Vedanta-JAL case: RP tells NCLAT no top bid in 2026

Why the JAL insolvency fight is back in focus

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) is at the centre of a fresh legal contest at the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), with Vedanta Ltd challenging the lenders’ decision to approve a resolution plan linked to the Adani group. The dispute matters because it tests how committees of creditors weigh headline bid values against payment structure, timelines, and other assessment parameters under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). It also comes with competing claims on transparency in a challenge mechanism, including what bidders were told after each round. For investors tracking stressed-asset resolutions, the case highlights how litigation can continue even after lender approval and NCLT clearance.

RP to NCLAT: Vedanta was not formally declared highest bidder

The resolution professional (RP) of JAL told NCLAT that Vedanta was never formally declared as the highest bidder during the ongoing insolvency proceedings. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the RP, argued that Vedanta’s claim of having been confirmed as the top bidder had no legal or factual basis. He also alleged “suppression of material facts” in Vedanta’s assertions before the tribunal. According to the RP’s submission, an email dated September 5, 2025 that circulated among bidders merely reflected the highest financial figure emerging from the challenge mechanism. The RP said the communication indicated a future course of action and did not identify any bidder as the successful resolution applicant.

The September 5 email, and the NAV and NPV confusion

During the hearing, the bench noted that the email referred to a highest value of ₹12,505 crore on a net asset value (NAV) basis. Singhvi responded that this was only disclosure of the top NAV figure at that point in the process, not a declaration of the best plan or a winning bid. Separately, Vedanta has also relied on net present value (NPV) comparisons to argue its offer was stronger than the approved plan. The core argument is that a number disclosed during challenge rounds should not be treated as a formal outcome unless the process documents and the CoC’s final decision explicitly say so. The RP’s stand is that the email was informational and not determinative.

CoC scoring: 80 marks quantitative, 20 qualitative

The RP told NCLAT that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not evaluate bids only on NPV or headline value. According to Singhvi, the CoC used a composite framework that combined financial and qualitative parameters. The scoring model allocated 80 marks to quantitative factors and 20 marks to qualitative considerations. The RP described this as a holistic approach and said it has been consistently applied in insolvency cases. In this framing, a higher number in one metric would not automatically translate into selection if other elements scored differently.

Vedanta’s matching-offer claim and the post-deadline addendum

Vedanta has argued that it was denied an opportunity to match the Adani group entity’s offer. The RP countered this by pointing to bid conditions that prohibited revisions after closure of the challenge process. Singhvi told the tribunal that Vedanta submitted an addendum on November 8, 2025 after being informed a day earlier that voting would commence, and that this amounted to an impermissible unilateral modification. The CoC’s position, as described in the proceedings, is that accepting a post-process change would undermine the bidding framework. Vedanta, for its part, has maintained that process design and information flow limited a fair opportunity to recalibrate bids.

How Adani’s plan moved through approvals

The Adani group’s resolution plan received the CoC’s nod in November 2025 with 93.8% voting support, according to the case record cited in the proceedings. National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL), described as the principal lender, held around 82% voting share, with other creditors including IDBI Bank, Axis Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, and State Bank of India. After the CoC vote, the plan was cleared by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Allahabad Bench on March 17, 2026. Vedanta challenged the outcome before NCLAT and also moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on implementation. Separately reported developments said the Supreme Court declined to stay implementation, while NCLAT had also refused interim relief in earlier proceedings.

The numbers Vedanta is using to question value maximisation

Vedanta’s challenge repeatedly returns to a comparison between the approved plan value and JAL’s liquidation value. Vedanta told NCLAT that the CoC cleared Adani Enterprises’ plan worth ₹14,535 crore even though JAL’s liquidation value was estimated at ₹15,799.53 crore. Vedanta argued this implied creditors would have been better off under liquidation. In contrast, Vedanta cited its own proposal at about ₹17,926 crore in one submission, and it has also been reported as ₹16,726 crore in submissions before the appellate tribunal. Vedanta also claimed it offered roughly ₹3,400 crore more in gross value and about ₹500 crore more in NPV than the Adani plan, and said the CoC failed to record meaningful deliberation for choosing a lower-value bid.

Challenge mechanism and transparency allegations

Vedanta alleged the bidding process was opaque and that critical financial details of rival offers were not shared. It said the challenge mechanism ran for five rounds and claimed it was the sole active participant during that phase, enhancing its bid twice by ₹250 crore. Vedanta also criticised the mechanism’s design, saying bidders were required to submit both upfront and deferred payment components but were shown only the highest NPV after each round. According to its submissions, this limited bidders’ ability to adjust structures, particularly the upfront cash component. The CoC has defended its approach, maintaining the process complied with IBC rules and that no bidder has a guaranteed right to win even with the highest value.

Key facts at a glance

What happens next

The dispute is scheduled for further hearing at NCLAT on April 13. Vedanta’s case turns on whether the CoC’s evaluation and information sharing met the transparency and value-maximisation expectations under the IBC, and whether any process deviations warrant interference. The RP’s stand is that there was no formal declaration of Vedanta as the highest bidder and that late revisions were barred by the bid conditions. With the resolution plan already cleared by NCLT and interim relief having been difficult to secure, the next steps will hinge on how NCLAT weighs procedural challenges against the established principle of CoC commercial wisdom.