Who is taxi driver Bhart Bhushan, the CEO behind developer’s staggering $3.6billion collapse – but is still building a luxury compound in western Sydney…and just shattered the dreams of 25,000 families?
The Bathla Group, a Sydney property developer run by Bhart Bhushan and his brother Rajinder Mohan, has entered voluntary administration, leaving up to 25,000 homes in limbo and putting roughly 500 jobs at risk. Mr Bhushan, who founded the company in 1997 after working as a taxi driver, blamed a "perfect storm" of weaker sales, tax changes and rising construction costs, though attention has also turned to the family's ongoing construction of a luxury compound in western Sydney even as the business collapses.
Administrators from Teneo have been appointed to assess Bathla's finances and hold urgent talks with lenders, with the company believed to owe some $3.6 billion to private credit firms and other creditors. Bathla built budget-friendly estates, townhouses and apartments in growing Sydney suburbs, including a 339-apartment Rouse Hill project promoted just last week. Meanwhile, the family's five-hectare Mount Vernon property, owned by Mr Mohan, is being developed into a home with an eight-car underground garage, pool, tennis court and gym, originally costed at $3.57 million in 2021, despite Mr Bhushan reportedly having just $390,000 in personal assets.
- Bathla Group collapses, leaving 25,000 homes in limbo
- Company owes an estimated $3.6 billion to creditors
- Bhushan family still building luxury Sydney mansion amid crisis
New here? Start with this
Bathla Group is a Sydney-based property developer, led by brothers Bhart Bhushan and Rajinder Mohan, that built affordable homes, townhouses and apartments across growing suburbs of the city. Mr Bhushan started the company in 1997 after previously working as a taxi driver, and it grew into a significant player in Sydney's residential construction sector. The firm has now gone into voluntary administration, meaning outside administrators have taken control of its finances while it tries to work out a way forward with lenders.
The collapse matters because of its scale: Bathla reportedly owes around $3.6 billion to creditors, and as many as 25,000 homebuyers who bought properties still under construction, along with roughly 500 employees, now face uncertainty over whether their projects and jobs will proceed. Administrators from the firm Teneo have been brought in to assess the company's position.
Separately, questions have arisen over a large private property in western Sydney linked to the family, which is being built out with high-end features, drawing attention because of the contrast with the financial difficulties of the business and the personal asset position reported for Mr Bhushan.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics argue that continuing to build an opulent family compound, complete with an eight-car garage, pool, tennis court and gym, while a company owing $3.6 billion collapses and up to 25,000 families face uncertainty raises legitimate questions about accountability and governance. They note the awkward contrast with Mr Bhushan's declared personal assets of just $390,000, and argue that directors and their families should not appear to enjoy lavish lifestyles while creditors, staff and homebuyers absorb the fallout. On this view, administrators and the public are entitled to scrutinise whether family wealth was properly separated from company risk, since transparency here matters for trust in the wider property industry.
The case against
Defenders would point out that the Mount Vernon property is legally owned by Mr Bhushan's brother rather than by Mr Bhushan or the company, and that the build was reportedly costed and begun years before the administration, suggesting a long-standing family project rather than funds diverted from a failing business. They would argue that entering voluntary administration is itself a responsible, lawful step taken to protect creditors and pursue an orderly resolution, and that pinning personal blame on one executive risks scapegoating him for sector-wide pressures, such as falling sales, tax changes and rising construction costs, that have affected many developers. They might add that judging a founder's decades of delivering affordable housing on the basis of one unrelated family property is neither fair nor proof of wrongdoing.