The refund of Rs 646 crore that the Bombay High Court ordered must now be deposited with the Supreme Court registry while the appeal in the Reliance BKC lease dispute is pending.
New Delhi: Issuing notice on an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment that had quashed premium demands against Reliance Industries Limited over a convention centre and commercial complex in the Bandra-Kurla Complex, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority to deposit about Rs 646.78 crore with the Court registry by November 6 [Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Reliance Industries Limited].
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu comprised the bench. It fixed October 30 for counter-affidavits and November 6 for rejoinders, with the connected matters to be heard on November 18.
The deposit and how it came about
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Reliance, suggested that the refund could be made against a fresh bank guarantee to protect MMRDA’s interests. The Bench said:
Whatever is the amount directed to be refunded, you deposit, let it be secured.
Amounts ordered to be refunded in connected matters should likewise be secured through deposits, the Bench added.
From a 2006 allotment to the High Court
MMRDA allotted Reliance a 75,000 sq m plot in BKC in 2006. Construction was to be completed within four years under the lease, failing which additional premium would be payable. Later allotments raised the permissible built-up area to 3,12,500 sq m. A demand notice of September 2017 alleged a delay of seven years and 12 days, and in June 2019 MMRDA demanded a further Rs 1,116.83 crore.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam, quashed those demands on April 8, 2026. It held that the four-year period runs from the issuance of an effective commencement certificate and not from execution of the lease deed. MMRDA was directed to refund Rs 646.78 crore to Reliance and to release a bank guarantee of about Rs 1,312 crore.
MMRDA’s case
Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Balbir Singh, with advocate Naman Tandon, appeared for MMRDA. Their submissions were threefold: the High Court effectively rewrote a statutory lease by changing the date from which the deadline runs; Reliance had given unconditional undertakings in 2016 to pay additional premium for extensions and could not resile after obtaining permissions and occupation certificates on that basis; and writ jurisdiction should not have been used in what is essentially a contractual dispute.
What the order leaves open
For now, the disputed refund stays with the Court while the appeal is pending, and the High Court’s reading of when the construction deadline starts is left undisturbed. Whether the clock runs from the lease deed or from an effective commencement certificate will be decided once pleadings close.
Case Title: Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Reliance Industries Limited
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 12, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Balbir Singh with advocate Naman Tandon (MMRDA); Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi (Reliance)