Billionaire Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta Ltd told the bankruptcy tribunal that the bidding process in the Jaiprakash Associates Ltd insolvency case was “tailor-made” by lenders to favour the Adani Group.
Vedanta’s counsel Abhijeet Sinha told the Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) led by Justice Ashok Bhushan on Friday that despite submitting the highest bid, the company was ignored in favour of Adani Enterprises Ltd’s over ₹15,000-crore resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates.
“Nobody gave a better offer than Vedanta. It seems it is tailor-made for one person by the CoC (committee of creditors), which is citing commercial wisdom,” Sinha said.
The appellate tribunal is set to continue hearing the case on 13 April.
The allegations mark an escalation in the high-stakes contest between the two large Indian conglomerates for control of the debt-laden infrastructure company, which holds significant real estate assets across north India, including land along the Yamuna Expressway.
Vedanta questioned the design of the bidding process itself, alleging that key financial components of competing bids were not disclosed. It said the bidders were informed only of the highest net present value (NPV) after each round, without clarity on upfront cash or deferred payment structures, limiting their ability to optimize offers.
Adani secured approval from the CoC in November 2025, with 93.8% of the votes in favour of its resolution plan. The National Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd, the largest lender, played a key role with about 82% voting share. Other lenders include IDBI Bank (4.03%), Axis Bank (1.58%), Bank of New York Mellon (1.52%) and State Bank of India (1.33%).
The plan was approved by the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 17 March 2026. Vedanta then moved the NCLAT and approached the Supreme Court to stop the plan.
NCLAT’s decision
On 6 April, the Supreme Court refused to stay the process, allowing implementation to continue, but directed that any major decision related to the resolution plan would require prior approval of the NCLAT. The outcome of the takeover now hinges on the NCLAT’s decision.
Email queries sent to the National Asset Reconstruction Co, Jaiprakash resolution professional Bhuvan Madan, Vedanta and the Adani Group remained unanswered till press time.
Vedanta has argued that it was effectively the only serious participant in the challenge process, which ran through five rounds. The company said it improved its offer twice by ₹250 crore and remained willing to enhance it further. Despite this, its bid, declared the highest, was not accepted, raising concerns over transparency and fairness.
At the heart of the dispute lies the interpretation of “value maximization” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Vedanta contended that the CoC, acting in a fiduciary capacity for all stakeholders, failed to uphold this principle by favouring a plan with higher upfront payment rather than maximising overall recovery.
Vedanta said it had submitted an overall bid of about ₹17,000 crore, translating to about ₹12,505 crore on an NPV basis, and argued that it offered better value. However, the lenders chose Adani’s plan due to higher upfront cash and faster payments, prompting Vedanta to allege unfairness in the process.
The lenders have defended their decision, maintaining that resolution plans are evaluated on multiple parameters, including upfront cash, feasibility, viability and execution timelines, not just headline value or NPV. Adani’s plan was preferred for offering about ₹6,000 crore upfront and a faster payout schedule of about two years, compared with Vedanta’s longer payment horizon.
Adani’s resolution plan, pegged at ₹14,543 crore, includes an additional ₹800 crore towards capital expenditure and working capital, taking the total to about ₹15,343 crore. Against admitted claims of approximately ₹60,637 crore, this translates into a recovery of around 24%.
With high-value assets at stake, including nearly 4,000 acres across Noida, Greater Noida and the Yamuna Expressway, along with hotels, commercial assets, cement capacity and an F1 track, the final ruling in the case could set a key precedent on value assessment under the IBC and test the limits of the CoC’s commercial wisdom in rejecting a higher bid.