Sure! Here’s the rewritten content:
NEW DELHI: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Resolution Professional (RP) of Jaypee Associates, informed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday that a “false and sensational narrative” is being propagated regarding Vedanta’s bid during the insolvency resolution process.
Singhvi asserted that claims implying Vedanta was initially identified as the highest bidder and subsequently undermined are completely baseless and unsupported by evidence. He highlighted that this narrative has been perpetuated in media channels, previous hearings, and public discussions without factual grounding.
To clarify, Singhvi explained that an email distributed by the RP to all resolution applicants, including Vedanta, simply indicated that following the conclusion of the challenge process, all proposals would be assessed based on established criteria. He emphasized that this communication was standard practice and only shared net present value (NPV) figures, without designating Vedanta as the highest bidder or suggesting any change of status.
He labeled the accusation as a “misinterpretation of the record,” noting that the email represented routine transparency and did not accord Vedanta any “highest bidder” designation.
Singhvi further argued that Vedanta had selectively used documents to create a distorted view. He indicated that a significant email was misrepresented as being directed solely to Vedanta, when in fact it was sent to all stakeholders, thus altering its context.
He stressed that the resolution process demands a thorough evaluation of all proposals based on both quantitative and qualitative criteria, rather than simply prioritizing the highest financial bid. Referring to the evaluation matrix, Singhvi remarked that scores were assigned across various criteria, with the final judgment being a composite evaluation, adhering to established insolvency practices.
Highlighting the procedural protections, Singhvi stated that once the challenge process has ended, the latest submitted financial proposals are deemed final and binding, leaving no room for amendments. Any modifications thereafter, he asserted, would contravene principles of fairness and equality.
He characterized Vedanta’s modified proposal—submitted after the deadline and just before voting—as an “ambush” and a violation of the process. Nevertheless, he noted that the RP operated transparently by distributing the revised bid to all stakeholders and organizing a Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting.
However, the CoC deemed the revision non-compliant and chose to vote on the original proposals. Allowing changes after the deadline, Singhvi cautioned, could create a perilous precedent, jeopardizing the integrity of the insolvency framework.
He also highlighted established legal principles indicating that no resolution applicant holds an inherent right to have their plan approved. Emphasizing the CoC’s commercial judgment precedence, Singhvi argued that judicial intervention in these decisions is limited.
Senior Advocate Arun Katpalia, also representing the RP, supported these points by noting that the process documentation explicitly prohibited any revisions to financial proposals post-challenge process. He remarked that Vedanta’s addendum changed critical elements of its bid, such as upfront cash and equity contributions, directly affecting evaluation criteria.
Katpalia also pointed out that Vedanta had taken part in the CoC meeting on November 7, where the plans were reviewed and finalized for voting, without expressing any objections. The revised proposal was only introduced on November 8, which breached the established process.
He concluded that the CoC exclusively considered the original compliant proposals, and the addendum could not be validly accepted according to the regulations.
The Committee of Creditors is set to argue the case on Monday, April 20th.
Is there anything else you would like to adjust?
