Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 12-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) & others (Petitioners) vs Reliance Industries Limited & another (Respondents).
  • Origin: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.54980/2026 arising from the impugned final judgment and order dated 08-04-2026 in WP No.242/2018 of the High Court of Bombay.
  • Counsel for Petitioners: Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Devanshi Singh, Adv. Bharat Bagla, AOR Ms. Sushmita Pandey, among others.
  • Counsel for Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Sr. Adv. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Ashwin Dave, Adv. Aditya Swarup, Adv. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Amey Nabar, Adv. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Swati Jain, among others.
  • Caveats: Lodged by advocates K. R. Sasiprabhu and Vikas Mehta, who accepted notice on behalf of the caveators/respondents.

Observations and Directions

1. Delay in filing Interlocutory Applications (IA) condoned.

2. Notice issued to the parties.

3. Counter affidavit to be filed by 30 October 2026.

4. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed by 6 November 2026.

5. The special leave petitions are relisted for hearing on 18 November 2026 at 12:00 noon.

6. An unconditional stay of the impugned judgment and order is granted for a period of one month from the date of this order.

7. The stay will continue until the next hearing provided the petitioner‑Authority invests the amount due under the impugned judgment and order, namely:

  • Rs 646,77,68,594 (Rupees six hundred forty‑six crore seventy‑seven lakh sixty‑eight thousand five hundred ninety‑four only) and
  • Rs 22,63,59,150 (Rupees twenty‑two crore sixty‑three lakh fifty‑nine thousand one hundred fifty only)

in two fixed‑deposit accounts of a nationalised bank on an auto‑renewal basis, with the receipt made over to the Secretary General of this Court within 72 hours of such investment.

8. An affidavit from a competent officer of the petitioner‑Authority must be filed simultaneously, undertaking that the bank shall not be approached for any withdrawal from the fixed‑deposit accounts during the pendency of the special leave petitions.

9. If the deposit and affidavit requirements are not fulfilled, the interim stay shall stand vacated, and the respondents will be entitled to enforce the impugned order in accordance with law.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court granted a conditional unconditional stay of the High Court’s April 8, 2026 judgment, contingent upon MMRDA depositing the specified amounts in fixed deposits and furnishing the required affidavit. Non‑compliance will result in the stay being vacated and the order becoming enforceable by the respondents.

Topics: Court Order, Stay, Infrastructure Development