SC refuses to stay Adani’s Rs 14,535 crore acquisition of JAL
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s March 24 interim order declining to stay Adani Enterprises’ resolution plan to acquire Jaiprakash Associates Ltd for ₹14,535 crore.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, directed that if the monitoring committee proposes any major policy decision, it must first obtain the tribunal’s approval.
The court noted that the NCLAT has scheduled April 10 to hear Vedanta Limited’s appeal against the National Company Law Tribunal order approving Adani’s resolution plan. Observing that the appeals are already listed for final hearing, the Bench said there was no reason to entertain the challenge to the interim order, but urged the appellate tribunal to take up the matter on a priority basis on the scheduled date or the next working day if arguments remain incomplete.
It added that since the appeal is likely to be decided shortly and the appellant’s interests are adequately protected under the interim order, no further directions were necessary apart from ensuring that the monitoring committee seeks prior approval of the NCLAT before taking any significant policy decision.
Appearing for Vedanta, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the company had submitted a higher bid of ₹17,926 crore compared to Adani’s ₹14,535 crore, alleging that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was accepting an offer lower by about ₹3,000 crore.
Responding, CJI Kant remarked that the issue involves “commercial wisdom” and noted that the March 25 order was only interim in nature. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CoC, said the effective difference for creditors was about ₹500 crore.
Sibal urged the court to ensure that nothing is done before the April 10 hearing, warning that unwinding the transaction later would be impossible. He also flagged concerns over JAL’s ownership of Formula 1-related assets and potential complications if the deal proceeds.
The Bench questioned whether the plan could be implemented without prejudice to Vedanta’s rights, to which Sibal replied that it would lead to irreversible consequences, including payments to creditors and structural changes to the company.
Mehta countered that implementation would take around 50 days and that no irreversible steps could occur within the three days before the scheduled NCLAT hearing. Justice Bagchi emphasised that no substantive policy decision should be taken while the matter remains pending before the tribunal.
Sibal clarified that Vedanta only sought continuation of the monitoring committee without it being disbanded. Mehta responded that this effectively amounted to seeking a stay, adding that the interim order had already addressed Vedanta’s concerns.