A tense hearing unfolded in the Supreme Court of India as the bench examined whether real estate developer Satinder Singh Bhasin had violated key bail conditions granted in the long-running Grand Venice project case.
The matter came up through multiple applications filed by homebuyers seeking cancellation of bail, alleging non-compliance and financial irregularities.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to 2019 when Bhasin approached the top court seeking consolidation of multiple FIRs filed by investors in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. These FIRs alleged non-delivery of units, misuse of funds, and irregularities in land allotment.
The Court granted bail on strict conditions, including:
- Deposit of ₹50 crore
- No tampering with evidence
- Settlement of claims within a fixed timeline
Over the years, disputes continued over incomplete construction, pending settlements, and regulatory issues involving authorities like UPSIDA.
The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, expressed serious concern over the petitioner’s conduct after grant of bail.
“The condition requiring deposit was imposed on the petitioner personally… it required bona fide compliance,” the Court observed.
Read also:- Minor Cannot Be Denied Hearing: Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Succession Certificate
A major issue before the Court was the source of the ₹50 crore deposit made as a bail condition.
- The Court noted that the amount did not come from the petitioner’s personal funds
- Instead, funds were sourced from company accounts and related entities
- No proper approvals or board resolutions were placed on record
The bench found this problematic under company law principles.
“The deposit through a purported loan… in the absence of statutory compliance cannot be sustained,” the Court stated.
It further noted:
“Not a single rupee has been invested from the personal funds of the petitioner.”
Read also:- Patna High Court Questions Aadhaar Correction Delays, Directs UIDAI to Act Swiftly
The Court also examined whether the developer had genuinely attempted to settle claims of investors, which was a central condition of bail.
Despite multiple opportunities over nearly six years, the Court recorded dissatisfaction.
“We are not satisfied… that he has made a genuine effort to settle the dispute with all the investors,” the bench earlier noted.
Reports placed before the Court indicated:
- Several investors still awaiting resolution
- Some settlements allegedly incomplete
- Construction deficiencies in project units
Read also:- No Oral Inquiry, No Valid Dismissal: Supreme Court Sets Aside UP Cooperative Federation Action
The proceedings also intersect with insolvency proceedings under the IBC, where an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) raised allegations of fund diversion.
The Court allowed the IRP to participate, noting:
“It is imperative to consider the contentions of the IRP… as custodian of records of those companies.”
At this stage, the Court has not yet cancelled bail, but has taken a serious view of the alleged violations.
Read also:- Karnataka HC Quashes FIR, Says Family Disputes Should Not Be Criminalised Without Evidence
It issued a show cause notice asking why:
- Bail should not be cancelled
- At least 50% of the deposited amount should not be forfeited
“In view of the above… we deem it appropriate to issue a Show Cause Notice,” the Court held.
The matter remains under consideration, with the Court examining compliance with bail conditions and investor settlements.
Case Details
Case Title: Satinder Singh Bhasin vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2024
in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 242 of 2019
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol
Decision Date: 26 February 2026
