RCOM faces Rs 26.62824 lakh DoT guarantee encashment notice

Reliance Communications Limited said on November 10, 2026 that the Department of Telecommunications sought Rs 26.62824 lakh through partial encashment of two bank guarantees for non-litigated Spectrum Usage Charges, with Rs 9.72222 lakh relating to its subsidiary Reliance Telecom Limited and Rs 65,602 relating to RCOM.

Why has DoT sought to encash RCOM bank guarantees?

DoT sought the partial encashments because it said non-litigated outstanding Spectrum Usage Charges, or SUC, had not been paid under the relevant licence agreements. Its communications, both dated November 9, 2026, were addressed to Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India, a day before RCOM reported the matter to BSE and the National Stock Exchange.

The Punjab National Bank communication concerns RTL, which RCOM identifies as its subsidiary, and seeks Rs 9.72222 lakh. DoT said the amount relates to non-litigated SUC dues in NE-II for the first quarter of financial year 2026-27, while RCOM's November 10 disclosure also describes the dues as relating to Q1 of FY 2026-27.

The State Bank of India communication concerns RCOM and seeks Rs 65,602. RCOM said the underlying non-litigated SUC dues concern relevant circles including Jammu & Kashmir, Mumbai and Uttarakhand, while the annexed DoT letter shows an Uttarakhand amount of Rs 10,322 for FY 2025-26 within the Rs 65,602 total.

DoT described the guarantees as security for performance of licence-agreement obligations and asked both banks to act immediately, and no later than two working days. The November 9, 2026 letters required the proceeds to be remitted through a pay order or demand draft payable in New Delhi, rather than requesting direct payment from RCOM in the communications reproduced in the filing.

How much does DoT seek from each RCOM guarantee?

DoT seeks Rs 9.72222 lakh from RTL's Punjab National Bank guarantee and Rs 65,602 from RCOM's State Bank of India guarantee, totalling Rs 26.62824 lakh. These are partial encashment requests, meaning DoT did not seek the full face value of either of the two guarantees cited in RCOM's November 10 disclosure.

RTL's guarantee with Punjab National Bank has a face value of Rs 1.4537 crore and is numbered 21751LG006508. DoT's annexure records an expiry date of April 7, 2027, identifies it as an SUC-related financial bank guarantee, and refers to licence documentation dated December 12, 1995.

RCOM's guarantee with State Bank of India has a face value of Rs 2.0821 crore and is numbered 0999511BG0000445. The DoT letter gives an expiry date of February 21, 2027 and links it to a West Bengal licence record dated November 21, 2003, although the stated Rs 65,602 request covers relevant circles identified by RCOM beyond West Bengal.

RCOM's disclosure table lists the total value of the two bank guarantees as Rs 5.3733 crore and the total requested encashment as Rs 26.62824 lakh. The company did not disclose a revised aggregate guarantee value after the requested encashments, despite DoT asking banks to take action for issuance of amended guarantees.

Which SUC periods and circles are covered by the notices?

RTL's notice covers NE-II non-litigated SUC dues for Q1 of FY 2026-27, whereas RCOM's notice concerns dues in relevant circles including Jammu & Kashmir, Mumbai and Uttarakhand. The requests therefore differ both by account and by the periods described in the November 9, 2026 DoT communications.

The RTL-related Rs 9.72222 lakh request is the larger component, accounting for most of the combined Rs 26.62824 lakh amount. It is tied to one stated quarter, Q1 of FY 2026-27, while RCOM's Rs 65,602 request is described by circles and includes an annexure entry of Rs 10,322 for Uttarakhand in FY 2025-26.

DoT's State Bank of India letter says RCOM had defaulted on non-litigated outstanding SUC dues in the circles noted in that communication. However, the filing does not provide a complete circle-by-circle or year-by-year reconciliation of the Rs 65,602 amount, apart from the Uttarakhand figure of Rs 10,322 shown in the annexure.

The filing also does not state whether the Q1 FY 2026-27 RTL amount or the FY 2025-26 Uttarakhand amount had previously been disputed, paid in part, or admitted by RCOM. It reports DoT's recovery request for non-litigated dues, not a final adjudication of the underlying SUC obligations.

What financial effect could the encashment have on RCOM?

RCOM said the encashments may have corresponding financial implications to the extent DoT encashes the requested Rs 26.62824 lakh. It did not quantify a larger liability, accounting provision, recovery from RTL, or a final obligation arising from the November 9, 2026 communications.

The company said it was examining the detailed financial and legal implications, including any consequential impact on liabilities and claims related to the underlying payment obligations. That statement leaves unresolved whether RCOM will record an effect beyond the Rs 9.72222 lakh RTL request and the Rs 65,602 RCOM request.

DoT directed Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India to arrange amended guarantees after remitting proceeds. RCOM did not disclose the replacement guarantee amounts, whether the banks had acted by November 10, 2026, or whether any amended instrument would retain the April 7, 2027 and February 21, 2027 expiry dates stated in the annexures.

The mechanism matters because the Rs 26.62824 lakh request is directed at security furnished to banks for licence obligations, rather than described as a fresh invoice. RCOM said it had received or been intimated of DoT's communications, but it did not state that either bank had completed the requested partial encashment as of its November 10 disclosure.

How does RCOM's insolvency process affect the DoT request?

RCOM said it will consider appropriate steps under applicable law and its ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, or CIRP, while examining the November 9, 2026 demands. The company has been undergoing CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 since June 28, 2019.

Since June 28, 2019, RCOM said its affairs, business and assets have been managed by Resolution Professional Anish Niranjan Nanavaty. It said the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, appointed him through an order dated June 21, 2019, which was published on the tribunal's website on June 28, 2019.

The filing does not say that the CIRP stops DoT from seeking the two guarantee encashments. Instead, RCOM said it was examining the basis of the demands and their consequences within the applicable legal framework and CIRP, without disclosing a challenge, settlement proposal or acceptance of the Rs 26.62824 lakh request.

RCOM also did not state whether the requested amounts would be treated as claims in the CIRP, whether any creditor-ranking issue applies, or whether it would seek directions from the tribunal. Those matters remain undisclosed in the November 10 announcement, which is limited to the bank communications and RCOM's ongoing review.

What should investors watch after the DoT notices?

Investors should watch for confirmation of whether Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India acted within the two-working-day timetable requested in DoT's November 9, 2026 letters. RCOM's November 10 filing confirms the communications but does not report a completed encashment, the remittance date or an updated balance under either guarantee.

A further item is RCOM's assessment of the legal and financial consequences of the Rs 26.62824 lakh request. The company has said it is examining the demands within its CIRP, but it has not disclosed a timetable for that assessment, a revised SUC calculation or any decision regarding the underlying payment obligations.

DoT's request for amended guarantees is another disclosed follow-up point. Any later RCOM statement on replacement security could clarify whether the Rs 1.4537 crore RTL guarantee or the Rs 2.0821 crore RCOM guarantee was reduced, renewed or otherwise amended after the requested partial encashments.

Conclusion

The filing shows DoT using bank guarantees to seek recovery of Rs 26.62824 lakh in non-litigated SUC dues from RCOM and RTL. The Rs 9.72222 lakh RTL request, linked to NE-II for Q1 FY 2026-27, is much larger than RCOM's Rs 65,602 request, which concerns relevant circles including Jammu & Kashmir, Mumbai and Uttarakhand.

Next, investors should watch for confirmation of bank action, the amended guarantees requested by DoT, and RCOM's legal and financial assessment within its CIRP. RCOM has disclosed neither completed encashment nor a final position on the payment obligations, leaving those matters unresolved after the November 9, 2026 notices.