Vedanta seeks stay on Adani’s JAL resolution plan in Supreme Court
Vedanta Limited has approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of Adani Enterprises’ resolution plan for the insolvency‑bound Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), challenging the lenders’ approval of Adani’s ₹14,500‑crore bid over Vedanta’s higher revised offer.
What Vedanta Is Challenging
-
Vedanta argues that its revised resolution plan (reportedly around ₹3,400 crore higher than Adani’s in upfront cash) was not properly considered and that the lenders’ “commercial wisdom” was exercised in an arbitrary and value‑suppressing manner, contrary to the value‑maximisation objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
-
The company has also alleged that the insolvency process for JAL was opaque, unfair, and technically flawed, and that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) ignored recognised IBC‑compliant valuation methodology.
Sequence Before the Supreme Court
-
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved Adani Enterprises’ resolution plan for JAL on 17 March 2026, with a 93.81% creditor‑vote share.
-
Vedanta then moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) seeking interim stay against implementation, but the NCLAT declined interim relief on 24 March 2026, while noting that the appeal would receive detailed consideration; the NCLAT allowed the plan’s implementation to proceed, subject to the final outcome of the appeal.
-
Aggrieved by the refusal of interim stay and the continuation of the resolution process, Vedanta has now filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, praying for a stay on Adani’s JAL resolution plan and a direction to set aside the NCLAT and NCLT orders.
Legal and Strategic Implications
-
Vedanta’s core argument is that creditors’ “commercial wisdom” is not absolute and can be judicially reviewed if the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious and results in a clear loss of value for creditors.
-
On the opposite side, Adani’s JAL plan entails a mix of upfront cash, equity, debt instruments, and completion‑linked earn‑outs, backed by strong creditor support; the banks have emphasised that Vedanta’s proposal was not only lower in aggregate value but also carried higher execution and credit risk.
