Bombay Burmah seeks SC recall of ₹4,655 cr lease-rent note

Key development at the Supreme Court

Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited (BBTC) has approached the Supreme Court seeking removal of observations related to alleged lease rent dues in the Singampatti tea estate matter in Tamil Nadu. The company disclosed that it has filed an Interlocutory Application (IA) asking the court to recall and expunge certain observations on lease rentals referenced in a prior order. BBTC said it has not received any official demand or notice for the lease rent amount reflected in the record. The issue has become central after BBTC completed the physical handover of the estate land, making the dispute primarily financial and legal.

What the Supreme Court said in its May 29, 2026 order

In an order dated May 29, 2026, the Supreme Court recorded progress in restoring land and settling voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) payments. However, relying on a report by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the order also noted that certain lease rentals remained recoverable by the State Government. BBTC is now challenging those observations, arguing that they were based on a calculation that has not become a formal demand. The company’s IA seeks to remove the references to lease rent recoverability from the order.

The disputed figure and how it entered the case record

According to the information disclosed, the CEC computed a “derived internal calculation” of lease rent amounting to ₹4,655 crore for the Singampatti estate from 1958 up to August 31, 2025. Another disclosure in the same context referenced ₹4,655.24 crore as the year-wise computed total including lease rent, interest, and penal interest for the same period. BBTC’s position is that this figure is unapproved and was prepared by a department that, as per the company, lacked jurisdiction. The company has stated that it has received no formal communication from the government regarding this amount.

BBTC’s legal argument: no formal demand and jurisdiction concerns

BBTC has told exchanges that no official demand or notice for the alleged lease rent has been issued to it. It has also argued that the Supreme Court’s observation was based on an internal calculation prepared by a department that lacked jurisdiction. In its IA, BBTC has requested the Supreme Court to recall and expunge those observations from the May 29, 2026 order. The company has said it will continue updating the stock exchanges on any significant developments.

What changed on the ground: land handover and closure of operations

BBTC has completed the physical relinquishment of the Singampatti tea estate. The final possession of 8,373.57 acres was handed over to the State Forest Department on July 11, 2026, as disclosed by the company. Physical tea operations at Singampatti ceased in June 2024. The company also implemented a VRS for 534 workers and said dues were settled via labour authorities.

BBTC further disclosed that factory infrastructure on the remaining 221.44 acres was dismantled as part of concluding its presence at the site. With the lease arrangement having ended and the land returned, the remaining dispute has narrowed to the lease rent issue referenced in the Supreme Court record.

Madras High Court’s earlier directions on lease rent quantification

The disclosures also refer to the Madras High Court’s role in the lease-rent dispute. The High Court had previously quashed prior lease rental demands of ₹231.9 crore and remanded the matter back for fresh quantification. BBTC has said the Supreme Court order directs the State to follow the Madras High Court’s orders, which require re-quantification after full hearing. This context is important because BBTC is contesting that the large figure cited in the CEC report should not be treated as a crystallised claim.

Exchange disclosure details and regulatory context

BBTC said the disclosure was made via an intimation dated July 21, 2026 to the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) and BSE Limited (BSE). The company cited Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. The July 21 filing date also aligns with the company’s statement that it moved the Supreme Court through an IA to address the lease-rent observations.

Why the dispute matters for investors

BBTC’s disclosures frame the legal escalation as a balance-sheet issue after physical operations ended. With the land transfer completed and VRS dues paid, the company’s remaining exposure is linked to how the lease-rent observations are treated in court and by the State Government. The company has maintained that the ₹4,655 crore figure is a derived internal calculation and that no formal demand has been issued. Any shift from an observation in court records to a formal demand would be a materially different situation, which is why BBTC is seeking to have the observations expunged.

Another disclosure in the same context noted that the Supreme Court has suggested any recovery could be directed towards the CAMPA fund for ecological restoration in the Agasthyamalai reserve forest. BBTC’s application, however, focuses on removing the lease-rent observations themselves.

Company diary: annual report, AGM, and upcoming results

BBTC has released its FY 2025-26 annual report and convened its 161st AGM for August 13, 2026. Separately, a board meeting is scheduled for August 13, 2026 to consider and approve unaudited financial results (standalone and consolidated) for the quarter ended June 30, 2026. These corporate events are occurring alongside the ongoing legal proceedings in the Singampatti matter.

Snapshot table: key facts disclosed by the company

Conclusion

BBTC has asked the Supreme Court to remove lease-rent observations tied to a ₹4,655 crore derived calculation cited through the CEC report, while reiterating that it has received no formal demand from the State Government. The company has already completed the land handover and worker settlements, narrowing the dispute to the lease-rent issue. BBTC has said it will keep stock exchanges informed of significant developments as the Supreme Court considers its Interlocutory Application.