JK Lakshmi Cement: Faces ₹103 Crore Litigation Over Land Allotment

JK Lakshmi Cement and its subsidiary Mahabal Cement have received a notice regarding a writ petition filed in the Gauhati High Court. The petition, filed by Prosanjit Nunisa and 66 others, challenges the allotment and leasing of approximately 3,000 Bighas of land in the Dima Hasao district to the Assam Mineral Development Corporation, JK Lakshmi Cement, and Mahabal Cement. The company estimates potential financial implications of ₹103.16 Crores related to the cost of land and development.

Material Litigation Filed Against JK Lakshmi Cement

JK Lakshmi Cement Ltd. has disclosed a material litigation matter concerning its operations and land acquisition. The company, along with its subsidiary Mahabal Cement Pvt. Ltd., has been named as a respondent in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. The notice was received on 30th July 2026.

Details of the Dispute

The writ petition was jointly filed by Prosanjit Nunisa and 66 other petitioners against the Union of India and 13 other respondents, including JK Lakshmi Cement and Mahabal Cement. The core of the dispute revolves around the allotment and leasing of approximately 3,000 Bighas of land located in the Dima Hasao district. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent authorities to favor the Assam Mineral Development Corporation Limited (AMDCL), JK Lakshmi Cement Limited, and Mahabal Cement Pvt. Limited for these land parcels.

Potential Financial Impact

JK Lakshmi Cement has assessed the potential financial implications of this litigation. The estimated cost, including land development expenses and all other related expenditures, amounts to ₹103.16 Crores. As of the disclosure, there are no quantum of claims specified beyond this estimated financial impact.

The company has assured continued cooperation and has provided this intimation as per Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

Source: BSE

Previous Article

Maruti Suzuki: Q1 FY27 Standalone Profit Rises to ₹33,521 Million

Next Article

ITC: Q1 FY27 Revenue Grows 28%, FMCG Segment Up 12%