Vedanta vs Adani JAL Plan: Key Numbers in 2026

What Vedanta is challenging at NCLAT

Vedanta Ltd has challenged the approval of Adani Enterprises’ resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The Anil Agarwal-led company argues that the winning proposal was approved at a value lower than JAL’s liquidation value, and says the decision-making by the committee of creditors (CoC) was not transparent. The appeal has put the spotlight back on how value maximisation is interpreted under India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), especially when lenders back a plan that is not the highest in headline value.

Vedanta’s core submission is straightforward: if a resolution plan delivers less than liquidation value, creditors are, in its view, worse off than they would be under liquidation. Alongside the numbers, Vedanta is questioning the process the CoC used to run and evaluate the challenge mechanism, including what information was shared with bidders after each round.

The key numbers: bid value vs liquidation value

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 claims this gap shows the decision was detrimental to stakeholder recovery. It has also stated that its own offer was about ₹17,926 crore, which it says exceeds the liquidation benchmark.

Vedanta further told the tribunal that its bid was superior not only in gross value terms but also on a comparative basis. It claimed 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 own offer.

How the plan moved through the IBC process

The Adani group entity’s plan was approved by the CoC in November 2025 with 93.8 percent (also cited as 93.81 percent in filings) voting support. National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL) was described as the principal lender, holding a dominant voting share of around 82 percent. Other creditors named in the process include IDBI Bank, Axis Bank, Bank of New York Mellon and State Bank of India.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench, cleared the resolution plan on March 17, 2026. Vedanta then challenged the outcome at the NCLAT and separately moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on implementation. The Supreme Court declined to stay the plan and asked parties to raise their contentions before the NCLAT, with directions for an expedited hearing.

Vedanta’s allegations on transparency and “meaningful deliberation”

Vedanta has alleged that the CoC failed to record meaningful deliberations explaining why a lower-value proposal was selected over a higher-value one. It has framed the issue as more than a price dispute, arguing that financial creditors on the CoC act in a fiduciary capacity for all stakeholders, including employees, operational creditors, homebuyers and statutory authorities.

The company has also challenged the integrity of the bidding process, alleging that the decision-making lacked transparency in how competing bids were evaluated. In its telling, the framework and documents used by the CoC such as the evaluation matrix, request for resolution plan (RFRP) and the process note are “guiding instruments” and cannot override the IBC’s objective of value maximisation.

What Vedanta says went wrong in the challenge mechanism

Vedanta says the CoC introduced a challenge mechanism after finding bids sub-optimal, but eventually approved the same plan it had earlier considered inadequate. It also alleged that it was the only active participant in the challenge process, which ran for five rounds. During those rounds, Vedanta said it enhanced its bid multiple times, including two increases of ₹250 crore, and remained open to further revisions.

A central complaint is about information asymmetry: Vedanta said bidders were only informed of the highest NPV after each round, without clarity on how much of the competing proposal was upfront versus deferred. Because bidders were required to submit both upfront and deferred components, Vedanta argues that not knowing the split reduced their ability to recalibrate offers effectively, especially by improving upfront payments.

Creditors’ position: more weight to upfront cash and timelines

Creditors and the resolution professional have maintained that resolution plans are assessed on multiple factors, not just the final bid value. In the dispute record, the CoC position is that its “commercial wisdom” extends to feasibility, viability, execution capability and timelines. One reason cited for preferring Adani’s plan is its upfront component and faster repayment horizon.

The details discussed include Adani proposing around ₹6,000 crore upfront, with repayment completed within about two years. Vedanta’s plan, by contrast, involved payments spread over up to five years. Another version of the plan terms stated Adani’s approved proposal included an upfront payment of about ₹6,005 crore and a commitment to provide ₹800 crore in working capital and capital expenditure within 180 days.

Court and tribunal proceedings so far

The NCLAT, in an order dated March 24, 2026, declined to halt implementation of the resolution plan, allowing it to proceed subject to the appeal’s outcome. 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.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene to stop implementation, and directed parties back to the NCLAT for expeditious hearing. Hearing dates referenced in the matter include April 10 and April 13, 2026, reflecting the scheduling of further proceedings at the appellate tribunal.

Why this case matters for IBC outcomes

The dispute is shaping up as a test of how far courts will scrutinise CoC decisions where the winning plan is alleged to be below liquidation value, and where the losing bidder alleges procedural opacity. Vedanta’s argument places heavy emphasis on value maximisation as the IBC’s core objective. The CoC’s defence leans on the principle that commercial decisions include considerations beyond headline price, such as certainty of payment and speed of recovery.

The outcome is also being watched because it involves two large conglomerates competing for control of a stressed company with significant real estate holdings in north India, including parcels along the Yamuna Expressway. But the legal issues being argued are broader and could influence how challenge mechanisms, bid disclosures, and creditor deliberations are evaluated in future cases.

Snapshot table: key facts and figures

What to watch next

The next NCLAT hearings will decide whether Vedanta’s objections on valuation and process warrant any interference with the CoC-approved plan. For now, Adani’s resolution plan remains in place while the appeal continues, and actions taken under the plan remain subject to the tribunal’s final outcome. Any further directions from NCLAT on how the challenge mechanism should have been run, and what level of disclosure is expected during bid rounds, will be closely tracked by creditors and resolution applicants across the IBC ecosystem.