Adani Files Caveat in Supreme Court Over Jaypee Insolvency Case

Adani Enterprises has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, anticipating a challenge by Vedanta against the NCLAT verdict upholding Adani's resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates. The NCLAT dismissed Vedanta's appeal, finding no merit in its seven issues and noting the evaluation process was transparent. Vedanta had argued its revised offer of over Rs 17,900 crore was superior to Adani's Rs 14,535-crore plan. The Supreme Court had earlier declined interim relief to Vedanta, stressing the need for expeditious disposal of the matter.

Key Points: Adani Moves SC With Caveat in Jaypee Insolvency Case

  • Adani files caveat in SC anticipating Vedanta appeal
  • NCLAT dismissed Vedanta's challenge to Adani's resolution plan
  • Vedanta claimed its revised offer of Rs 17,900 cr was superior
  • SC had earlier declined interim relief to Vedanta
2 min read

After NCLAT relief, Adani moves SC with caveat against possible Vedanta appeal in Jaypee insolvency case

Adani Enterprises files caveat in Supreme Court ahead of possible Vedanta appeal against NCLAT verdict upholding Adani's resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates.

"The evaluation framework considered multiple financial parameters, including upfront cash, deferred payments, and equity infusion - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta"

By Sushil Batra, New Delhi, May 6

Adani Enterprises has filed a caveat before the Supreme Court, anticipating a challenge by Vedanta against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's verdict upholding Adani Group's resolution plan for debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.

A caveat is an application filed before a court by a party requesting that no order be passed in a matter without first hearing it. By filing the caveat, Adani Enterprises has sought to ensure that it is heard before the Supreme Court passes any interim order if Vedanta files an appeal against the NCLAT judgment.

The NCLAT on Monday dismissed Vedanta's appeal challenging the approval of Adani Group's resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the JAL insolvency proceedings.

The appellate tribunal observed that it found no merit in the seven issues raised by Vedanta and held that no further orders were required in the matter.

Vedanta had contended that its revised offer of over Rs 17,900 crore was superior to Adani's Rs 14,535-crore plan and argued that the evaluation process failed to maximise value for stakeholders. The company also questioned the transparency of the CoC's scoring matrix and challenged the rejection of its revised addendum proposal submitted after the final round of bidding.

The plea was opposed by the CoC, the resolution professional, and Adani Group, all of whom defended the integrity of the insolvency process. Appearing for the CoC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the evaluation framework considered multiple financial parameters, including upfront cash, deferred payments, and equity infusion, and that Adani's proposal emerged as the highest-scoring bid under the prescribed matrix.

The resolution professional also argued that Vedanta's claim of being the highest bidder was misleading and that no resolution applicant had a vested right to secure approval of its plan. Adani Group further submitted that allowing post-deadline revisions would undermine the sanctity and finality of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had declined to grant interim relief to Vedanta, observing that the matter was already pending before the NCLAT and stressing the need for expeditious disposal.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
IBC process must have finality. If every loser bidder goes to court after losing, no resolution will ever complete. NCLAT already dismissed Vedanta's appeal, time to move on. Adani's plan got highest score in transparent matrix.
S
Siddharth J
Classic corporate war! Anil Agarwal vs Gautam Adani. But honestly, Vedanta should have submitted their best bid on time. Can't cry foul after losing fair and square. Jaypee needs revival, not more litigation.
R
Rajesh Q
Both groups are big players but this shows our legal system works - proper process followed, NCLAT heard all parties, and gave reasoned judgment. Now Supreme Court will have final say. Creditors must get maximum value though.
A
Ananya R
Wait - Vedanta offered 3,000+ crores more but Adani won? That's strange. Either the matrix is flawed or there are other factors. Need more transparency in how CoC evaluates these bids. Retail investors' money is at stake. 😤
K
Karthik V
Caveat is standard legal procedure, nothing controversial. What matters is that Vedanta tried to change rules after game ended. IBC clearly says no post-deadline revisions. Adani played by rules and won fair and square.
M
Michael C

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50