Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta Ltd has moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the approval of Adani Enterprises Ltd’s ₹14,543 crore bid for bankrupt Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
Vedanta has appealed against the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) 17 March order approving the Gautam Adani-led company’s plan and rejecting the mining company’s challenge, per the appellate tribunal’s cause list.
The matter is likely to be heard on Monday by a bench led by NCLAT chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Vedanta had earlier termed the approval a “commercial conspiracy” and sought reconsideration of its bid.
At the core of the dispute is how value should be assessed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Vedanta argued that lenders violated the principle of maximising value through a fair process. It said it had emerged as the highest bidder with an offer of ₹12,505.85 crore on a net present value (NPV) basis.
Despite this, lenders approved a rival plan which, according to Vedanta, was lower by about ₹3,400 crore in total value and ₹500 crore in NPV. The company also alleged procedural unfairness, saying it was not given reasons or an opportunity to clarify its proposal.
Vedanta further pointed to an improved offer submitted on 8 November 2025, increasing upfront cash to about ₹6,563 crore and equity infusion to ₹800 crore. It argued that this would have led to better recovery and should have been considered.
The committee of creditors (CoC) defended its decision, saying the process complied with all IBC rules. They maintained that no bidder has a guaranteed right to win, even if it offers the highest value.
They said plans were evaluated on multiple factors, including upfront cash, feasibility, and execution, not just headline value. Adani’s bid was preferred as it offered around ₹6,000 crore upfront and faster payments within two years, compared with Vedanta’s longer payment timeline of up to five years.
Lenders also rejected Vedanta’s revised offer, saying it was submitted after bidding had closed and accepting it would require restarting the process. They added that all bidders were given equal opportunity and multiple chances to improve their bids.
Queries sent to Vedanta and the Adani Group remained unanswered till press time.
According to lawyers, the challenge by Vedanta and dissenting creditors at NCLAT is more a statutory stress test of the Adani-JAL resolution than a re-evaluation of the deal. They say tribunals typically go with the CoC’s commercial wisdom, in line with Supreme Court rulings that uphold the primacy of lenders’ decisions.
“The NCLAT does not act as a super-CoC to compare bids. Its role is limited to checking whether the process followed the IBC,” said Ankita Singh, founder of law firm Sarvaank Associates, adding that unless there is a clear procedural violation, such challenges are unlikely to derail a plan backed by a strong majority of lenders.
The NCLT, in its 17 March order, upheld the lenders’ decision, stating that the CoC’s commercial wisdom is final and cannot be interfered with unless there is a clear legal violation. The tribunal found the process to be fair and compliant, and said Vedanta had no right to be selected merely for being the highest bidder.
It also agreed that Vedanta’s revised offer was invalid as it was submitted after the deadline, and concluded there was no legal flaw in the process.
