Adani Beats Vedanta in Jaypee Bid as Creditors Reject Late Changes

Mehta submitted that the resolution process was anchored in a detailed and pre-disclosed scoring mechanism forming part of the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) and process note. This evaluation matrix assigned weighted scores across key financial parameters, including upfront cash recovery for creditors, deferred payment commitments, and equity infusion earmarked for the revival of business operations. Each parameter carried specific marks, cumulatively determining the ranking of resolution applicants.

As per the evaluated scores of applicants, Adani Enterprises emerged as the highest-scoring bidder with approximately 70.26 marks, significantly ahead of Vedanta Limited, which secured about 58.85 marks. The margin, Mehta emphasised, was driven largely by Adani's superior upfront payment offer, alongside stronger commitments in deferred payments and equity infusion components. The scoring system, he argued, objectively quantified value maximisation for creditors.

The Solicitor General underscored that multiple bidders, including Dalmia Group and Jindal Power Limited, participated in the process, all of whom were bound by the same evaluation matrix outlined in the Information Memorandum and RFRP. These documents, he stressed, were not merely procedural guidelines but had binding force, ensuring uniformity, comparability, and fairness in bid assessment.

Talking about the central issue teased by Vedanta before the appellate tribunal was its addendum dated November 8, 2025, which sought to revise its resolution plan after submission. Mehta argued that the process note explicitly prohibited any modification once bids were finalised and the evaluation matrix frozen. Allowing such changes, he contended, would erode procedural certainty and risk triggering an "endless cycle" of bid revisions.

Detailing the scoring implications, Mehta pointed out that Vedanta's addendum attempted to improve its standing in two critical scoring heads, namely upfront payment and equity infusion. The revised proposal increased the equity infusion commitment from Rs 410 crore to Rs 800 crore and restructured payments by advancing a portion of deferred amounts into the upfront component. These changes were clearly aimed at enhancing Vedanta's score

Mehta submitted that the Resolution Professional circulated the revised proposal to creditors along with legal advice, which consistently indicated that post-submission modifications were impermissible under the process framework. Accepting such revisions would have necessitated reopening the process for all bidders, thereby compromising fairness and violating the timelines envisaged under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, CoC declined to consider the addendum.

He further raised concerns about a possible leakage of bid-sensitive information, noting that Vedanta's revisions appeared targeted at specific scoring deficiencies, particularly in upfront payment and equity infusion, suggesting awareness of comparative gaps.

Addressing the financial delta, Mehta stated that even after incorporating the proposed changes, the differential between competing bids would have been limited to around Rs 300 crore by design, as against an estimated Rs 500 crore variance earlier. "Our considered view was to adhere strictly to the Information Memorandum and process note, and not deviate from the established framework," he submitted.

The CoC's decision was a conscious exercise of commercial wisdom, grounded in the sanctity of the evaluation matrix and the need to preserve transparency, finality, and competitive integrity in the resolution process.

The matter will now be heard tomorrow (Tuesday) for any rebuttal by Vedanta or Adani in the matter.

- ANI