JAL Insolvency 2026: NCLAT Reserves Vedanta Appeal Order

What the dispute is about

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has reserved its order on petitions filed by Vedanta Ltd challenging the approval of Adani Enterprises Ltd’s resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL). The matter brings back focus on how lenders and tribunals interpret “value maximisation” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) when the selected plan is not the highest by headline value. Vedanta, led by Anil Agarwal, has argued that the committee of creditors (CoC) process was not transparent and that the chosen plan was cleared at a valuation that it says was below the liquidation benchmark. Adani Enterprises’ plan for JAL is valued at ₹14,535 crore, while Vedanta says its own offer was about ₹17,926 crore. The appeals also question whether the CoC’s evaluation standards were correctly applied.

Bids, liquidation value, and Vedanta’s core argument

At the Delhi bench of the NCLAT, Vedanta said the CoC approved Adani’s plan worth ₹14,535 crore even though JAL’s liquidation value was estimated at ₹15,799.53 crore. Vedanta’s submission is that the gap indicates a decision that was detrimental to stakeholder recovery, because liquidation value is presented as a reference point for recoveries. The company also told the tribunal that its own proposal of about ₹17,926 crore exceeded the liquidation benchmark. In addition to gross value, Vedanta claimed the superiority of its proposal on a comparative basis, stating it offered roughly ₹3,400 crore more in gross value and about ₹500 crore more in net present value (NPV) compared with the Adani plan. In a separate submission referenced in the dispute, Vedanta has also cited an NPV figure of ₹12,505.85 crore for its offer.

Questions raised on CoC evaluation standards

Vedanta’s counsel questioned the valuation standards adopted by JAL’s lenders and raised concerns over how the comparative assessment was recorded. The company has argued that selecting a lower-value offer despite a higher competing proposal is not rational, and that the deliberations should show clear reasons for the outcome. A key part of the challenge is the allegation that meaningful deliberation was not recorded to explain why the plan with the lower headline value was chosen. This is relevant because IBC outcomes often depend on the CoC’s commercial wisdom, but that discretion is expected to be exercised through a process that can withstand scrutiny. The appeal has also kept attention on the difference between headline value and NPV based evaluation, since bidders often structure payments and contingencies differently.

What the lenders decided and who voted

The resolution plan submitted by the Adani group received the CoC’s approval in November 2025 with 93.8% voting support. National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL) was described as the principal lender with a dominant voting share of around 82%. Other creditors named in the case coverage include IDBI Bank, Axis Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, and State Bank of India. The strength of the voting outcome is central to how the plan moved forward under the insolvency framework, even as Vedanta argues that the process and benchmarks were not applied transparently.

NCLT approval and the start of the appeal cycle

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench, approved Adani Enterprises’ ₹14,535-crore resolution plan on March 17, 2026. Vedanta then moved the NCLAT, filing two separate appeals: one questioning the validity of the resolution plan and another contesting its approval by the CoC and the adjudicating authority, the NCLT. The challenge has become one of the more closely watched insolvency disputes because it tests the practical meaning of “maximisation” when lenders back a plan that is not the highest in stated value.

Interim relief denied, but the plan stays conditional

In an order dated March 24, 2026, the NCLAT declined to halt implementation of the resolution plan, allowing it to proceed subject to the outcome of Vedanta’s appeals. The tribunal also refused to stay the delisting of JAL, recording submissions that actions taken under the plan would be reversed if the plan is ultimately set aside. This made the case unusual in that the plan’s execution could continue, but with the risk of reversal embedded in the appellate process. Vedanta challenged the interim approach and continued to press for relief through further proceedings.

Supreme Court’s role: no stay, but oversight on policy decisions

The dispute reached the Supreme Court after Vedanta challenged the NCLAT’s interim order. The Supreme Court declined to stay the implementation of Adani Enterprises’ bid, and also refused to pass interim relief on Vedanta’s plea. However, it directed that any major policy decision by JAL’s monitoring committee would require prior approval of the NCLAT. The top court also asked the parties to pursue their arguments before the NCLAT and directed the tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously. In case coverage, Adani Enterprises was also noted to have filed a caveat in the Supreme Court seeking to be heard before any order.

Hearing dates and why the schedule has shifted

NCLAT proceedings have seen scheduling movement. A hearing was deferred at one point due to the unavailability of a member of the bench hearing Vedanta’s two appeals, with the next date to be notified. Separately, final hearings were scheduled to begin on April 10, as referenced in coverage of the Supreme Court’s directions. Another report noted the matter was scheduled for further hearing on April 13. Against this background, the latest update is that the NCLAT has now reserved its order on Vedanta’s petitions.

Key numbers and milestones at a glance

Market and process impact: what investors track

For markets, the immediate signal has been procedural rather than financial, because the resolution plan has been allowed to proceed while the appeals continue. The case highlights two practical issues investors track in IBC-driven acquisitions: first, whether a plan can be approved below a cited liquidation value, and second, how challenges can affect implementation timelines. The NCLAT’s position that actions under the plan could be reversed if the plan is set aside adds a layer of execution uncertainty. The Supreme Court’s direction that JAL’s monitoring committee must seek NCLAT approval for major policy decisions also affects how quickly operational decisions can be taken during the appeal window.

Why the outcome matters under the IBC

Vedanta’s challenge is framed around value maximisation, comparative evaluation, and transparency in CoC deliberations. The lenders’ decision, backed by a 93.8% vote, underscores the weight courts typically give to creditor commercial wisdom, but the appeal tests the boundary where process and benchmark questions are raised. The liquidation value comparison is also central because Vedanta has argued the selected proposal was below the liquidation value of ₹15,799.53 crore, while Adani’s plan value is ₹14,535 crore. With the NCLAT reserving its order, the market will watch for how the tribunal addresses the liquidation value argument, the NPV comparisons, and the adequacy of recorded deliberations.

Conclusion

NCLAT’s reserved order keeps the JAL takeover dispute between Vedanta and Adani Enterprises at the centre of the insolvency landscape. Key facts in contention include the ₹14,535-crore plan value, the cited liquidation value of ₹15,799.53 crore, and Vedanta’s claim of a higher offer of about ₹17,926 crore with superior NPV metrics. The resolution plan continues to be implemented subject to the appeal outcome, while the Supreme Court’s directions require NCLAT oversight on major policy decisions by JAL’s monitoring committee. The next step is the tribunal’s order on Vedanta’s petitions and any subsequent hearing schedule or directions that follow from it.