Vedanta's 'Highest Bidder' Claim False in Jaypee Case, RP Tells NCLAT

Singhvi submitted that claims suggesting Vedanta was once declared the highest bidder and later displaced are entirely unfounded and not supported by the record. He argued that this narrative has been repeatedly circulated in media reports, prior proceedings, and public discourse without any factual basis.

Clarifying the record, Singhvi said that an email sent by the RP to all resolution applicants, including Vedanta, merely outlined that after the closure of the challenge process, all proposals would be evaluated holistically under prescribed criteria. The communication, he stressed, was procedural in nature and only disclosed net present value (NPV) figures, without declaring Vedanta as the highest bidder or indicating any reversal of status.

He termed the allegation a "misreading of the record," adding that the email was a routine and transparent communication shared with all stakeholders, and did not confer any "highest bidder" status on Vedanta.

Singhvi further contended that Vedanta in its arguments had selectively presented documents to create a misleading impression. He pointed out that a key email was portrayed as being addressed solely to Vedanta, while in reality it had been marked to all stakeholders, thereby distorting its context.

He emphasized that the resolution process required a comprehensive evaluation of all plans based on both quantitative and qualitative parameters, and not merely on the highest financial bid. Referring to the evaluation matrix, Singhvi noted that scores were assigned across multiple criteria, with the final assessment being composite in nature, in line with established insolvency norms.

Highlighting procedural safeguards, Singhvi said that once the challenge process concluded, the last submitted financial proposals became final and binding, with no scope for modification. Any revision thereafter, he argued, would violate the principles of fairness and a level playing field.

He submitted that Vedanta's revised proposal, submitted after the deadline and just before voting, amounted to an "ambush" and was in breach of the process. Despite this, the RP acted transparently by circulating the revised bid to all stakeholders and convening a meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), he added.

However, the CoC found the revision to be non-compliant and proceeded to vote on the original plans. Allowing post-deadline changes, Singhvi cautioned, would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the integrity of the insolvency framework.

He further argued that settled legal principles make it clear that no resolution applicant has a vested right to have its plan approved. Emphasising the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom, Singhvi submitted that judicial interference in such decisions is limited.

Supporting these submissions, Senior Advocate Arun Katpalia, also appearing for the RP, argued that the process document explicitly barred any revision in financial proposals after the challenge process. He said Vedanta's addendum altered key elements of its bid, including upfront cash and equity infusion, which directly impacted evaluation criteria and scoring.

Katpalia further pointed out that Vedanta had participated in the CoC meeting on November 7, when plans were discussed, finalised and taken forward for voting, without raising objections. The revised proposal was introduced only on November 8th, in violation of the prescribed process, he said.

He added that the CoC considered only the original, compliant plans, and the addendum could not be validly entertained under the rules.

Committee of Creditors will argue in the matter on Monday, April 20th.

- ANI