On 29th March, Anil Agarwal, chairman of Vedanta turned to the Bhagavad Gita, before taking his fight for the assets of the bankrupt Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) to the Supreme Court (SC) of India. "Have courage. Stay humble. Do your duty without attachment," he posted on X, before lamenting that Vedanta had won the bid fairly but the decision was mysteriously reversed (in favour of the Adani group).
Mr Agarwal claimed that Jaiprakash Gaur, founder of the Jaypee group, had met him in London and expressed a ‘simple’ wish that the ‘empire’ he had built over his lifetime, “should go into safe hands and be taken forward with the right intent.” This is ironical. Given the spread and value destruction by the Jaypee group, does it really have a say? Moreover, if it considered Vedanta as ‘safe hands’ hadn’t it reportedly submitted a settlement offer under Section 12A of bankruptcy law which was ignored for lack of clarity about funding sources?
At stake in the JAL resolution are ₹57,000 crore worth of distressed assets going for a fraction of their value. The underlying assets were once the crown jewels of Jaiprakash Gaur’s empire that, at its peak, built hydropower plants, thermal power stations, national highways, the Yamuna Expressway, a Formula One racing circuit, and an ambitious string of residential townships across Delhi-NCR (National Capital Region).
What remains in public memory today is just the wreckage of that empire: over 25,000 home-buyers who paid more than ₹14,500 crore for flats booked from 2009 onwards and never received possession. The directorate of enforcement (ED) arrested Manoj Gaur, managing director (MD) of Jaypee Infratech, in November 2025 in a ₹12,000-crore money-laundering case, saying that home-buyers’ money was systematically diverted to unrelated group entities.
The assets up for grabs under JAL’s insolvency are substantial and worth a multiple of the bids on the table. They include 4,000 acres of prime land in the Delhi-NCR region, the iconic Jaypee Greens and Wishtown projects, the Jaypee International Sports City near the upcoming Jewar airport, a 24% stake in Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited (which controls 2,220MW of generating capacity), four cement plants, five premium hotels and a fertiliser unit. Some are tied up in litigation. That these valuable assets attracted only two serious bids, that too at a 74% haircut to admitted claims, is a serious indictment of the Jaypee group as well as the banking system that allowed it to happen.
A Flawed Process
JAL was always a politically-connected group. When it was admitted into bankruptcy proceedings in June 2024, it had already been through years of asset sales and partial restructuring. By then, its subsidiary, Jaypee Infratech had been through several failed attempts at resolution leading to only one final applicant, Suraksha Realty, which has pushed possession timelines for home-buyers to 2028 after the process ended. The insolvency and bankruptcy code (IBC) was designed to be a time-bound, value-maximising process. The Jaypee saga has left lenders and home-buyers in limbo for over a decade, while equity investors get nothing.
In JAL’s case, the admitted financial claims stood at ₹57,185 crore, with the National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL), a government entity, emerging as the dominant creditor after buying out stressed debt from a consortium originally led by State Bank of India (SBI) at a steep discount.
After receiving 28 expressions of interest, only three groups submitted serious bids— Adani Enterprises, Vedanta and Dalmia Cement. This itself speaks volumes: either potential bidders were put off by the tangled web of pending litigation – especially the one in the Supreme Court over 1,000 hectares of Sports City land.
In September 2025, Vedanta emerged as the highest bidder at ₹17,000 crore (NPV-net present value: ₹12,505 crore) in the challenge auction. The Adani group bid ₹14,535 crore (NPV: ₹12,005 crore). In November 2025, the committee of creditors (CoC) voted in favour of Adani with a 93.81% vote and the decision was confirmed by the national company law tribunal (NCLT) on 17 March 2026.
Pros and Cons
On the face of it, the creditors’ choice of Adani over Vedanta, despite the lower headline number, seems politically directed at least in the popular social media narrative. The Adani group’s political clout and its ability to bag a series of attractive, high-value infrastructure projects have a long, documented history over the past decade.
And yet, in this case, there is some commercial justification. Adani’s offer to pay approximately ₹6,000 crore upfront with full payment within two years with delivery of possession to home-buyers in line with court-mandated timelines was a critical consideration. Lenders, who have sold their debt to NARCL at steep discounts, and home-buyers, who have waited a decade and will still get so little, favoured faster timelines, as opposed to Vedanta’s back-ended, five-year schedule. Crucially, only Adani submitted an unconditional plan that absorbed the Sports City litigation risk.
Adani scored higher on the overall resolution matrix due to factors, such as payment certainty, feasibility, and stakeholder treatment, despite the big gap in headline value. Interestingly, creditors rejected Vedanta’s attempt to submit a revised addendum in November 2025. While one could argue that creditors should have been open to a higher bid, doing so would have further delayed the resolution process, especially if either bidder tinkered with their offer or filed litigation. The Essar Steel resolution is a good example of how this could go.
Yet, whether NARCL’s support for the Adani bid was based purely on commercial logic or was politically motivated will never be known. In a country like India NARCL, a government-created entity with 85% voting power in creditors’ committee, is certainly susceptible to influence.
Vedanta’s appeal before the Supreme Court, after national company law appellate tribunal (NCLAT) refused to stay the resolution, perhaps hopes to open the process on the grounds that the fundamental purpose of the bankruptcy resolution process is to maximise creditor value. The question is: Will it genuinely offer to match or exceed Adani’s bid? And, if it does, is there greater certainty that it will bring in the money as scheduled, given its own finances? While Mr Agarwal claims that the creditors had accepted Vedanta’s bid in writing, evidence of this is not available in the public domain. (Read: Vedanta Moves Supreme Court Seeking Stay on Adani’s Resolution Plan for Jaiprakash Associates)
Hobson’s Choice
Keeping aside the procedural dispute, both bidders have attracted plenty of controversy after being targeted by global short-sellers Hindenburg Research and Viceroy Research.
Vedanta’s parent, Vedanta Resources Ltd, has been struggling financially. In 2025, Viceroy Research published a report calling the group’s structure ‘financially unsustainable’ with a ‘parasite-host’ model that drains the Indian subsidiary to feed the UK-based parent company. Further, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has placed ‘in abeyance’ the initial public offering (IPO) of its subsidiary, Sterlite Electric, implying an ongoing enquiry. While Indian banks, which already have a ₹30,000 crore–₹40,000 crore in aggregate exposure to the Vedanta group, have remained conspicuously silent about Viceroy’s findings; they are among the creditors who sold their loans to NARCL.
As for the Adani group, although Hindenburg Research has shut shop and SEBI has given it a clean chit on various counts, it faces a grand jury indictment in Brooklyn and a civil suit filed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was blocked by the Indian government for 14 months. Since January 2026, the case is formally moving forward.
Failed Process
If one looks beyond the controversial and politically connected background of Jaiprakash and its two suitors, what is clear is that the bankruptcy law of 2016, despite subsequent amendments, has failed every class of stakeholders it was designed to protect.
Banks will recover only 24 paise on the rupee after a decade of waiting. Shareholders receive nothing and thousands of home-buyers, with admitted claims of ₹2,000 crore, face possession timelines in addition to the 10 or 15 years they have already waited and paid loan instalments without getting anything.
Meanwhile, prime assets of the Jaypee group (prime land, hotels, power, cement and fertiliser units) will be transferred at fraction of their value, primarily because there was little interest or appetite among possible bidders to deal with the political process and litigation involved. This is a serious indictment of our judicial process and the bankruptcy law.
The Bhagvad Gita was spoken on the battlefield and this is, indeed, a battle for the spoils of a once high-profile group; but nobody is quoting the scriptures for the real losers—banks, shareholders, investors and the failed bankruptcy code!
So true and apt. No body is speaking up, but for shareholders, JP infra Tech and now Jai Prakash Associate is a clear loot by the rich Industry houses.
So true and apt. No body is speaking up, but for shareholders, JP infra Tech and now Jai Prakash Associate is a clear loot by the rich Industry houses.
This is the true story, you have written, nobody, i .e.seby,India govt.,financer, nclt,ncLat, no one concern about present shareholders and their hard earned money. S.C.shoud focused on this site, when they take a final judgement.
A good Article raising genuine and ethical issues of shareholders and Public Financial Institutions. The great dream of promoter must have been shattered by timid team success in him post his demise. In fact matter must be investigated by Economic Offence Wing, ED and CBI to bring out the credible evidence in public domain as it is the public who suffered as investors, as homebuyers or loss of banks.
It is really pity on Manoj Gaur and erstwhile JAL, which every body knew had some of the most prized assets on its books, and also that the promoters had political connections (which even after 7-8 years of changed regime did not make any attempt to hobnob new political regime) and that led to its ultimate downfall. Only the promoters know the real value of their business and still the promoters did not make any attempt to find a buyer outside/inside Insolvency laws.
In banking, confidence can evaporate faster than capital. The point was driven home on 18 March 2026 when the cryptic resignation letter of HDFC Bank’s part-time chairman, Atanu Chakraborty, triggered a sharp market reaction and...
Tuhin Kanta Pandey completed a year as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) at the end of February. The milestone was marked by a series of media conversations highlighting a year of calm and stability, along...
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
