Vedanta challenges Adani Enterprises bid for Jaiprakash Associates at NCLAT.
Appeal follows rejection of Vedanta’s objections by Allahabad NCLT bench.
Vedanta claims higher value bid; alleges lack of transparency in process.
Lenders back Adani plan citing upfront cash, feasibility and faster execution.
Mining company Vedanta has escalated its challenge to Adani Enterprises' successful bid for bankrupt infrastructure conglomerate Jaiprakash Associates, carrying the dispute to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after losing the first round before the Allahabad bench.
Mint reported that the NCLAT's cause list shows Vedanta has appealed against the Allahabad bench's 17th March order, which approved Adani Enterprises' ₹14,543 crore resolution plan and dismissed Vedanta's earlier challenge. The matter is expected to come before a bench led by NCLAT chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan on Monday.
2 March 2026
Get the latest issue of Outlook Business
Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta argued it was the highest bidder on a net present value basis, with an offer of ₹12,505.85 crore, and that lenders approved a rival plan that was lower by roughly ₹3,400 crore in total value and ₹500 crore in NPV.
The company has gone so far as to characterise the approval as a "commercial conspiracy," alleging it was denied reasons for the rejection of its bid and given no opportunity to clarify its proposal. It also pointed to a revised offer submitted on 8th November 2025, which raised upfront cash to approximately ₹6,563 crore and equity infusion to ₹800 crore, arguing this improved offer should have been taken into account.
On the other hand, lenders maintained that the process was conducted in full compliance with IBC rules, that no bidder holds an automatic right to win on the strength of headline value alone, and that plans were assessed across multiple dimensions — including upfront cash, feasibility and execution track record. Adani's bid, they said, was preferred because it offered around ₹6,000 crore upfront with full payment within two years. Vedanta's plan, by contrast, stretched payments out over as long as five years. The revised Vedanta offer was rejected on the grounds that it arrived after the bidding process had formally closed, and that accepting it would have required restarting proceedings from scratch.
