In a crucial ruling on the Dharavi redevelopment project, the Supreme Court on Friday declined to impose a stay on the project, which is being carried out by the Adani Group.

The verdict follows a legal challenge by Dubai-based Seclink Technologies Corp, which contested the Maharashtra government’s decision to award the project — considered Asia’s largest urban rehabilitation initiative — to an Adani Group entity.  

The top court has issued notices to all key stakeholders, including the Maharashtra government, Adani Properties (the successful bidder), and Seclink Technologies, which has been opposing the project allocation.  

Seclink had earlier approached the Bombay High Court, asserting that its bid was superior to Adani’s. However, in December 2024, the High Court dismissed Seclink’s plea, ruling that the government's authority in selecting bidders should not be undermined and that the petition lacked merit.  

In the latest proceedings, the Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, asked Seclink to provide an undertaking that its bid of Rs 8,640 crore was significantly higher than Adani’s Rs 5,069 crore bid. However, the court stated that Seclink must fulfill all obligations that Adani had agreed to, including Rs 1,000 crore lease payment to the Railways, an indemnity payment of Rs 2,800 crore, and the construction of 812 railway quarters, the news report said.

Additionally, the apex court directed Adani Group to maintain a separate bank account for all project-related transactions, as construction and demolition work have already commenced. The court said that financial records, including invoices, must comply with the Income Tax Act and relevant regulations. It clarified that no special equity claims would be entertained and that the final project award remains subject to the outcome of the appeal, The Economic Times mentioned.  

The court further ordered that all project-related documents be submitted for review and scheduled the next hearing for May 25, 2025.  

Seclink had previously argued that it was the rightful highest bidder under the original 2018 tender. However, the High Court observed that tender-related decisions fall within the government’s purview and that courts do not function as appellate bodies in such matters.  

Furthermore, the court pointed out that Seclink, being one of eight consortium members in the original bid, lacked the standing to challenge the tender cancellation independently. It also noted that objections to the revised tender conditions should have been raised before the financial bids were opened.