Vedanta Group has moved the Supreme Court seeking a halt on the implementation of the resolution plan submitted by the Adani Group for the takeover of Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), escalating the ongoing dispute over the insolvency process of the debt-ridden company.
The legal challenge comes after the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) declined to grant interim relief against the approval of Adani’s plan. With no stay from the appellate tribunal, Vedanta has now approached the apex court to contest the decision and seek urgent intervention.
At the centre of the dispute is the bidding process conducted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Vedanta has argued that its proposal offered greater overall value compared to Adani’s, and therefore should have been preferred by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The company has questioned both the outcome of the bidding process and the manner in which the decision was taken.
Jaiprakash Associates, the flagship entity of the Jaypee Group, entered insolvency proceedings after defaulting on loans exceeding ₹57,000 crore. During the resolution process, multiple bidders—including Vedanta and the Adani Group—submitted competing plans to acquire the company’s assets.
Despite Vedanta’s higher bid in terms of total value, the CoC approved Adani’s proposal. Creditors justified their decision by highlighting factors such as higher upfront payment and quicker recovery timelines, which they considered more beneficial than a larger but delayed payout.
Vedanta has consistently maintained that the objective of the IBC is to maximise value for stakeholders and has alleged that this principle was not properly followed. It has also challenged the rejection of its revised offer, claiming that it was financially more favourable.
Earlier, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had approved Adani’s resolution plan, and subsequent challenges before the NCLAT failed to secure interim relief. The matter is now expected to be examined by the Supreme Court, which will determine whether any interference is warranted in the creditors’ decision.
The case raises broader questions about the extent to which courts can review the “commercial wisdom” of creditors in insolvency proceedings—a principle that generally limits judicial intervention in such decisions.