- within Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives and HR
- with readers working within the Technology and Retail & Leisure industries
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court ("Court"), vide its judgment dated January 2, 2026 in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick (Civil Appeal Number 13628 of 2025), has, inter alia, held that a joint company petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") is maintainable for initiation of insolvency proceedings against two separate companies.
Brief Background:
M/s Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited ("Bhasin Limited") launched a real estate project in 2005. It entered into a joint venture agreement with M/s Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited ("Grand Venezia") in 2009, granting it marketing rights for the sale of units in the project. The units under the project were allotted to buyers. However, construction was not complete, and possession of the units could not be delivered by the stipulated time. In consequence, the 141 (one hundred forty?one) allottees of the real estate project filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code, bearing No. CP (IB) 646/PB/2021 ("Petition") against Grand Venezia and Bhasin Limited ("Corporate Debtors") before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi ("NCLT").
The NCLT admitted the Petition, observing that the interlinkage of related corporate debtors is beneficial for value maximisation and for continuation as going concerns after completion of insolvency processes. With regard to the threshold prescribed under the proviso to Section 7(1) of the Code, the NCLT noted that the allottees of 103 (one hundred three) units of the project (excluding joint allottees of single units from 141) had filed the petition, fulfilling the threshold of 100 (one hundred) allottees.
The erstwhile directors of the Corporate Debtors, being aggrieved by the order of the NCLT, filed appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), which were dismissed. The said dismissal was thereafter assailed before the Supreme Court.
Issues before the Court:
The core issue raised before the Court was whether the joint petition filed by the allottees under Section 7 against both Corporate Debtors was maintainable.
Decision of the Court:
The Court affirmed the findings of the NCLT and the NCLAT's confirmation of the same in appeal, and dismissed the appeals filed by the erstwhile directors of the Corporate Debtor. The Court held that the company petition instituted under Section 7 of the Code against both Corporate Debtors by the allottees of 103 units was maintainable. It was observed that the petitioners duly established the financial debt and its default against the units allotted to them.
With regard to the contention that a single company petition could not have been filed against two separate companies, the Court observed that since the Corporate Debtors were jointly answerable to the allottees, filing a joint company petition against them was justified. The Court noted that NCLAT, at earlier occasions in Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Sachet Infrastructure Private Limited (2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 592) and Mamatha v. Amb Infrabuild Private Limited (2018 SCC Online NCLAT 785), had allowed group insolvency proceedings against multiple companies. These decisions were not interfered with by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 1010 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 12069 of 2018, respectively.
The Court observed that, in the instant case, the Corporate Debtors were intrinsically linked to each other and had common obligations to the project's allottees. The project was to be undertaken essentially by Bhasin Limited. Grand Venezia was incorporated solely to enter into an agreement in relation to the sale of the project's units. It was found that the two companies had common directors; demand notices and possession letters were issued by Bhasin Limited to the allottees of Grand Venezia; and payment receipts and communications to the allottees were issued interchangeably by the Corporate Debtors. Thus, the Court observed that the joint insolvency process was in the interests of the Corporate Debtors, maximising asset realisation.
Please find attached a copy of the judgement, here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
