Background and Details of Litigation

The litigation pertained to a land parcel situated at Haldia, West Bengal. This land was transferred to Manaksia Steels Limited from Manaksia Limited effective October 1, 2013, pursuant to a Scheme of Demerger sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on March 24, 2014.

The specific case was filed as W.P.A. No. 15313 of 2008 in the High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side). The opposing parties were M/s. Manaksia Ltd. versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

The dispute originated from orders issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Haldia Development Authority (HDA) on February 5, 2008, and July 4, 2008. HDA demanded payment of an enhanced land premium at a rate of ₹15 lakhs per acre for 35 acres of land, contrary to a previously agreed-upon rate of ₹5.50 lakhs per acre.

Court Order and Financial Implications

The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta delivered its judgment on July 27, 2026. The court directed the petitioner (Manaksia Ltd.) to deposit the remaining enhanced land premium of ₹3,32,50,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty-Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) in favor of HDA within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.

The disclosure stated this amount was the total quantum of claims and the expected financial implication.

Update and Conclusion

In compliance with the High Court's order, Manaksia Steels Limited deposited the full amount of ₹3,32,50,000/- with the Haldia Development Authority. The filing dated August 21, 2026, confirms that the litigation has been "settled and concluded" with no further amount payable or liability outstanding in respect of this matter.

The initial intimation on August 11, 2026, was made because the records of the concerned statutory authority (HDA) had not been updated to reflect the transfer of the land to Manaksia Steels Limited following the 2013 demerger. The information was received from Manaksia Limited.

Stated Rationale and Impact

The company stated it envisages "no adverse financial implications in its working due to imposition of the demand" following the payment. The initial filing had noted that the petitioner company might prefer an appeal against the order, but the update confirms full settlement, rendering this point moot.