The Supreme Court today declined to interfere with an interim order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in an ongoing insolvency dispute, emphasising the need for expeditious adjudication while maintaining the status quo of the resolution process.

The case arose from a challenge by Vedanta Limited to the corporate insolvency resolution process of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, where the Committee of Creditors approved the resolution plan of Adani Enterprises despite Vedanta submitting a higher bid; Vedanta contended that its offer maximised value for creditors and that the process adopted, particularly the rejection of its revised bid, was flawed, and sought interim relief before the NCLAT to restrain implementation of the approved resolution plan pending adjudication of its appeal.

The NCLAT refused interim relief and allowed implementation of Adani Enterprises’ plan for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd to continue, subject to the appeal’s outcome, following which Vedanta Limited approached the Supreme Court of India seeking a stay.

The dispute arose from challenges to the corporate insolvency resolution process, including objections to aspects of the bidding and approval process before the Committee of Creditors and subsequent proceedings before the NCLAT. At the interim stage, parties sought directions concerning implementation of the resolution plan, delisting concerns, and continuation of oversight mechanisms such as the monitoring committee.

The Court refused to interdict the ongoing process, observing, “we see no reason to interfere with the interim order,”while taking note that the appeals were already listed for final hearing before the NCLAT. Stressing the importance of timely resolution under insolvency law, it directed that the matter be taken up urgently, stating that the appellate tribunal should hear the case “on an out-of-turn basis on the date fixed or immediately on the next working day if the arguments are not concluded.”

At the same time, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi recorded assurances of cooperation from both sides to ensure early disposal and indicated that since the appeal was likely to be decided soon, interim interference was unwarranted. It also clarified that in the meantime, if any significant decisions outside the ordinary course of the resolution process were contemplated, appropriate recourse to the tribunal should be taken.

Appearances

Senior Advs Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi

SG Tushar Mehta for COC