Mining company Vedanta has escalated its challenge to Adani Enterprises' successful bid for bankrupt infrastructure conglomerate Jaiprakash Associates, carrying the dispute to the Supreme Court after failing to secure a stay from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Mint reported that Vedanta filed its plea on March 25, a day after the appellate tribunal refused to stay implementation of the Adani Enterprises’ ₹14,543 crore resolution plan.
Billionaire Anil Agarwal on Sunday publicly said in a social media post that the bidding process was “transparent” and that Vedanta was “declared the highest bidder publicly” during the insolvency proceedings. “We were informed in writing that we had won,” he said, adding that the outcome was later changed.
The Dispute
Jaiprakash Associates, which was admitted for insolvency in June 2024 after defaulting on loans worth over ₹57,000 crore, drew competing bids from Vedanta and the Adani Group. Vedanta had tabled an offer of ₹16,726 crore, topping Adani Enterprises' bid of ₹14,535 crore, according to submissions before the appellate tribunal.
However, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) ultimately threw its weight behind the Adani bid, which was subsequently cleared by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Vedanta challenged this decision before the NCLAT, contending that its superior financial offer ought to have taken precedence.
Lenders have stood by their decision, maintaining that the insolvency process was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). They argued that the selection of a resolution plan is not determined by the highest bid alone, but also takes into account factors such as upfront cash, execution feasibility and repayment timelines.
According to the CoC, Adani's proposal was favoured because it offered approximately ₹6,000 crore upfront along with a faster repayment schedule of two years, as against Vedanta's longer payout horizon stretching up to five years.
Creditors also rejected Vedanta's revised offer outright, noting that it had been submitted after the bidding window had shut, and that accepting it would have necessitated restarting the entire process from scratch.


























