'1st Concern Is Investors': Top Court Warns Greater Noida Builder On Refunds

Days after a Supreme Court-appointed panel found that the Grand Venice project in Greater Noida is unfit for occupancy, extending the wait for buyers, who have already spent 15 years hoping to get possession, the top court came down hard on the builder, giving him a day to specify whether he could process refunds for those who want out. The court warned it would hear petitions seeking the cancellation of his bail if this was not done.

Hearing petitions related to the project on Tuesday, a bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol directed Satinder Singh Bhasin, the promoter of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL), which is executing the Grand Venice Mall project, to file an affidavit stating whether he can repay the principal amount and interest to 121 allottees who now want refunds instead of possession of the shops they had paid for.

The bench asked Bhasin to submit the affidavit by Wednesday afternoon, stating that it would hear the matter again at 1 pm.

"Our first concern is for the gullible investors who have been stuck for several years," the bench emphasised.

The court also said it would give the promoter time to respond to proposed repair works at the project site and directed him to file a separate affidavit on this within a week.

The directions came after a committee appointed by the top court flagged that the commercial complex was unfit for occupancy and pointed to large-scale negligence by the developer.

'Done Nothing'

During the hearing, Justice N Kotiswar Singh, referring to the committee's report uploaded on the Supreme Court website last Friday, remarked, "It looks like you have done nothing. We would need videography to look further."

Justice Karol drew attention to portions of the report stating that the members of the inspection committee had to climb ten floors as lifts were not functional, and that the promoter had allegedly left the site while the inspection was underway.

"That is disturbing as it shows non-cooperation on his part," Justice Karol said.

Petitions On Bail

The Supreme Court had, on November 6, 2019, granted bail to Bhasin subject to a few conditions. Some aggrieved buyers, who are yet to get possession of shops in the Grand Venice commercial complex, have also sought the cancellation of his bail.

The bench warned Bhasin it would proceed to consider these applications.

"You should be ready to deposit money for refund, otherwise we are very serious," the court cautioned.

"We are mindful of your liberty and do not want to curtail it. But they (investors) are seeking curtailment of your liberty... We do not want these poor people to suffer. These gullible people are suffering. We are only saying let us begin with those who want money back," Justice Karol observed.

The court also flagged allegations by one allottee that his shop had been rented out by the promoter and that he was not receiving the rent.

Builder's Take

Appearing for Bhasin, senior advocate Shyam Divan told the bench that the promoter was willing to refund the principal amount, but there was a dispute over payment of interest.

Divan also assured the court that repair work at the premises would be completed under the committee's supervision within six to eight weeks and that Bhasin was committed to raising funds for the purpose.

However, he contested the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) report relied upon by the committee, calling it "false and incorrect", and said a detailed rebuttal would be placed before the court.

The CPWD report had flagged large-scale deviations from sanctioned plans at the Grand Venice commercial complex, noting that while approvals were granted for a 24-storey structure, the completion plan reflects only 14 floors, alongside major discrepancies in floor areas, layout changes, and the omission of a proposed sixth cinema screen.

It also found that essential services such as generators and transformers are inadequate, parking is shared across buildings, and basic amenities, including water supply, toilets and staircases, remain unfinished.

The CPWD report, attached with the Supreme Court panel report, warned that the structure has begun deteriorating, with facade stones and tiles falling and corrosion setting into reinforcements, concluding that the units are not fit even for partial handover as significant finishing work and core services remain pending.

The court-appointed committee, however, noted that the project is not beyond repair, adding that while the complex cannot be considered functional in its present state and suffers from serious quality concerns, its structural framework is intact and could be restored through a closely monitored technical and regulatory remediation plan.