SEPC settles ₹149.5 crore case, attachments lifted 2026

Settlement order ends multiple execution petitions

SEPC Limited informed exchanges that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras passed a common order on 30 September 2026 to settle multiple execution petitions. The settlement consideration was stated at ₹149.5 crore. SEPC said the order results in termination of all listed and un-numbered execution petitions covered by the common order. The company also stated that interim measures imposed during the litigation cease to apply. The disclosure positions the order as a procedural close to the execution proceedings that had constrained receivables and banking operations.

Attachments on receivables lifted with immediate effect

A central operational impact flagged by SEPC is the lifting of interim attachments that had been placed on receivables. SEPC said the attachments covered receivables valued at ₹154 crore and that they have been lifted with immediate effect. These receivables were previously frozen due to court-ordered interim attachment. With the order, SEPC indicated those receivables stand unlocked. The company linked this directly to an improvement in financial flexibility because funds that were earlier blocked can now move through normal collection and treasury processes.

Banking restrictions removed, normal operations restored

SEPC also stated that restrictions on banking operations imposed during the litigation have been completely removed with immediate effect. The disclosure frames this as a restoration of routine banking functionality, which had been constrained while the execution petitions were being heard. In earlier court directions referenced in the material, lender access to certain accounts had been regulated through interim orders. SEPC’s update suggests those litigation-linked constraints no longer apply following the 30 September 2026 common order.

Key numbers at a glance

The dispute and its resolution involve several quantified elements across court orders, interim directions, and settlement disclosures.

How the litigation constraints built up

The background in the provided material centres on enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against SEPC and Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited. An interim attachment was ordered on 19 February 2026, attaching ₹154.63 crore of SEPC’s trade receivables out of ₹499.62 crore total trade receivables, as cited in the court record. The proceedings referenced execution petition numbers including E.P. Nos. 91 and 92 of 2023, E.P. No. 7 of 2024, and E.P. Nos. 15 and 16 of 2025, along with Application No. 1812 of 2026. The court also appointed PriceWaterhouseCoopers as an independent auditor in the matter, with a filing date in the material of 22 April 2026.

21 September 2026: Court refused to lift attachment

Before the 30 September settlement disclosure, the material describes a setback on 21 September 2026. The Madras High Court dismissed SEPC’s application A.No.1812 of 2026 in E.P.No.91 of 2023 seeking to modify or recall the attachment order. The order referenced Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, who refused to lift or keep the attachment in abeyance. The text also records the court’s view that it could not accept arguments that continuation of attachment could affect business operations or lead to asset classification as non-performing assets. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs, as stated.

Funding proposal and 7 October date that was being tracked

The material also mentions that immediately after the 21 September order, an additional affidavit was filed seeking permission to deposit ₹7.50 crore and proposing to settle remaining arbitral dues by 7 October 2026. The court did not approve a settlement or release the attachment at that time, based on the text provided. The narrative in the material differentiates between a financing pathway and a court-approved resolution. This context matters because it shows that the attachment remained in force after 21 September, and that the later 30 September settlement disclosure is positioned as the event that finally lifts interim attachments.

Interim directions had regulated cash flows during the dispute

An interim order dated 30 April 2026 is described as permitting a consortium of banks to appropriate up to ₹15.69 crore from a Trust and Retention Account. The same interim directions allowed SEPC to utilise up to ₹2 crore exclusively for salary payments. Punjab National Bank is referenced as the lead bank representing the consortium of lenders in applications related to the attachment. These interim measures illustrate how the litigation affected cash management, even before the final settlement disclosure of 30 September.

Who bears the settlement payment, as stated by SEPC

SEPC’s 30 September disclosure includes a key assertion on cash outflow. It stated that the direct monetary outflow for SEPC is nil, with payment to be made by Judgment Debtor 1 under indemnity. Elsewhere in the provided material, SEPC is described as claiming it is fully indemnified under an agreement dated 29 September 2015, and that the court has been scrutinising the indemnity claim in the broader proceedings. In practical terms, SEPC’s statement seeks to separate the settlement consideration amount from an immediate company-funded cash payment.

Other dispute and contract updates mentioned in the material

The text also references a separate settlement involving Hindustan Copper Limited. On 5 February 2026, HCL stated it amicably resolved arbitration disputes with SEPC related to contracts at the Surda Mine in Jharkhand, with payments finalised at ₹18.78 crore for the first contract and ₹10.57 crore for the second. Additionally, SEPC disclosed that its unincorporated joint operation, SEPC-Furlong JV, entered into a lump-sum turnkey EPC sub-contract valued at ₹521.46 crore with Shalimar Corp Limited. These items sit alongside the court-driven execution petition developments and indicate parallel operational activity.

Market impact: liquidity, collections, and lender oversight

The immediate market-relevant change in the 30 September update is the removal of constraints on receivables and banking operations. Unlocking receivables of around ₹154 crore can affect the timing of cash collections and the company’s ability to route inflows through normal banking channels. The earlier interim directions show that lenders and the court had regulated the Trust and Retention Account, including a capped bank appropriation of ₹15.69 crore and a capped salary release of ₹2 crore. With the settlement order said to have lifted attachments and removed banking restrictions, SEPC’s treasury operations should revert to standard processes, subject to any remaining contractual or lender covenants not described in the text.

Analysis: why the 30 September order matters in context

Two facts stand out from the provided material. First, the court had earlier refused to lift the attachment on 21 September, and the attachment remained effective pending the broader process, including consideration of an auditor’s inputs. Second, SEPC’s 30 September disclosure states that the common order settles the execution petitions and lifts all interim attachments immediately. If implemented as described, this shifts the situation from interim court-managed restrictions to a settled posture for the covered petitions. SEPC also emphasised nil direct outflow due to an indemnity arrangement, which, if ultimately honoured as stated, would separate legal settlement amounts from SEPC-funded cash payments.

Timeline of key events referenced

Conclusion and what to watch next

SEPC’s 30 September 2026 disclosure places the Madras High Court’s common order as the turning point that ends the execution petitions covered and removes interim constraints. The company highlighted two immediate outcomes: attachments lifted on ₹154 crore receivables and banking restrictions removed, alongside a stated ₹149.5 crore settlement consideration. Investors will track how quickly receivable collections normalise and whether any further court processes remain outside the scope of the settled petitions, based on subsequent exchange filings or court updates. Any additional detail on the indemnity execution and cash flow timing would likely come through future company disclosures.