Bhubaneswar: JSW Steel has secured relief from the Odisha High Court in two disputes involving alleged shortfalls in mineral dispatch from its Jajang iron ore block, with the court quashing a demand of ₹696.32 crore and setting aside a separate demand of ₹1,472.69 crore for fresh consideration.
The company disclosed the developments in a regulatory filing on Sunday, stating that the judgments were pronounced on October 16, 2026. The proceedings arose from separate petitions challenging demands issued by mining authorities in Joda, Odisha.
While the court’s decision removes the earlier demand relating to FY21, the larger FY25 demand has been referred back to the concerned authority for reconsideration. The latter matter is therefore not finally resolved.
Odisha High Court Quashes ₹696.32 Crore Demand
The first case concerned a demand of ₹696.32 crore linked to an assessed shortfall in mineral dispatch from the Jajang iron ore block during the first year of the Mine Development and Production Agreement.
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Add INDYASTORY on GoogleThe relevant period ran from June 27, 2020, to June 26, 2021. The Joint Director of Mines, Joda, issued the demand in September 2021.
According to JSW Steel’s regulatory disclosure, the Odisha High Court disposed of the matter in line with its judgment dated April 20, 2026, in another petition and related cases.
Based on the conclusions and directions in that earlier judgment, the company said it believes the demand letter dated September 6, 2021, along with a corrigendum issued on September 7, 2021, stands quashed.
The ruling provides relief to JSW Steel from the disputed FY21 demand.
₹1,472.69 Crore FY25 Demand Sent Back for Fresh Review
In a separate case, the Odisha High Court set aside a demand of ₹1,472.69 crore issued by the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda, on August 21, 2025.
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Add INDYASTORY on GoogleThe demand related to an alleged shortfall in mineral dispatch during the fifth year of the Mine Development and Production Agreement for the Jajang iron ore block. The assessment period covered June 27, 2024, to June 26, 2025.
The demand was raised under Rule 12-A of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016.
However, the court did not finally dispose of the underlying dispute in JSW Steel’s favour. Instead, it remitted the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration in light of the legal position set out in the High Court’s April 20, 2026, judgment.
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Add INDYASTORY on GoogleThe authority will need to reconsider the matter in accordance with the court’s directions. The ultimate outcome of the FY25 demand therefore remains subject to that process.
JSW Steel Challenged Both Mining Demands
JSW Steel had approached the Odisha High Court through separate petitions seeking relief against the demand letters issued by mining authorities in Joda.
Both disputes concerned assessed shortfalls in mineral dispatch from the company’s Jajang iron ore block, but they related to different periods under the mining agreement.
The company said it took additional time to review the judgments before making the regulatory disclosure, explaining the delay in reporting the developments.
What the Court’s Decisions Mean for JSW Steel
The two rulings provide different forms of relief.
The ₹696.32 crore FY21 demand has been quashed, according to the company’s disclosure. In the FY25 case, the ₹1,472.69 crore demand has been set aside and referred for fresh consideration, leaving the underlying issue open for further review.
Together, the two disputed demands total approximately ₹2,169 crore. However, this combined figure should not be treated as a confirmed financial saving for JSW Steel because the larger FY25 matter remains unresolved.
The next significant development will be the concerned authority’s fresh consideration of the FY25 case and any subsequent orders or regulatory disclosures by the company.
For investors, the distinction between a quashed demand and a matter remanded for reconsideration is important when assessing the financial implications of the High Court’s decisions.
