Jindal Supreme pursues Rs 10.36 crore tube-mill order claim

Jindal Supreme (India) Limited, referred to as Jindal Supreme, is pursuing a Rs 10.36 crore arbitration claim after cancellation of a Rs 15 crore DFT tube-mills machinery order. The claim includes Rs 2.46 crore principal, interest at 18% per annum, damages, litigation costs and other expenses, and remains pending at the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

Why did Jindal Supreme begin the arbitration claim?

Jindal Supreme began arbitration after the parties cancelled their August 9, 2023 agreement for DFT tube-mills machinery and the company says a refund remained unpaid. P P Tube Mills Mfging Co Private Limited and others placed the Rs 15 crore order under order acceptance number P P R M /J S I P L / 2324.000209. R I . OA. The prospectus does not expand the term DFT or provide a technical description of the machinery.

Jindal Supreme states that both sides mutually agreed on June 17, 2024 to cancel the transaction. According to the disclosure, the respondents undertook to refund the full amount received within five to six months of termination. Jindal Supreme issued a legal notice on May 19, 2025 seeking Rs 2.46 crore as the outstanding balance, interest at 18% per annum and damages it says it incurred.

The respondents denied Jindal Supreme's assertions in a June 17, 2025 reply, but expressed willingness to resolve the dispute through arbitration. The prospectus does not say how much of the Rs 2.46 crore balance, if any, was paid after the May 2025 notice. It also does not state the reason for cancellation or identify the contractual calculation behind the alleged outstanding sum.

What is included in Jindal Supreme's Rs 10.36 crore claim?

Jindal Supreme's Rs 10.36 crore request is broader than the Rs 2.46 crore principal amount identified in its legal notice. Its Statement of Claim seeks an award covering the principal, 18% annual interest from when the cause of claim arose, damages for lost business opportunities, litigation costs and other miscellaneous expenses. The disclosure does not split the total between those additional categories.

The Rs 15 crore machinery order and the Rs 2.46 crore principal claim refer to different stated amounts. The first was the value of the August 2023 order, while the second was the balance that Jindal Supreme asked the respondents to clear following cancellation. The prospectus does not reconcile the Rs 12.54 crore difference, so it does not establish whether that amount represented payments, unperformed order value or another contractual measure.

An arbitration claim is a party's requested relief rather than an adjudicated recovery. For the Rs 10.36 crore amount to become payable, the sole arbitrator would need to determine liability and the amount of any award. The prospectus does not disclose a settlement, an award, security for the claim or an escrow arrangement.

What stage has Jindal Supreme's tube-mill arbitration reached?

Jindal Supreme's tube-mill arbitration is pending before the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, or DIAC, under proceeding number DIAC/11752/10-25. Jindal Supreme initially filed Arbitration Petition ARB.P. 1424/2025 before the High Court of Delhi under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The company states that the petition sought to invoke arbitration and obtain appointment of an arbitrator.

The High Court of Delhi appointed senior advocate Uttam Dutt as sole arbitrator on September 23, 2025 and disposed of the arbitration petition. A sole arbitrator is one decision-maker appointed to decide the dispute rather than a multi-member arbitral panel. Jindal Supreme subsequently filed its Statement of Claim before the arbitrator.

The disclosed status remains pending, without an arbitration hearing date, award or settlement figure. Any financial recovery depends first on the arbitrator's decision and then on payment by the respondents. The prospectus contains no later update on either liability or recovery.

How does the claim compare with Jindal Supreme's materiality threshold?

Jindal Supreme's Rs 10.36 crore claim exceeds the lowest monetary threshold in its litigation materiality policy by more than 10 times. The board adopted the policy through an October 11, 2025 resolution. It treats pending litigation or arbitration as material when the claim exceeds the lowest of three financial tests for a complete financial year.

The disclosed tests were Rs 13.52 crore, representing 2% of turnover; Rs 1.94 crore, representing 2% of net worth; and Rs 99.45 lakh, representing 5% of average absolute profit or loss after tax over the last three restated financial statements. The Rs 99.45 lakh test was the lowest benchmark. The Rs 10.36 crore claim also exceeds the turnover and net-worth measures.

The policy additionally covers linked cases where one decision may affect similar matters and lower-value litigation that could materially affect business, performance, operations, reputation or financial position. Those are qualitative disclosure routes. In the tube-mill dispute, the stated claim amount alone exceeds each disclosed monetary threshold.

What other company litigation is disclosed alongside the arbitration?

Jindal Supreme also disclosed two pending cheque-related criminal complaints filed by the company, while stating that no material civil litigation was pending against it as of the Red Herring Prospectus date. In the Sanjiv Jain matter, Jindal Supreme says it paid Rs 1.50 lakh under a September 5, 2025 consultancy agreement with a total fee of Rs 5 lakh. It reports expenditure of Rs 1.88 lakh in the complaint concerning the allegedly dishonoured repayment cheque.

The Sanjiv Jain complaint, registered as NACT/953/2026 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was next scheduled for hearing on October 13, 2026. In the Shree Shyam Pipes Steel & Another matter, Jindal Supreme says a Rs 4.04 lakh cheque was returned with the remark “Payment Stopped by Drawer.” The company states that Rs 50,000 was subsequently paid and Rs 1.31 lakh remained unpaid.

Jindal Supreme's second cheque complaint, NACT/2366/2026, was also next scheduled for October 13, 2026, with claimed complaint-related expenses of Rs 1.80 lakh. Separately, the company reported no criminal litigation, material civil litigation, or outstanding regulatory and statutory action filed against it. It also said that three Goods and Services Tax Form DRC-01C intimations concerning alleged excess input tax credit of Rs 5.64 crore had received replies, with no show-cause notice, adjudication order or outstanding tax demand disclosed.

Conclusion

Jindal Supreme's principal disclosed recovery proceeding is the DIAC arbitration arising from the cancelled Rs 15 crore machinery order. The Rs 10.36 crore requested award is substantially above the Rs 2.46 crore stated principal because it includes interest, claimed business-opportunity damages, litigation costs and miscellaneous expenses that the prospectus does not separately quantify.

The next development to watch is the pending DIAC/11752/10-25 proceeding following the September 23, 2025 appointment of the sole arbitrator. The prospectus provides no timetable, settlement or award update, leaving the arbitrator's determination of liability and amount, followed by any recovery from the respondents, unresolved.