New Delhi [India], April 21 (ANI): The AdGroup on Tuesday strongly defended the integrity of the resolution process in the Jaypee Associates insolvency matter before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), where Vedanta has challenged the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to approve Adani’s bid.
Senior Advocate Ritin Rai, appearing for the Adani Group, submitted that the challenge mechanism was conducted in a fair, transparent, and structured manner, with equal opportunity provided to all prospective resolution applicants. He emphasised that no additional information or modifications were permitted after the submission deadline, in line with the rules governing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
He argued that Vedanta had participated in the process with full knowledge of its terms, including financial thresholds and timelines, and is now seeking to reopen the process by offering a higher bid at a belated stage. Such a move, Rai contended, is impermissible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Defending the CoC’s decision, Rai stressed that the creditors, exercising their commercial wisdom, evaluated all compliant resolution plans before approving Adani’s proposal. He added that such decisions should not be interfered with lightly by appellate forums.
Rai further cautioned that allowing last-minute revisions or unsolicited offers after the closure of the process would set a “dangerous precedent”, undermining the sanctity of the CIRP framework and creating uncertainty in resolution mechanisms.
He told the tribunal that multiple challenge rounds were conducted during the bidding process, with each round identifying the highest bidder (H1). All participants, including Vedanta, were given a fair opportunity to improve their offers.
According to Rai, once the final round concluded, the process attained closure, and only the highest compliant bid at that stage could be considered. He highlighted that the CoC approved the resolution plan at its meeting held on November 7, following which Vedanta submitted an unsolicited revised offer on November 8.
He also underlined that the evaluation of bids is not based solely on headline financial figures, but on a composite assessment of factors such as structure, certainty, and compliance with process terms.
The matter has been listed for Wednesday for rejoinder arguments, with counsel for Vedanta seeking time to present submissions.
