JSW Steel Gets Relief As Orissa High Court Quashes ₹696 Crore Penalty

JSW Steel has received significant legal relief after the Orissa High Court quashed a mining penalty of ₹696.32 crore and set aside another demand of ₹1,472.69 crore relating to its Jajang Iron Ore Block in Odisha.

The company disclosed the developments in a regulatory filing on Sunday, stating that it had challenged the demands raised by mining authorities in Joda through separate petitions.

The disputes concerned alleged shortfalls in mineral dispatches during different periods covered by the company's Mine Development and Production Agreement (MDPA).

Orissa High Court Quashes ₹696 Crore Mining Penalty

The first dispute arose from a demand notice issued by mining authorities on Sept 6, 2021.

The authorities sought ₹696.32 crore from JSW Steel following an assessment of insufficient mineral dispatches from the Jajang Iron Ore Block.

The alleged shortfall related to the first year of the MDPA, covering June 27, 2020, to June 26, 2021.

JSW Steel subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the demand and seeking its cancellation.

The court disposed of the petition on Oct 16, 2026, in accordance with its earlier judgment delivered on April 20, 2026.

The ruling provided relief to the steelmaker in the dispute over the first-year dispatch obligations.

Court Orders Fresh Review Of ₹1,473 Crore Demand

In a separate case, JSW Steel challenged a demand notice dated Aug 21, 2025, seeking ₹1,472.69 crore.

The Deputy Director of Mines, Joda, had issued the notice over an alleged mineral dispatch shortfall during the fifth year of the MDPA.

That period extended from June 27, 2024, to June 26, 2025.

The High Court set aside the demand letter and referred the matter back to the relevant mining authorities for reconsideration.

It directed officials to reassess the case in light of the legal principles established in its April 20 judgment.

According to The Economic Times, the authorities had raised the demand under Rule 12-A of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016.

The second demand therefore remains subject to further examination by the mining authorities rather than being conclusively resolved.