VEDANTA LIMITED vs MR. BHUVAN MADAN (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 950

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Praveen Gupta, Judicial Member, Ashish Verma, Technical Member
VEDANTA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MR. BHUVAN MADAN (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL) – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. U.K. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. assisted by Sh. Kartikeya Saran, Sh. Deep Roy, Ms. Shrishti Agnihotri, Sh. Anuj Lakhotiya, Sh. Arshdeep Singh, Sh. Bhavit Baxi, Sh. Rishi Badraj, Sh. Kaushlendra Nath Singh, Sh. Bharat Lal Mishra & Sh. Mansumyer Singh, Advs.
For the Respondents: Sh. Arun Kathpalia with Sh. Krishnendu Datta and Sh. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advs. assisted by Sh. Anoop Rawat with Sh. Sagar Dhawan, Sh. Vaijayant Paliwal, Sh. Nikhil Mathur, Sh. Aditya Marwah, Sh. Ahkam Khan, Sh. Udbhav Nanda, Ms. Kirti Gupta, Ms. Varnika Taya, Ms. Diksha Sharma, Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, Ms. Ananya Khanna, Ms. Aditi Rathore, Ms. Shreya Gupta & Ms. Rashi Sharma, Advs., Sh. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. assisted by Sh. Sandeep Arora with Sh. Bishwajit Dubey, Sh. Madhav V. Kanoria, Ms. Neha Shivhare & Ms. Srideepa Bhattacharya, Advs.

Table of Content
1. ia challenges coc-approved resolution plan post-cirp. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant contends h1 bid rejection defeats value maximization. (Para 3 , 4)
3. rp defends coc commercial wisdom; no locus for unsuccessful ra. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. coc justifies evaluation matrix and addendum rejection. (Para 16)
5. rejoinder argues evaluation matrix overrides ibc objectives. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. court summarizes cirp timeline and challenge process. (Para 21 , 22)
7. unsuccessful ra has limited locus for procedural irregularities. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
8. ra locus exists for material irregularities in cirp. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
9. addendum rejection argued as arbitrary post-challenge process. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
10. addendum violates irrevocable process note terms. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
11. coc rightly rejected unsolicited addendum per rfrp/process note. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
12. evaluation matrix must align with ibc value maximization. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 950

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALPraveen Gupta, Judicial Member, Ashish Verma, Technical MemberVEDANTA LIMITED – AppellantVersusMR. BHUVAN MADAN (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL) – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Praveen Gupta, Judicial Member, Ashish Verma, Technical Member
VEDANTA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MR. BHUVAN MADAN (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL) – Respondent