March 30, 2026 : Vedanta Group has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking a stay on the implementation of the resolution plan submitted by the Adani Group for the acquisition of Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL). The move marks a significant escalation in the ongoing dispute surrounding the insolvency resolution of the debt-laden infrastructure firm.
The petition comes after the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) declined to grant interim relief against the approval of Adani’s plan. With no stay granted at the appellate stage, Vedanta has now sought urgent intervention from the apex court, contesting both the outcome and the integrity of the bidding process.
At the core of the dispute lies the resolution process conducted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Vedanta has argued that its proposal offered superior overall value compared to Adani’s bid and should have been selected by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The company has raised concerns regarding the evaluation criteria and decision-making process adopted by the creditors.
Jaiprakash Associates Limited, the flagship entity of the Jaypee Group, entered insolvency after defaulting on loans exceeding ₹57,000 crore. During the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), multiple bidders, including Vedanta and Adani, submitted competing resolution plans to take over 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 pointing to factors such as higher upfront payment and faster recovery timelines, which they considered more pragmatic and beneficial than a larger but deferred payout.
Vedanta has maintained that the primary objective of the IBC is value maximisation for stakeholders and has alleged that this principle was not adequately adhered to. It has also challenged the rejection of its revised offer, asserting that it was financially more advantageous.
Earlier, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had approved Adani’s resolution plan, and subsequent appeals before the NCLAT failed to yield interim relief.
The matter now awaits consideration before the Supreme Court, which is expected to examine whether judicial interference is warranted in the commercial decisions of the CoC. The case also brings into focus the broader legal question of the extent to which courts can scrutinise the “commercial wisdom” of creditors an established principle that generally limits judicial review in insolvency proceedings.
