Vedanta accused the creditors of insolvency-hit Jaiprakash Associates of ignoring due processes while appearing before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on Thursday. The company led by Anil Agarwal has challenged the NCLT approval given to Adani Enterprises for the acquisition of JAL. Vedanta argues that its own bid exceeding Rs 17,000 crore was treated unfairly under the CoC scoring method. The assertion has received vehement pushback from
The company contended that the evaluation framework used by the Committee of Creditors resulted in a “distorted outcome,” where lower-value bids were ranked above its significantly higher offer exceeding Rs 17,000 crore. It alleges that the scoring mechanism lacked transparency, consistency, and a clear linkage to value maximisation, thereby defeating the core objective of the insolvency process. Adani Enterprises eventually received NCLT approval to acquire JAL for approximately Rs 14,535 crore.
What does Vedanta say?
According to an ANI report, Vedanta had submitted that it had emerged as the highest bidder during the challenge process, but the final assessment disregarded the identified criteria and reduced the exercise to a mechanical scoring process without substantive evaluation. It said there was no clear disclosure of how evaluation parameters were applied or how final scores were derived.
It also reportedly challenged the rejection of its addendum on grounds of procedural constraints and timelines, stating that such considerations cannot override the statutory objective of value maximisation.
Vedanta had reportedly highlighted its participation in multiple rounds of negotiations — insisting that it consistently improved its financial proposal in line with the prescribed challenge process, thereby contributing to price discovery.
Vedanta claim of being highest bidder ‘false narrative’ says RP for Jaypee Associates
A separate ANI report on Friday quoted Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi as telling the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal that the claims made by Vedanta were portraying a “false and sensational narrative”. He was appearing in court for the Resolution Professional of Jaypee Associates. Singhvi submitted that claims suggesting Vedanta was once declared the highest bidder and later displaced are entirely unfounded and not supported by the record.
He reportedly clarified that a “procedural’ email had been sent to all resolution applicants (including Vedanta) by the RP — merely outlining that after the closure of the challenge process, all proposals would be evaluated holistically under prescribed criteria. He reiterated that the missive had not declared Vedanta as the highest bidder or indicated any reversal of status. Singhvi termed the allegation a “misreading of the record”.