Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick 2026 INSC 104 - IBC - NCLT Rules
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 7,9,10 ; National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - Rule 28 - Till the objections in an application filed under Sections 7, 9 or 10 of the Code are removed, it is not to be treated as an application validly filed, as it is only after the application is complete in every respect that it is required to be entertained. [Context: In this case, SC held : The mere filing of the company petition on 07.07.2021 did not result in the same being ‘registered’ on the file of the NCLT and it was only after rectification/amendment of the petition and upon its refiling, with the defects therein cured, that the same would have been registered. It was only after ‘registration’ of the company petition takes place under Rule 28(4) of the NCLT Rules that it would have been impermissible for the petitioning allottees to make any changes therein without the leave of the NCLT. As the changes in question were made by them prior to that event, no adverse inference can be drawn against them to non-suit them on that ground.]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 7,9,10 - Can a joint company petition be filed for initiation of insolvency process against two separate companies? In this case, SC held: The corporate debtors were intrinsically linked and that it would be in their interest to have a joint insolvency process so as to maximise asset realisation. In any event, as they were jointly answerable to the allottees, the filing of a single company petition against them was justified.
Case Info
Case name: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors (with connected Civil Appeals Nos. 13779 and 13812 of 2025).
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 104.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Judgment date: 2 January 2026, Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction).
Statutes / laws referred:Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – especially Section 7 and its second proviso (threshold for allottees in real estate projects); National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – particularly Rules 28 and 29; Right to Information Act, 2005; Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Area Building Regulations, 2004 – Regulation 2.16.0 on Occupancy Certificate; lease and allotment conditions of Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA).
Caselaws and citations mentioned:
- Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 (on relevant date for counting 100 allottees threshold).
- Surendra Trading Company v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited & Ors, (2017) 16 SCC 143 (on completeness/valid filing of IBC applications).
- Gurdial Singh & Ors v. Raj Kumar Aneja & Ors, (2002) 2 SCC 445 (on alteration of pleadings; distinguished due to NCLT Rules).
- Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Sachet Infrastructure Private Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 592 (group corporate insolvency in township project; affirmed by SC in Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 1010 of 2020).
- Mist Avenue Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitin Batra & Ors, (2025) 261 Comp Cas 516 = 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2915 (joint insolvency for closely connected real-estate companies).
- Mamatha v. AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, (2019) 5 Comp Cas-OL 130 = 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 785 (Section 7 maintainable jointly against two collaborating corporate debtors).
- AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. v. Mamatha & Anr, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2410 (SC order affirming Mamatha).
Brief summary (three sentences):The Supreme Court upheld the admission of a joint Section 7 IBC petition filed by allottees of 103 commercial units against two closely linked companies, Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the statutory threshold for allottees is tested on the date of a properly registered, defect‑free application and that a single petition can validly initiate a group corporate insolvency process where the debtors are intrinsically connected in one real estate project. The Court rejected arguments based on alleged settlements and “completed construction”, relying instead on UPSIDA’s position, building regulations, and on‑site reports showing incomplete works and absence of valid occupancy/completion and tripartite sub‑lease deeds, so default stood proved. Consequently, all three civil appeals, including Satinder Singh Bhasin’s separate challenge to the refusal to accept his post‑judgment “settlement” deposit, were dismissed.
