In a significant development in the high-stakes insolvency battle for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday declined to stay the implementation of Adani Enterprises Ltd's resolution plan, while directing the national company law appellate tribunal (NCLAT) to hear Vedanta Ltd’s appeal on 10 April 2026.
A bench comprising chief justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with the NCLAT’s interim order that allowed the implementation of the plan to proceed, noting that the appellate tribunal is already seized of the matter.
At the same time, SC introduced a key safeguard, directing that if the monitoring committee or implementing authorities intend to take any major policy decision, they must seek prior approval from the NCLAT.
SC also urged the appellate tribunal to hear the matter expeditiously, observing that Vedanta’s challenge is already listed for 10th April and should be taken up on priority or on the next working day if arguments remain incomplete.
During the hearing, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Vedanta, argued that allowing the plan to proceed would create irreversible consequences. He submitted that once funds are disbursed to thousands of creditors and structural changes such as delisting take effect, it would be difficult to reverse the process even if Vedanta ultimately succeeds.
Mr Sibal contended that Vedanta’s offer of about ₹17,926 crore was significantly higher than Adani’s bid and would have delivered better value to creditors. He argued that despite this, lenders chose a lower offer, effectively sacrificing value. He also raised concerns over transparency in the bidding process and the rejection of Vedanta’s revised proposal.
On the other hand, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the committee of creditors (CoC), defended the process, stating that the difference between the bids was not substantial and that resolution plans are evaluated on multiple parameters, including upfront payment, feasibility and execution timelines.
He submitted that Adani’s plan offered stronger upfront recovery and faster implementation, and that the insolvency process had been conducted strictly in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). He also argued that implementation of the plan would take time and is already subject to the outcome of the appeal before NCLAT.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Adani Enterprises, and senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the resolution professional, also opposed any interim interference, maintaining that the process had been carried out lawfully.
The dispute stems from the insolvency proceedings of Jaiprakash Associates, which was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) in June 2024 by the Allahabad bench of the national company law tribunal (NCLT) on a petition filed by ICICI Bank. The company had admitted claims exceeding ₹57,000 crore, making it one of the largest ongoing insolvency cases.
The resolution process attracted strong interest, with 28 expressions of interest and multiple bidders including Adani Enterprises, Vedanta, Dalmia Cement, Jindal Power and others. Ultimately, Adani and Vedanta emerged as the top contenders.
After evaluation, the CoC approved Adani Enterprises’ resolution plan with a 93.81% voting share, citing better upfront cash recovery and execution certainty. The plan, valued at around ₹14,500 crore, was subsequently approved by NCLT on 17 March 2026.
Vedanta, however, has challenged the outcome, arguing that it had initially emerged as the highest bidder and that its revised offer, submitted through an addendum in November 2025, was unfairly rejected. The CoC has defended its decision, stating that the revised bid was submitted after the conclusion of the bidding process and could not be considered without compromising the integrity of the framework.
On 24 March 2026, NCLAT declined to grant interim relief to Vedanta and allowed implementation of the plan to proceed, while making it subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Vedanta then approached the SC seeking a stay on the implementation.
By refusing to halt the process but imposing safeguards, SC has effectively allowed the resolution plan to move forward while ensuring that no irreversible decisions are taken without appellate oversight.
The focus now shifts to NCLAT, which is set to hear the matter on 10 April 2026, where the core issues of valuation, transparency and the scope of judicial review over the commercial wisdom of creditors under the IBC, are expected to be examined in detail.
You may also want to read...
Rural Demand, GST 2.0 Fuel Record Auto Sales in FY26; Dealers Cautiously Optimistic Ahead
Moneylife Digital Team
06 April 2026
India’s automobile retail sector closed FY25-26 on a record-breaking note, with total vehicle sales touching an all-time high of 296.71mn (million) or 2.96 crore units, registering a growth of 13.30% year-on-year (y-o-y), according to...
Business This Week
Moneylife Digital Team
02 April 2026
The government stepped up measures to secure fuel and gas supplies, amid the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, cutting excise duty on petrol and diesel by ₹10/ litre and imposing export levies of ₹21.50/litre on diesel and ₹29.50/litre...
Oracle Cuts up to 30,000 Jobs Globally as AI Push, Debt Pressures Mount: Reports
Moneylife Digital Team
02 April 2026
Oracle has begun laying off thousands of employees globally, with reports suggesting up to 30,000 job cuts, including about 10,000–12,000 in India, as the company restructures its business amid mounting costs linked to artificial...
Reliance Power Subsidiaries Withdraw Plea from Bombay HC Challenging Downgrade by CARE Ratings
Moneylife Digital Team
01 April 2026
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday allowed the withdrawal of a writ petition filed by Rosa Power Supply Company Ltd, a subsidiary of Reliance Power Ltd (R-Power), challenging a credit rating downgrade by CARE Ratings Ltd, after the...
