be an iota of doubt,
with respect to the view adopted by the coordinate Bench on the
condition of the units. In the absence of any documentary
evidence to the contrary, the view adopted by the coordinate
Bench holds credence. Therefore, the submission of the
petitioner that the project has been completed without delay and
handing over of possession is only impeded by the demand of
UPSIDA, stands belied.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 51 of 86
60. The conduct of the petitioner is represented by the fact that
at this stage, despite repeated attempts, there is a complete lack
of essential information regarding the project. There is no clarity
on the final number of allottees, the unit number that they have
been allotted, the consideration paid and dues remaining. In this
situation, execution of tripartite lease deeds also seems
improbable.
61. Moreover, 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.
62. Consequently, upon a cumulative reading of the above,
there can be no doubt that the project is not in a condition where
possession can be handed over to the allottees. Therefore, it is
clear that at this stage, settlement with those seeking possession
is not possible given the condition of the property. We now
proceed to consider, whether independent thereof, the petitioner
has attempted, bonafidely, to settle all claims of the allottees –
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 52 of 86
was there ever a serious endeavour or a possible attempt to settle
the claims? This is what we proceed to examine next.
NO SETTLEMENT AND NO INTENT TO DO SO
63. One of the primary contentions advanced on behalf of the
allottees and UPSIDA is that the petitioner has neither settled the
claims of the allottees nor ever genuinely intended to do so. It is
submitted that such conduct amounts to a clear violation of
Condition (viii) of the order dated 06.11.2019 by which this
Court granted bail to the petitioner. The said condition reads as:
“(viii) After being released on bail in terms of this order,
the petitioner shall make every possible attempt to settle
the claims of the concerned complainant(s)/informant(s)
as far as possible within six to eight months as ordered
by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala
House Courts while granting bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.38/2018 registered with the Economic Offences
Wing, New Delhi vide order dated 15th May, 2019.”
64. It is contended that adherence to the aforesaid condition
was not a matter of formality but constituted the very foundation
of the order granting liberty to the petitioner. The grant of bail
was conditional in nature, and the language employed by the
Court clearly indicated that such liberty was dependent upon the
petitioner making ‘genuine efforts’ to settle the claims of the
allottees, with the emphasis on ‘shall’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 53 of 86
65. The condition was imposed to ensure that the investors
either receive possession of their units which, of course, had to
be in a legally usable condition or a refund of their money within
a reasonable timeframe. According to the respondent-allottees,
this position was reinforced consistently on several occasions by
subsequent orders of this Court. Reliance has been placed on
order dated 09.02.2024, whereby this Court directed the
petitioner to furnish details of settlement of claims, and also
directed the State to ascertain whether there remained any
claimants whose claims had not been settled. Pertinently, this
Court, vide order dated 13.05.2024, observed that if it were found
that the petitioner was not making bonafide efforts to settle the
claim of even a single allottee, such conduct could itself be a
ground for cancellation of bail. Thereafter, vide order dated
24.01.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit
confirming that the claims of all the investors had been settled
and observed that, “unless the claim of every investor is resolved,
the petitioner cannot continue to avail of the facility of bail”.
Finally, by order dated 20.11.2025, this Court expressed its
prima facie dissatisfaction, observing that the bail condition was
“not being complied with in letter and spirit”, and issued a show-
cause notice as to why his bail should not be cancelled. It is in
this background that the respondent-allottees submit that the
petitioner has failed to comply with the condition in any real or
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 54 of 86
meaningful sense. We have already referred and/or extracted the
orders in the first part of our opinion.
66. 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 fulfil his obligations, and the steps taken are merely
superficial/cosmetic, intended to create an appearance of
compliance. The submissions in this regard have been advanced
in a three-fold manner.
67. Firstly, it is argued that the impediments cited by the
petitioner in executing the tripartite agreements are self-created
and not attributable to UPSIDA. The petitioner has sought to
justify the non-execution of the sub-lease deeds on the ground
that UPSIDA refused to execute such agreements; however, such
a defence is false, misleading and suppressive of material facts.
UPSIDA has, at all times, been ready and willing to execute sub-
lease deeds, subject to the petitioner clearing outstanding
statutory dues and obtaining Completion Certificate, as also
providing the Authority with the final list of allottees. It is
pointed out that approximately Rs.44.89 Crores remain unpaid
towards additional FAR (primarily) and charges under other
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 55 of 86
heads. The petitioner’s challenge to such demands has already
been rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide
order dated 08.09.2025, which has attained finality with the
dismissal of the SLP vide order dated 15.10.2025 titled ‘Satinder
Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’.
68. Additionally, it is noted that the petitioner has issued
allotment letters in the name of GVCTPL, which is not the entity
authorised by UPSIDA as the lawful lessee of the land and had
no valid developmental rights to collect money from the allottees.
UPSIDA only authorises BIIPL, and the conveyance deed could
only be executed for the units allotted by it. Thus, the allotments
made through GVCTPL are not legally valid for registration of
sublease-deeds, and consequently, tripartite agreements cannot
be executed in respect of such allotments. Therefore, it is
submitted that the delay and inability to execute such transfer are
solely attributable to the petitioner.
69. Secondly, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel,
has submitted that the petitioner has failed to comply with the
terms of settlement agreements. Under such agreements, the
petitioner had undertaken to either (i) hand over possession of the
units with clear title within a period of 15 months from the date
of settlement, or (ii) in the alternative, refund the entire amount
received from the allottees along with agreed interest. However,
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 56 of 86
neither of these obligations have been fulfilled. The petitioner did
not take any concrete steps to comply with even a single term of
the settlement agreement, thereby violating the bail condition.
70. Lastly, it is contended that settlement was, in fact,
incapable of being done from the very beginning, as the project
remains incomplete and unfit for habitation and possession, if
any, merely notional. In this regard, reliance has been placed on
various reports forming part of the record. The Status Report
dated 11.09.2024 filed by the IRP appointed by the NCLT
observes that the petitioner has not obtained a Final Competition
Certificate, and that the requisite NOCs, including fire safety and
pollution clearances, have not been issued. The UPSIDA Report
dated 01.05.2025 indicates serious deficiencies in the premises.
It records that only one out of six lifts was functional, and even
that was not in proper working condition. Although electric wires
were installed, no switchboards were present. Essential services,
such as air conditioning, were not operational, rendering the
premises unfit for use, unless complete facilities were provided.
Further, the Observer’s Report dated 15.05.2025 and the Final
Report of the Independent Committee dated 23.01.2026 also
indicate that several portions of the project remain incomplete,
basic infrastructure is lacking, and the units are in deplorable
condition making them unfit for occupation. Hence, it would not
be possible to hand over immediate possession to the allottees. It
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 57 of 86
is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner entered into a
settlement agreement despite being fully aware that possession
could not be handed over with the lease deed executed, within
the agreed timelines, which clearly shows a lack of genuine
intention to hand over possession from the very outset.
71. To substantiate the above submissions, the respondent-
allottees have drawn our attention to several instances to point
out inconsistencies in the petitioner’s affidavits filed before this
Court, and the absence of bonafide efforts to settle. Respondent
no.169, in particular, has contended that initially in the Status
Report dated 16.10.2021 he was placed in the category of
“unsettled but pending in mediation” and not under the category
of allottees who had defaulted in payment. However,
subsequently the petitioner had taken a stand that the allotment
stood cancelled on account of non-payment of balance
consideration, this according to the respondent, is a mere
afterthought contrary to his own record. It was also argued that,
in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it was
recorded that attempts to settle were being made with allottees
including respondent no.169, however despite this, the petitioner
proceeded to unilaterally allot the very same units to other third
parties.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 58 of 86
72. The respondent-allottees have further raised the issue of
double allotment. It is submitted that the same units have been
allotted to more than one allottee. The material on record,
including the petitioner’s own affidavits, is stated to reflect
inconsistencies showing that units earlier allotted to certain
allottees have subsequently been shown as allotted to others.
Therefore, making the settlement not possible.
73. The petitioner, on the other hand, has sought to rebut the
above submissions by contending that he has made genuine and
sincere efforts to settle with the allottees in compliance with
Condition (viii). At the outset, the petitioner has stated on record
that out of a total of 221 allottees before us in the instant writ
petition, 54 allottees have been settled by possession of their
units, and 47 allottees have received refunds pursuant to the
settlement agreements after the grant of bail as on 23.02.2026.
These figures, according to the petitioner, clearly demonstrate
that settlement has not remained merely on paper but has been
effectuated in practice.
74. The petitioner further submits that execution of the
settlement agreements has not been disputed by the respondent-
allottees and was entered into in good faith, with the expectation
that the registration of the units would be facilitated by UPSIDA.
The primary grievance of the allottees is with respect to the
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 59 of 86
registration of their units and execution of the tripartite lease
deed, which is the sole prerogative of UPSIDA and beyond the
control of the petitioner. Despite making repeated representations
dated 10.09.2021; 06.10.2021; 05.04.2023; and 01.07.2024,
UPSIDA has not proceeded to execute the sub-lease deeds and
has raised additional demands, thereby delaying the process of
transfer of title. In these circumstances, the alleged non-
compliance is attributable to external impediments and cannot be
treated as a ground for cancellation of bail.
75. The demand by UPSIDA vide its letter dated 06.08.2024
for additional FAR, according to the petitioner, is illegal and
unsustainable. It is submitted that the petitioner had already paid
the requisite FAR charges way back in the year 2010 and
obtained a Part Completion Certificate in 2015. It is only after a
lapse of 9 years that UPSIDA, belatedly, has raised this demand
of Rs.54.38 Crores towards additional FAR and other charges
from BIIPL. In order to prove his bonafides, the petitioner had
also deposited Rs.8.10 Crores, pursuant to the order dated
20.09.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which
also directed UPSIDA to initiate registration of units. However,
despite such deposit and direction, UPSIDA has not proceeded
with the registration process.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 60 of 86
76. It is further submitted that the petitioner, immediately after
the grant of bail, undertook substantial steps to remove financial
encumbrances affecting the project so as to enable the execution
of conveyance deeds in favour of the allottees. For this, the
petitioner entered into One Time Settlements with Punjab
National Bank and Punjab & Sind Bank, and settled the
outstanding loan account of BIIPL of approximately Rs.116
Crores and obtained “No Dues Certificate” dated 23.12.2021 and
24.08.2022. It is contended that this step was essential, as without
clearing such encumbrances, transfer of units in favour of the
allottees would not have been possible.
77. The petitioner also submitted that the allegation that the
project is incomplete and unfit for possession is misconceived. It
is pointed out that the project had already received a Part
Completion Certificate dated 16.04.2015, a Clarification Letter
dated 27.06.2015, and an Occupancy Certificate dated
03.03.2017, which indicates that construction of the units is
complete. It also submitted that a mall in the same building is
functioning on the basis of these three Certificates. Additionally,
the Final Committee Report dated 23.01.2026 also notes that
despite some deficiencies, the project site is not beyond repair.
The petitioner has, in fact, filed comments to the finding
contained in the Final Report on 04.02.2026, wherein he
proposed certain solutions which he is willing to undertake in
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 61 of 86
order to address the shortcomings. According to the petitioner,
these steps would be in the interest of the project and a large
number of allottees, and would make the units operational and fit
for possession for those allottees who are awaiting registration of
their units.
78. With regard to the objection relating to allotments done
under the name of GVCTPL, the petitioner submits that
GVCTPL was only a facilitating or marketing entity, whereas the
land and development rights always vested with BIIPL, which is
recognised by UPSIDA as the lawful lessee. At all times, BIIPL
retained full legal responsibility to execute sub-lease deeds in
favour of the allottees to whom allotments were made through
GVCTPL. Therefore, this objection of the respondent is stated to
be merely technical and insufficient to invalidate the settlement
process.
79. Insofar as the allegation of double allotment is concerned,
the petitioner submits that such an allegation is misconceived. It
is contended that, in certain cases, earlier allotments were
cancelled due to non-payment of the balance consideration by the
respective allottees, and their units were thereafter reallotted.
According to the petitioner, such reallocation is permissible and
cannot be considered illegal or an instance of double allotment.
Therefore, on the basis of the above, it is submitted that the
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 62 of 86
petitioner has made honest efforts to comply with the condition
of settlement and there has been no wilful or deliberate violation
of the same.
80. Having considered the above submissions and perused the
material placed on record, it is clearly evident that the
requirement was not merely to enter into settlement agreements
or to make an ‘attempt to settle’, but to actually resolve the claims
of the allottees, either by handing over possession with a clear
title or by refunding the principal amounts along with agreed
interests.
81. At the foremost, it should be noted that from the very
inception, it was the clear intent of this Court that the petitioner
takes effective steps to settle the claims of the allottees. The
underlying purpose of the order granting bail was to ensure that
the allottees get the desired relief, either by way of possession or
refund of the amounts due. This Court vide order dated
24.01.2020 clarified that all the aggrieved parties were permitted
to approach the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, to resolve
their disputes. The importance of the said condition was further
strengthened by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2023 whereby
liberty was granted to the aggrieved parties to prefer an
application for cancellation of bail in case of failure to abide by
Condition (viii). Thereafter, this Court, time and again, through
its orders dated 09.02.2024; 13.05.2024 and 24.01.2025
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 63 of 86
repeatedly called upon the petitioner to settle the claims of the
allottees, however, to our dismay he failed to do so.
82. Therefore, in these circumstances, we find it difficult to
accept that the petitioner has made genuine and meaningful
efforts to settle the claims of the allottees. Despite the passage of
time, a large number of allottees have neither received possession
nor refund. Even in cases where settlement agreements have been
executed, the terms thereof have not been fulfilled. These
agreements have remained largely on paper and not resulted in
actual relief to the allottees. For instance, we look at the case of
respondent no. 18, Ms. Charu Saxena, as submitted by Mr. Dhruv
Mehta, learned senior counsel. While a settlement agreement was
reached on 13.03.2020 to settle the disputes in the FIR, either
with possession within 45 days or refund of money being the sale
consideration within 15 months in furtherance of orders passed
by this Court. Despite possession not being handed over, for
whatever reason may be, no refund has been paid till date in
consonance with the mediation agreement. Mr. Sahil Choudhary,
applicant in Contempt Petition No. 75 of 2024 (respondent no.
139) has submitted to similar effect, having entered into a
settlement agreement dated 13.03.2020. In furtherance thereof,
stamp duty totalling up to Rs. 6,72,901/- has also been paid,
however no action has been taken by the petitioner to handover
possession. Respondent nos. 22-Mr. Guru Prasad Banerji; 27-Mr.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 64 of 86
Anil Kumar Nahar; and 28-Ms. Veena Gupta are in the exact
same position. So is the position qua the allottees represented by
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior Ccunsel; Ms. Aditi Mohan,
learned counsel; Mr. Shyam D. Nandan, learned counsel; Ms.
Kumud Lata Das, learned counsel; Divyansh Thakur, learned
counsel; Ms. Akshaya Ganpath, learned counsel; and Mr. Sahil
Sethi, learned counsel.
83. Hence, in our considered view, mere execution of these
agreements, without their implementation, cannot be treated as
compliance with the condition imposed by this Court.
84. The affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner also do not
present a clear or consistent picture. While the petitioner has
listed several allottees as having been ‘fully settled’, the terms of
the settlement agreement themselves indicate that such
settlements were conditional and subject to further steps,
including execution of tripartite sub-lease deeds and handing
over of possession or refund, which have not been taken. It is
pertinent to mention that in majority of the cases the petitioner
has neither refunded the money nor handed over possession. In
cases, where it is claimed that possession is handed over, we find
that it is only notional in nature, as the project till date lacks Final
Completion Certificate and necessary clearances. Therefore,
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 65 of 86
without such compliances, valid possession cannot be said to
have been delivered.
85. In our considered opinion, the attempt to attribute delay or
impediment on UPSIDA is also not convincing, as the
requirement to clear statutory dues, including additional FAR
charges is a necessary precondition for executing sub-lease deed.
As is evident from the record, UPSIDA has been ready to execute
the tripartite agreement contingent on the fact that the petitioner
submits a final, undisputed, floor-wise list of allottees duly
supported by valid Part Completion Certificate and pay the
amount pending towards additional FAR. However, we find that
the petitioner has been hoodwinking. Despite several orders of
this Court, dated 09.02.2024 and 25.08.2025, the petitioner has
failed to provide an authentic record of, (a) the number of
allottees; (b) the total area of the project; (c) number of allottees
settled either through possession or refund; (d) amount of
consideration paid by the allottees; and (e) number of allotments
that stood cancelled due to non-payment. He has also failed to
take genuine steps to obtain a Completion Certificate.
Furthermore, since UPSIDA does not recognise GVCTPL, no
valid tripartite lease could be registered for the units allotted
under its name. Even the Reports on record, as well as the finding
returned by coordinate Bench of this Court as discussed supra,
clearly indicate that the project is not in a condition for handing
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 66 of 86
over possession, owing to incomplete infrastructure and absence
of essential services like operational lifts, air conditioners etc.
86. Respondents have also brought to our attention the issue
of double allotment, which is a matter of concern. The material
placed on record suggests that same units have been allotted to
more than one allottee at different points of time. Although the
petitioner has sought to explain this as re-allotment following
cancellation, we find that the lack of clarity in the records
coupled with the inconsistencies in the affidavits creates
uncertainty regarding status of such units. This, in turn, raises
serious doubts about the feasibility of effecting a lawful and
complete settlement.
87. To give an example, we refer to the allegation of double
allotment raised by respondent no. 169 - Col. Gulshan Singh
Juneja. It has been submitted that in the affidavit submitted by
the petitioner on 24.01.2025, the Unit No. 617 is shown to be
allotted to Mr. Sanjeev Khattar and Unit No. 648 as Mr. Giri Raj
Gupta. Thereafter, in a subsequent affidavit dated 25.08.2025,
Unit No. 617-618 is shown to be allotted to the said respondent
and Unit No. 618 to Mrs. Poonam. Subsequently, in an affidavit
dated 15.09.2025, Unit No. 617 has been shown to be with Mr.
Sanjeev Khattar and Unit No. 648 with Mrs. Sonia Gupta. The
petitioner has only explained this as an ‘inadvertent error’.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 67 of 86
88. To show a representation of the settlement status of the
allottees, a chart depicting the status in the applications filed by
some of the allottees before this Court and the Status Report filed
by the State of U.P. in compliance with order dated 13.12.2024
of this Court is annexed below as ‘A-1’ and ‘A-2’, respectively.
89. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the
settlements were entered into with a bonafide intention of being
fulfilled. The fact that the possession in many cases remains
notional or not handed over, and the failure to refund amounts
within agreed timelines, shows that the said condition has not
been complied with in substance. A chart depicting the same is
annexed as Annexure A-2 to this judgment. The condition
imposed by this Court required real and effective resolution of
claims of the allottees, which has not been achieved.
Accordingly, in our considered opinion, it must be held that the
condition has not been complied with in letter and spirit, and we
find this issue to be in favour of the respondents.
CONDUCT WITH SPECIFIC ALLOTTEES
90. Carrying forward the issue of settlement, we may also
consider the conduct of the petitioner with specific allottees. It
has been alleged against the petitioner that he has interfered with
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 68 of 86
certain allotments by creating ante-dated and fabricated
documents.
91. Specifically, we advert to the submissions raised by Ms.
Aditi Mohan, on behalf of allottees, Mrs. Lauleen Kaur Bhalla
and Mr. Jagvinder Singh Bhalla, applicant in M.A. No. 20977 of
2025. It has been submitted that an allotment letter was issued to
her on 04.08.2007 for unit numbers FF 48,113,136,137,162 and
164. Meanwhile Mr. Jagvinder Bhalla was issued an Allotment
letter for unit numbers UGF 11 on 14.11.2007. Clause 4 of the
letter read that additional charges would be payable on offer of
possession. Clause 21 thereof read that upon failure to fulfil terms
of the Agreement, the earnest money (to the tune of 10% of the
sale consideration) would stand forfeited and the remaining
amount will be refunded.
92. The petitioner submits that BIIPL sent a “final demand
notice/offer of possession” to both the applicants demanding
charges on 30.01.2015 (Mr. Jagvinder Singh Bhalla) and
31.01.2015 (Mrs. Lauleen Kaur Bhalla). Allegedly, due to non-
payment of additional charges, Mr. Bhalla’s allotment came to
be cancelled vide letter dated 13.05.2015. Mrs. Lauleen’s unit
purportedly stood de-allocated on 08.08.2015. The applicant’s
case is that these amounts were sought to be charged, before
completion of construction of their units, which is not in
consonance with the terms of the allotment.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 69 of 86
93. Interestingly, it has been pointed out that while it is the
petitioner’s case that Mr. Bhalla’s allotment was cancelled, in the
Status Report dated 16.10.2021 filed before this Court, Mr.
Bhalla has been shown as “unsettled but pending mediation”.
While Mrs. Lauleen, has been placed under “allottees who have
not made complete payment in terms of the allotment letter”.
Meanwhile, a different stand has been taken in reply to the
applicants’ miscellaneous application, wherein it has been stated
that the units of both the applicants were de-allocated/cancelled
due to default in payment on 08.08.2015 and 13.05.2015.
94. Another aspect of this allotment is that the applicants have
alleged that through ante-dated and fabricated documents, their
units were transferred by BIIPL to GVCTPL on 15.04.2015
which is prior to the purported cancellation and de-allocation
itself. Upon a perusal of the said document, the unit of Mr. Bhalla
is found at S. No. 81 of the list. The applicants submit that they
only became aware of this transaction in 2025. The petitioner
submits that the deed of assignment was for tax efficiency and
the document does not create any third-party rights as alleged.
95. Seeing the above chain of events, the conduct of the
petitioner does not inspire any confidence. Taking the example
of Mr. Bhalla’s units, as discussed supra, on one hand it has been
submitted by the petitioner that his allotment was cancelled due
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 70 of 86
to non-payment of dues, but on the other hand in another
affidavit, he is shown to be ‘pending mediation’.
96. Another example is the submissions raised by respondent
no. 169, Col. Gulshan Singh Juneja. He has been shown to be in
the category of “Balance aggrieved customers who have been
offered possession” and “Customers yet to be settled”. The
response of the petitioner on this aspect states that his unit has
been de-allocated due to non-payment and he must apply for re-
allocation, consequently he is rightly placed under “yet to be
settled”. The respondent has submitted that no concrete proposal
or restoration of allotment has been discussed with him by the
petitioner. This instance is further indicative of his lack of
bonafide intention to settle with the allottees.
97. The allotment to GVCTPL also casts serious doubt on the
petitioner. In our view, these contradictions are indicative of the
lack of his bonafides and intention to settle with the allottees.
98. We also advert to the submissions raised by Mr. Gopal
Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf
of DS Chewing Products LLP. While the petitioner has objected
to DS Chewing, being heard at this stage, it has been submitted
before us that such entity is also an allottee of units in the project.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 71 of 86
99. It is a matter of record that there are various criminal and
civil disputes that are pending inter se DS Chewing, its promoters
and the petitioner. In our view, in these proceedings, we shall not
be going into the merits of these disputes. Especially given that
the Delhi High Court, is seized of the matter concerning the
alleged abduction of the petitioner at the behest of DS Chewing.
However, in its role as an allottee, there is one submission which
is of significant importance.
100. It has been submitted that while the above Agreement,
purporting to allot certain units in the project to GVCTPL, is
dated 15.04.2015; however, it contains clauses referring to GST
which was only introduced only in the year 2017. This directly
points to fabrication by the petitioner before this Court. Ms. Aditi
Mohan, learned counsel has submitted to similar effect. It has
also been pointed out that through this agreement, the petitioner
is deriving commercial benefit by renting out these units, for
rental yield. Consequently, this fabrication not only affects the
allottees, but has direct commercial benefit for the petitioner.
101. We have perused the above Agreement, which has been
annexed in Volume 29; Paragraph 7 of the Agreement, explicitly
reads:
“7. The Intending Allottee(s) shall be liable to pay
directly or if paid by the Company then reimburse to the
Company on demand, the statutory charges and other
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 72 of 86
Levies, Rates, Taxes, Cess, Value Added Tax, Service
Tax and any enhancement/fresh Tax (including GST) as
demanded or imposed by Competent Authorities/Central
Governmental Authorities…."
102. The petitioner himself refers to this Agreement in his
submissions before this Court. It cannot be disputed by any
stretch of imagination that GST was not enacted or applicable at
the time when the Agreement has been alleged to be executed.
This inclusion points directly at the veracity of this document. It
is not an inadvertent or clerical error.
103. Upon this discovery, a heavy burden was cast on the
petitioner to explain this circumstance, which he has failed to do
so. The petitioner has simply responded to this inclusion in the
Agreement, by stating that the mention of the term ‘GST’ was an
anticipatory measure, as GST was an anticipated fiscal reform.
We find no strength in this submission. If the drafting of the
Agreement was “anticipatory” and “forward looking” as alleged
by the petitioner, paragraph 7 would not be the only clause in the
agreement where such inclusion would have been made.
104. This inclusion, which in our view, remains
uncontroverted, points directly at fabrication by the petitioner.
While these proceedings are not a criminal trial, this conduct
again shows the lack of bonafide of the petitioner to settle with
the allottees.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 73 of 86
105. Moreover, it was further submitted that the petitioner has
been creating third party rights illegally by fabricating
documents. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel
and Ms. Aditi Mohan, learned counsel have contended that the
petitioner has unlawfully and fraudulently transferred an area of
4,25,154 sq. ft. in favour of Grand Express Developers Private
Limited
18
, in which the petitioner is alleged to have direct interest.
To give effect to such a transfer, it is submitted, the petitioner had
executed an Assignment Deed dated 10.04.2023 which was
accompanied by a fabricated non-judicial stamp paper. Though
the stamp paper FV 836192 was dated 06.03.2023, upon enquiry
through RTI it was found that the same was actually sold to a
bank on 29.04.2024. After a perusal of the said documents, we
find that prima facie the petitioner has carried out transfers
through fabricated documents at the expense of genuine allottees.
106. We find strength in another argument raised by Ms. Aditi
Mohan, learned counsel. She has pointed out that even if the
allotment to GVCTPL dated 15.04.2015 is considered to be
genuine, subsequent allotments were made to related concerns at
a lower market rate, which showcases his intention for
commercial benefit at the cost of interest of the allottees as well
as a lack of bonafide intention. It has been submitted that the said
allotment was made to GVCTPL at a rate of Rs. 3100/- per square
18
Hereinafter referred to as ‘GEDPL’
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 74 of 86
feet, for a total consideration of Rs. 218,72,77,943/- as per
paragraph 9 thereof. Thereafter, on 06.07.2019, GVCTPL
transferred certain units to Bewealthy, in the same project, at a
rate of only Rs. 1785/- per square feet. Therefore, even if it is the
case that the allotment dated 15.04.2015 is considered to be valid
and bonafide, yet the subsequent allotment renders the entire
chain of transactions extremely suspicious. This sequence again
points at a lack of bonafide intention of the petitioner. In fact, to
surreptitiously benefit himself (for the said company being his
closely held family concern) rather the allottees struggling to
have possession of the units.
COMMISSION OF SIMILAR OFFENCE
107. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the
petitioner has violated Condition (i) imposed by the Court while
granting bail, whereby the petitioner was directed not to commit
any offence similar to the one for which he stands accused. It has
been argued that subsequent to the grant of bail, the petitioner has
engaged in siphoning of funds during the subsistence of the
moratorium.
108. The IRP has contended before this Court that after the
imposition of moratorium under Section 14 IBC by NCLT, an
amount of 74 Crores (Rs.74,68,21,277/-) has been siphoned off
from GVCTPL to entities connected to the close relatives of the
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 75 of 86
petitioner. It is submitted that GVCTPL was incorporated in
26.11.2009 by the petitioner along with his father. The petitioner
was associated with the Company as a Director and held majority
shareholding till 2016. It is the case of the IRP that once the
NCLT admitted GVCTPL into CIRP by order dated 04.12.2023,
a moratorium came into force, which prohibited the transfer or
disposal of the assets or legal rights of the Corporate Debtor.
Despite this, it is alleged that the petitioner, through his close
relatives, continued to operate GVCTPL's accounts and
transferred funds to various related entities for his benefit.
109. According to the IRP, the aforesaid amount was
transferred in different tranches to three entities, namely –
(i) Niche; (ii) Vinamr; and (iii) Bewealthy. All these entities are
stated to be controlled by individuals closely related to the
petitioner, including the members of his immediate family. For
convenience, below is the depiction of the shareholding pattern
of the entities:
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 76 of 86
(a) Niche Builders and Contractors Private Limited
(b) Vinamr Infrastructure Private Limited
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 77 of 86
(c) Bewealthy Properties Private Limited
110. The IRP has particularly relied upon the transactions with
Niche, whereby a sum of Rs.67,71,76,927/- is stated to have been
transferred from the account of GVCTPL between 04.12.2023
and 05.06.2025. The petitioner has admitted these transactions in
his response which was drawn on 13.10.2025 and described them
as “commercial advances”. However, the respondents contend
that this assertion is unfounded, as no agreement or document has
been placed on record to substantiate it. It is further submitted
that even if, arguendo, the transaction is assumed to be a
commercial advance, none of the perquisites under Section 186
of the Companies Act, including passing of a special resolution
and providing requisite disclosures, have been complied with.
According to the respondents, the transfers to Niche were made
with a view to divert the funds of GVCTPL for the benefit of the
petitioner.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 78 of 86
111. Additionally, the IRP has submitted that between
19.03.2024 and 21.03.2024, a sum of Rs.5,60,70,000/- and
Rs.1,35,74,350/- was siphoned off from the account of GVCTPL
to Vinamr and Bewealthy, respectively. According to the
respondents, the petitioner in his response which was drawn on
13.10.2025 admitted these transactions and explained them to be
“repayments”, however, no loan agreement or financial
instrument has been produced to prove such prior liability.
Therefore, this explanation is merely an afterthought and as such
these transactions cannot be treated as lawful in absence of any
documentary evidence. Moreover, it is further submitted that
such transactions cannot be treated as ‘routine’, as once CIRP
commences, all creditors are required to submit their claims
before the IRP to obtain repayment of their dues, and only
payments necessary to maintain the corporate debtor as a going
concern or for the conduct of CIRP are permissible.
112. The respondents have also brought our attention to FIR
No.38/2018 dated 07.03.2018 to contend that similar allegations
of diversion of funds had been levelled against the petitioner in
the past. In the said FIR, it was alleged that instead of completing
the project, the petitioner diverted the hard-earned money of the
allottees for advertising and procuring other projects.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 79 of 86
113. The petitioner, on the other hand, has denied these
allegations and, at the outset, pointed out that the IRP has raised
the issue of siphoning for the first time directly before this Court,
and is attempting to bypass the specific remedies available under
IBC. It is submitted that neither any FIR has been filed nor any
action has been taken under Sections 43 or 46 of IBC. Hence, no
formal accusation exists in the eyes of law.
114. On merits, the petitioner submits that the transactions in
question were routine inter-corporate transactions carried out in
ordinary course business and in consonance with the provisions
of the Companies Act. It is argued that even prior to 04.12.2023,
similar transactions were undertaken with these three entities,
which were never questioned by the IRP. It is the case of the
petitioner that the IRP has selectively relied on debit entries made
on or after 04.12.2023 without disclosing the corresponding
credits. According to the petitioner, from 04.12.2023 till
07.03.2025, GVCTPL received approximately Rs.77.55 Crores
from Vinamr, Bewealthy, Niche and others, out of which an
amount of Rs.74.95 Crores was returned. Therefore, these
transactions do not amount to siphoning.
115. It is also argued by the petitioner that since GVCTPL had
only a limited role in the project, namely marketing and sale of
units, while it was BIIPL which was entirely responsible for the
execution and registration, the inflow and outflow of any money
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 80 of 86
in the said Company has no bearing on the facts of the present
case and the Company's financial transactions cannot be
attributed to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is also submitted that
no funds of the allottees were involved in these transactions.
116. Additionally, the petitioner has argued that there is no
material on record to show that the three entities in question are
related parties falling within the ambit of Section 5(24)(a) of IBC.
It is submitted that neither the director nor the shareholder of the
aforesaid three companies were related to any of the
directors/shareholders of GVCTPL at the relevant time.
Pertinently, the petitioner has pointed out that, since a stay was
in effect on the CIRP proceedings until 07.03.2025 i.e., the date
of the NCLAT order clarifying the nature of stay, there was no
embargo on undertaking commercial business transactions. Even
IRP, in his Status Report dated 02.04.2025, stated that he had not
taken control of the corporate debtor in view of the stay granted
by the NCLAT. According to the petitioner, this shows that the
transactions carried out between 07.12.2023 and 07.03.2025
were done with a bonafide belief that the CIRP proceedings stood
stayed and the corporate debtor was entitled to undertake such
transactions.
117. In sur-rejoinder, the respondents have reiterated that once
CIRP commenced, all assets of GVCTPL were to be preserved
for the benefit of creditors, and the transfer of funds during the
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 81 of 86
operation of the moratorium is ex facie impermissible. IRP
further clarified that it is not, in the present proceedings, seeking
recovery of the amounts or attempting to circumvent the
mechanism under IBC, but is merely placing on the record the
conduct of the petitioner which is in contravention of the
established legal principles. IRP will prefer an appropriate
application for recovery under Section 14 read with Section 60(5)
of IBC before the NCLT at the appropriate stage.
118. Having considered the submissions, we find that the
allegations of siphoning of funds emanate from FIR(s) registered
against the petitioner, which are presently under challenge in
quashing proceedings instituted at his instance before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In view of the pendency of such
proceedings, we refrain from returning any conclusive finding or
expressing any opinion on the merits of these allegations, so as
to avoid making any observation which may prejudice the
petitioner.
119. At the same time, it is a matter of record that the
transactions in question were undertaken during the period of
moratorium. The order dated 07.12.2023, passed by NCLAT,
required that the status quo be maintained. In such circumstances,
the corporate debtor ought not to have undertaken transactions of
this nature. The fact that these transfers were effected despite the
moratorium and operating status quo prima facie lends credence
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 82 of 86
to the submissions of the respondents and does not, at this stage,
reflect a bonafide conduct on the part of the petitioner.
120. 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.
121. Accordingly, the conduct of the petitioner, as emerging at
this stage, is not fully consistent with the obligations attached to
the grant of bail.
CONCLUSION
122. Before parting with the case at hand, we must observe that
we are not impressed with the conduct of the petitioner with the
IRP. Given that statutory remedies against the admission order of
IBC proceedings have been exhausted, the complete management
and affairs of BIIPL ought to be handed over to the IRP, at the
earliest.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 83 of 86
123. We must also mention here that for the interest of the
allottees; this Court had made efforts at settlement till the last
date of hearing. This Court had indicated that for settlement, the
petitioner should make an unconditional offer where he infuses
funds into the project to carry out the necessary renovations as
pointed out by the three Reports, clear the dues raised by
UPSIDA for the execution of tripartite lease deeds with the
allottees and unconditionally handover possession to the
allottees. For this purpose, this Court had also indicated that if
such a proposal comes forth, it would implore upon the IRP to
come on board, in the interest of the allottees. However, this
Court was informed that the above terms are not feasible for the
petitioner. 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.).
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 84 of 86
124. Another issue that has been raised by the petitioner is that
the present two-judge Bench lacks the jurisdiction to modify or
alter the orders clubbing the subject FIRs dated 12.05.2022 and
08.08.2023, as it was passed by a three-judge Bench. While we
are not delving into this issue in depth as we are concerned with
the cancellation of bail at this stage, however, we find reason to
agree with the submission of Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
learned senior counsel on this aspect. It has been submitted that
on occasions, 2-judge Benches of this Court have modified or
altered 3-judge Bench decisions, for instance: Arjun Gopal v.
Union of India
19
and All India Judges Association
20
. Needless
to add, we clarify that it is open for any party to move an
appropriate application before this Court on the issue of
clubbing/de-clubbing of FIRs. Any such application, if so made,
shall be decided on its own merits.
125. 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.
126. Resultantly, the bail granted to the petitioner is cancelled.
The petitioner to surrender within one week from the date of this
judgment. Needless to add that any observations made
hereinabove are only for the purposes of cancellation of bail.
19
(2017) 16 SCC 280.
20
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2574.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 85 of 86
127. The petitioner may apply for regular bail afresh after a
period of twelve months and subject to fully complying with the
orders passed in the insolvency proceedings. It is directed that the
passport of the petitioner is not to be released by the Trial Court
without the leave of this Court.
128. Given that this Court has arrived at the finding that the
conditions of bail have been violated, Condition (ix) of the order
granting bail becomes of relevance, which reads as follows:
“(ix) If the petitioner fails to abide by any of the above
conditions intentionally and if it is so established before
this Court, no less than 50% of the amount deposited by
him in this Court in terms of this order [Clause (vi)
above] shall stand forfeited.”
129. Consequently, 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. The remaining amount along with proportionate
accrued interest be transmitted to the IRP for the purposes of the
IBC proceedings. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to ensure
immediate compliance by the concerned Trial Court in disbursal
of the above amounts.
M.A. No. 239 of 2024 Page 86 of 86
130. The Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed in the above
terms. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
………….……..………… ……………… …..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………….……..……… ………………. ……..J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi
April 2, 2026
S. NoM.A. / I.A. No. Filed By
Total
Consideration
Consideration
Paid
Date of
Payment
Balance Payment
Settlement
Entered into
Date of Settlement Seeking Possession or Refund Status of Settlement
Relief Sought in
IA
Possession Refund Possession Refund
1 2568/2024 Allottee 70,63,089 60,03,626 10,59,463 Not on Record Arbitral Award
No Settlement
Agreement
Yes Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
2 1053/2024 Allottee 94,63,917 80,00,000 01.02.2012 14,63,917 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
3 241/2024 Allottee 24,34,926 18,00,000 22.11.2011 6,34,926 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
4 242/2024 Allottee 26,35,186 20,00,000 19.11.2011 6,35,186 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
5 741/2025 Allottee 1,93,18,694 1,45,00,000 Not on Record 48,18,694 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
6 240/2024 Allottee 28,34,325 20,00,000 14.11.2011 8,34,325 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
7
5705/2024 &
5707/2024
Allottee 37,08,900 30,53,547 Not on Record 6,55,353 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Impleadment
(5705/2024) &
cancel bail
(5707/2024)
8 1119/2025 Allottee 26,33,400 20,36,400 Not on Record 5,97,000 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
9 1120/2025 Allottee 51,42,136 17,62,281 06.05.2009 33,79,855 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
10 1351/2025 Allottee 31,87,961 30,28,563 Not on Record 1,59,398 No Yes Yes Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Impleadment
11
1351/2025 [Same as
above]
Allottee 33,64,361 31,96,143 Not on Record 1,68,218 No Yes Yes Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Impleadment
12 1067/2025 Allottee 50,27,640 50,19,878 Not on Record 7,762 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
13 244/2024 Allottee 24,92,908 19,00,000 30.11.2011 5,92,908 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
14 1451/2024 Allottee 52,87,135 54,64,432/ 06.12.2020 1,77,297(excess) Yes 06.12.19 Not Applicable Not Applicable Settled Settled Cancel Bail
15
87698/2024 (MA -
908/2024)
Allottee 61,13,172 57,35,950 Not on Record 3,77,222 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
16 245/2024 Allottee 46,38,776 50,03,752 Not on record5,91,313 (excess) No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
17 246/2024 Allottee
38,28,335 and
40,25,338 (Taken 2
Units)
35,52,000 and
37,00,651
(Respectively for 2
Units)
Not on record
2,76,335 and
3,24,687
No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
18 75/2024 Allottee 69,97,160
59,50,000 (Basic
Sale Price)
& 6,72,901(Stamp
duty)
1. 02.02.2011
2. 07.10.2021
10,47,160
(exculding stamp
duty)
yes 13.03.20 Yes Not Applicable
Defective
Possession without
transferring the title
deed.
Not Applicable
Initiate
Contempt
Proceedings
19 243/2024 Allottee 26,06,760 20,00,000 30.11.2011 6,06,760 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
20 1122/2025 Allottee 90,00,000 90,00,000 Not on Record NIL No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel bail
21 1121/2025 Allottee 31,49,600 23,50,000 Not on Record 7,99,600 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel bail
22 35/2025 Allottee 37,01,586 30,00,000
16.11.24
2. 04.06.2010
7,01,586 Yes 16.11.2010 Sought Possession Not Applicable Not Executed Not Executed Cancel bail
Annexure A1 1
S. NoM.A. / I.A. No. Filed By
Total
Consideration
Consideration
Paid
Date of
Payment
Balance Payment
Settlement
Entered into
Date of Settlement Seeking Possession or Refund Status of Settlement
Relief Sought in
IA
23 1123/2025 Allottee 1,21,14,400 1,11,11,540 Not on record 10,02,860 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel Bail
24 1383/2024 Allottee 46,13,700 10,64,700 Not on record 35,49,000 Yes 13.03.2020 Sought Possession
Refund in the
alternative
Not executed Not executed Cancel Bail
25 742/2025 Allottee 36,85,680 17,53,000 09.01.2010 19,32,680 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable cancel bail
26 54289/2025 Allottee 15,00,00,000 9,00,00,000 Not on record 6,00,00,000 Yes 21.12.2010 Sought Possession No refund not executed not executed
intervention
application
27
CRL MP No.
258074/2024 (Vol.
69)
Allottee
R10- 40,87,312
R11- 16,49,375
R18- 33,20,000
R20- 27,26,945
R21- 28,71,848
R22- 54,62,100
R27- 19,31,952
R28- 28,00,000
R10 - 35,20,257
R11- 16,49,375
R18- 22,20,000
R20- 25,90,600
R21- 25,00,000
R22- 54,62,100
R27- 16,00,000
R28- 28,00,000
Not on record
R10-5,67,055
R11- None
R18- 11,00,000
R20- 1,36,345
R21- 3,71,848
R22- None
R27- 3,31,952
R28- None
Yes
R 10- 29/01/2020
R 11- 13/03/2020
R 18- 13/03/2020
R 20- 10/02/2020
R 21- 03/12/2019
R 22- 13/03/2020
R 27- 13/03/2020
R 28- 17/02/2019
Sought Possession
Refund through
Mediation
R- 10
R- 11
R- 18
R- 20
R- 21
R- 22
R- 27
Settlement
Agreement of R-28
Not executed
Cancel bail +
Refund
28239/2024 (Vol. 32.) Allottee 51,90,00,000 7,00,00,000 20.09.2024 44,90,00,000 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Cancel bail
29908/2024 (Vol. 48) Allottee 61,13,172 57,35,950 04.10.2012 3,77,222 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable -----
30
54153/2025 (Vol.
42)
Allottee 1,20,51,42,000 1,16,34,75,000Not on record 4,16,67,000 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Intervention
Application
31
54304/2025 (Vol.
44)
Allottee Not on record 17,81,50,000 16.02.2024 Not on record No ---- Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Intervention
Application
32 245950/2025 Allottee 2,00,00,000 Not on record Not on record Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Not applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Disclose status
of commercial
buildup alloted
to the applicant
33 240418/2025 Allottee 2,00,00,000 Not on record Not on record Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Not applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Intervene in Writ
Petition
34 246442/2025 Allottee Not on record Not on record Not on record Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Disclose status
of commercial
buildup alloted
to the applicant
35 54304/2025 Allottee Not on record
4,45,50,000 (to
Grand Developers
Pvt Ltd) &
13,36,00,000 (to
HIRISE Hospitality
Pvt Ltd)
Not on record Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Disclose exact
status of the area
alloted to
applicant
36239/2024 (Vol. 15) Allottee 54,38,00,000 8,10,00,000 not on record 46,28,00,000 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
37
168312/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee 91,58,700 91,58,700 Not on record Nil No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Yes with 12% interestNot applicable Not applicable
Refund the
invested amount
& Cancel Bail
38
224913/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee 40,00,000 40,00,255 Not on record 255 (Excess) No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Same Not applicable Not applicable
Refund the
invested amount
& Cancel Bail
2
S. NoM.A. / I.A. No. Filed By
Total
Consideration
Consideration
Paid
Date of
Payment
Balance Payment
Settlement
Entered into
Date of Settlement Seeking Possession or Refund Status of Settlement
Relief Sought in
IA
39
235590/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee Not on record 26,00,000 Not on record Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Same Not applicable Not applicable
Refund the
invested amount
& Cancel Bail
40
232221/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee Not on record 29,81,317 Not on record Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Same Not applicable Not applicable
Refund the
invested amount
& Cancel Bail
41
222867/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee Not on record 32,25,658 Not on record Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Same Not applicable Not applicable
Refund the
invested amount
& Cancel Bail
42
237134/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee 93,79,800 93,79,800 Not on record Nil No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Same Not applicable Not applicable
Refund the
invested amount
& Cancel Bail
43
222821/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee Not on record 17,00,000
17.01.2011
(2,00.000);
08.02.2011
(8,00,000);
06.04.2011
(7,00,000)
Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Same Same Not applicable Not applicable
Refund the
invested amount
& Cancel Bail
44
226536/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee
52,56,000 each (2
Units- 613 & 614)
17,52,000 (Unit
613) & 18,43,500
(Unit 614)
Not on record
35,04,000 (Unit
613) & 34,12,500
(Unit 614)
No
No Settlement
Agreement
Same Same Not applicable Not applicable
Cancel Bail &
Refund invested
amount
45
226534/2025 (Vol.
51)
Allottee 95,36,524 50,00,000 26.02.2011 45,36,524 No
No Settlement
Agreement
Same Same Not applicable Not applicable
Cancel Bail &
Refund invested
amount
46
20775/2025 (Vol.
88)
Allottee Not on record Not on record Not on record Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Cancel bail
47242/2024 (Vol. 89) Allottee Not on record 77,50,000 Not On RecordNot on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not on record
48 55311/2026 Allottee
63,05,400 + add.
charges @ Rs. 250
per sq. ft.
63,86,300
2.04.2012
(10,00,000);
30.06.2010
(25,00,000);
04.05.2010
(15,00,000)
Not on record No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Refund Not Applicable Not Applicable
Impleadment,
Refund the
invested amount
with 12%
interest and
Cancel Bail.
49 59785/2026 Allottee 56,69,384 56,69,384 Not on record Nil No
No Settlement
Agreement
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Impleadment,
Refund the
invested amount
with 12%
interest and
Cancel Bail.
3
Annexure A2
Legal Notes
Add a Note....