Adani bid for Jaiprakash upheld as NCLAT dismisses Vedanta’s plea: ‘No merit in appeal’

Despite Vedanta offering a higher overall bid, lenders favoured Adani’s plan for Jaiprakash Associates as it promised a larger upfront payment and a shorter payout timeline, reducing risk and enabling faster cash recovery.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday dismissed the petitions filed by Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta Ltd, which challenged the selection of Adani Enterprises Ltds’ (AEL) bid for the debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL).

A two-member bench comprising Chairperson Ashok Bhushan and Member (Technical) Barun Mitra said, “No grounds have been made out by the appellant (Vedanta) to interfere with the decision of the adjudicating Authority (NCLT). We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

“We also find that no material irregularity was committed by the Resolution Professional in conducting the process. No grounds have been made out by the appellant to interfere with the impugned order dated November 11, 2025,” the tribunal said.

NCLAT dismissed Vedanta’s plea, where it had questioned the evaluation metrics, saying that its bid was Rs 3,400 crore higher in gross value terms and roughly Rs 500 crore more in net present value compared to the Adani Group’s bid. NCLAT said the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to not approve the resolution plan of the appellant with a higher plan value of Rs 3,400 crore and NPV of Rs 500 crore as compared to plan of respondent (Adani) cannot be called arbitrary or perverse.

Vedanta’s bid was estimated at around Rs 12,500 crore, slightly higher than Adani’s Rs 12,000 crore when adjusted for net present value (NPV).

Vedanta approached the NCLAT in March, challenging the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) approval to Adani group’s resolution plan for acquiring debt-laden Jaiprakash Associates under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

NCLT, Allahabad branch, pronounced an order on March 17, 2026 approving the resolution plan dated October 14, 2025 submitted by Adani, the successful resolution applicant. AEL raced ahead and outbid Vedanta for Jaiprakash Associates.

Adani Enterprises, the flagship firm of the Adani Group, had earlier secured the CoC approval — dominated by National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL) — for its Rs 14,535 crore bid to acquire Jaiprakash Associates in November 2025. The group emerged as the winning bidder for Jaiprakash Associates despite being outbid by Vedanta by nearly Rs 2,000 crore.

The auction attracted interest from five major players — Adani, Vedanta, Dalmia Cement, Jindal Power and PNC Infratech. While the floor price was Rs 12,000 crore, only Adani and Vedanta remained in the final round.

Vedanta submitted the higher overall bid of around Rs 16,000 crore, which included an upfront payment and the balance to be paid over five years. In contrast, Adani’s bid totalled Rs 14,535 crore, featuring a higher upfront component of over Rs 6,000 crore, with the remaining scheduled for payment within two years.

Bankers said the Adani bid was likely preferred because it offered a higher upfront payment and a shorter payout timeline, lowering risk while enabling faster cash recovery. Vedanta challenged the decision before the NCLT, but the tribunal dismissed the plea.

The outcome was also influenced by the composition of the committee of creditors, which was dominated by NARCL. Leading banks had transferred Jaiprakash’s defaulted loans — exceeding Rs 57,000 crore — to NARCL.

NARCL thus controlled roughly 86% of the voting rights in the CoC, while original lenders such as SBI and ICICI Bank held less than 3% collectively, effectively placing the decision in the hands of a single dominant entity.

Total admitted claims against Jaiprakash Associates stood at Rs 5.44 lakh crore, indicating a recovery of under 3%. Even when considering only bank loans of Rs 57,185 crore, recovery works out to about 25.4%. As is typical under the IBC framework, equity shareholders are left with nothing.

Jaiprakash’s stock remains suspended due to procedural issues, and the company reported a loss of Rs 4,933 crore in FY25.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday dismissed the petitions filed by Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta Ltd, which challenged the selection of Adani Enterprises Ltds’ (AEL) bid for the debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL).

A two-member bench comprising Chairperson Ashok Bhushan and Member (Technical) Barun Mitra said, “No grounds have been made out by the appellant (Vedanta) to interfere with the decision of the adjudicating Authority (NCLT). We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

“We also find that no material irregularity was committed by the Resolution Professional in conducting the process. No grounds have been made out by the appellant to interfere with the impugned order dated November 11, 2025,” the tribunal said.

NCLAT dismissed Vedanta’s plea, where it had questioned the evaluation metrics, saying that its bid was Rs 3,400 crore higher in gross value terms and roughly Rs 500 crore more in net present value compared to the Adani Group’s bid. NCLAT said the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to not approve the resolution plan of the appellant with a higher plan value of Rs 3,400 crore and NPV of Rs 500 crore as compared to plan of respondent (Adani) cannot be called arbitrary or perverse.

Vedanta’s bid was estimated at around Rs 12,500 crore, slightly higher than Adani’s Rs 12,000 crore when adjusted for net present value (NPV).

Vedanta approached the NCLAT in March, challenging the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) approval to Adani group’s resolution plan for acquiring debt-laden Jaiprakash Associates under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

NCLT, Allahabad branch, pronounced an order on March 17, 2026 approving the resolution plan dated October 14, 2025 submitted by Adani, the successful resolution applicant. AEL raced ahead and outbid Vedanta for Jaiprakash Associates.

Adani Enterprises, the flagship firm of the Adani Group, had earlier secured the CoC approval — dominated by National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL) — for its Rs 14,535 crore bid to acquire Jaiprakash Associates in November 2025. The group emerged as the winning bidder for Jaiprakash Associates despite being outbid by Vedanta by nearly Rs 2,000 crore.

The auction attracted interest from five major players — Adani, Vedanta, Dalmia Cement, Jindal Power and PNC Infratech. While the floor price was Rs 12,000 crore, only Adani and Vedanta remained in the final round.

Vedanta submitted the higher overall bid of around Rs 16,000 crore, which included an upfront payment and the balance to be paid over five years. In contrast, Adani’s bid totalled Rs 14,535 crore, featuring a higher upfront component of over Rs 6,000 crore, with the remaining scheduled for payment within two years.

Bankers said the Adani bid was likely preferred because it offered a higher upfront payment and a shorter payout timeline, lowering risk while enabling faster cash recovery. Vedanta challenged the decision before the NCLT, but the tribunal dismissed the plea.

The outcome was also influenced by the composition of the committee of creditors, which was dominated by NARCL. Leading banks had transferred Jaiprakash’s defaulted loans — exceeding Rs 57,000 crore — to NARCL.

NARCL thus controlled roughly 86% of the voting rights in the CoC, while original lenders such as SBI and ICICI Bank held less than 3% collectively, effectively placing the decision in the hands of a single dominant entity.

Total admitted claims against Jaiprakash Associates stood at Rs 5.44 lakh crore, indicating a recovery of under 3%. Even when considering only bank loans of Rs 57,185 crore, recovery works out to about 25.4%. As is typical under the IBC framework, equity shareholders are left with nothing.

Jaiprakash’s stock remains suspended due to procedural issues, and the company reported a loss of Rs 4,933 crore in FY25.