Vedanta challenges Adani ₹14,535-cr JAL plan at NCLAT

What the NCLAT heard on Thursday

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Thursday heard detailed submissions from Vedanta Limited challenging the approval of Adani Enterprises’ ₹14,535-crore resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL). The appeal targets the process that led to Adani’s plan being approved, and the manner in which competing bids were evaluated by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Vedanta’s counsel argued that the scoring and ranking framework used by lenders produced results that were not aligned with value maximisation. The tribunal did not conclude the matter on Thursday. The hearing is slated to continue tomorrow.

Vedanta’s core claim: a higher offer was ranked lower

Vedanta told the appellate tribunal that its bid was materially higher than Adani’s approved plan, and yet it did not emerge as the successful resolution applicant. In its submissions, Vedanta said the CoC’s evaluation framework led to a “distorted outcome”, where lower-value bids were ranked ahead of its proposal. The company stated that its offer exceeded ₹17,000 crore, and in parts of the record its offer has been described as around ₹17,926 crore. Vedanta’s case is that the insolvency framework requires maximisation of realisable value for creditors. It argued that this objective is undermined when a higher-value proposal is not selected without adequate justification.

Allegations around transparency and consistency in scoring

A central plank of Vedanta’s challenge is the design and application of the evaluation and scoring mechanism used by the CoC. Vedanta argued the scoring lacked transparency and consistency. It also questioned whether the metrics were clearly linked to value maximisation for creditors, which is a stated objective under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The company claimed that meaningful deliberations were not recorded and raised concerns about the challenge mechanism used during bidding rounds. Vedanta’s submissions emphasised that although the “commercial wisdom” of the CoC is generally respected by courts, it can still be scrutinised where exercised arbitrarily or inconsistently with the IBC’s core purpose.

Liquidation value vs resolution value dispute

Vedanta has argued that Adani’s plan was approved even though it was lower than JAL’s estimated liquidation value. In its filings and public reporting around the matter, Vedanta said the CoC approved Adani’s ₹14,535-crore plan despite JAL’s liquidation value being estimated at ₹15,799.53 crore. Based on that comparison, Vedanta’s position is that creditors would have been better off under liquidation than by accepting a plan below liquidation estimates. Vedanta also contended that its own proposal was above the liquidation value and would have maximised recovery for stakeholders. The CoC’s selection of a lower-value plan, Vedanta argued, required clearer reasoning.

What lenders and the CoC have said in defence

In parallel proceedings and reported submissions, the CoC has defended the evaluation of resolution plans as multi-parameter, rather than purely driven by the headline bid value. The lenders’ side has said plans are assessed on factors such as upfront cash component, feasibility and execution timelines. In one account of the arguments, the CoC stated that the practical difference between the two bids would be about ₹500 crore. Lenders have also argued that Adani’s proposal was preferred due to stronger upfront recovery and faster implementation. The CoC’s position has included that Vedanta’s revised bid was submitted after the close of the bidding window and could not be considered without restarting the process.

Supreme Court’s interim stance and guardrails

The Supreme Court has declined to grant interim relief to Vedanta, noting that the NCLAT was already hearing the matter. At the same time, it safeguarded interests by making the resolution plan subject to the outcome of the appeals. The top court also urged expeditious disposal. In another reported direction, the Supreme Court said any major policy decision by the monitoring committee in the interim would be taken only after seeking leave of the NCLAT. These directions keep the implementation pathway open, but under the shadow of the appellate outcome.

How the case reached the appellate stage

Vedanta’s appeal challenges the National Company Law Tribunal’s March 17 order approving Adani Enterprises’ bid for JAL. The dispute traces back to the insolvency resolution process for the Jaypee group’s flagship company, which entered insolvency in June 2024. Lenders approved Adani’s plan in November 2025 with a reported 93.8 percent voting share. Another report on the lender vote described Adani as receiving 89 percent votes. After lender approval, the plan was cleared by the NCLT in March 2026, and then challenged before the NCLAT.

Key figures in the competing plans

The contest has centred on headline value, liquidation benchmarks, and the structure of payouts.

Timeline of key legal and process milestones

The matter has moved through lender approval, tribunal clearance, and appellate scrutiny, with the Supreme Court keeping the plan subject to the appeal outcome.

Why the dispute matters for insolvency outcomes

At the centre of Vedanta’s challenge is the balance between creditor discretion and the IBC’s objective of value maximisation. Vedanta’s case seeks scrutiny of the CoC’s scoring design, the recording of deliberations, and the linkage between evaluation criteria and recoveries. The lenders’ defence highlights that a resolution plan can be preferred for faster cash recovery and feasibility, even if the headline number is not the highest. The liquidation value comparison adds a second layer, because Vedanta has cited an estimate that is higher than the approved plan value. With the Supreme Court making implementation subject to the outcome of the appeals, the process remains legally active while moving forward under conditions set by the courts.

What to watch next

The NCLAT is scheduled to continue the hearing tomorrow after Thursday’s detailed arguments. The appellate tribunal’s next steps will determine whether the approval of Adani Enterprises’ plan faces modifications, closer scrutiny of the evaluation framework, or is allowed to stand. Separately, any major policy decision by the monitoring committee in the interim is to be taken only with the NCLAT’s leave, as reported from the Supreme Court’s directions. The case remains tied to the appellate outcome, which will decide the final position on the approved resolution plan.