New Delhi, Apr 22 (PTI) Minig major Vedanta Ltd on Wednesday again questioned the evaluation matrix, sanctity of commercial wisdom, along with transparency, in the process of rival Adani Enterprises' selection as the successful bidder for debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL).
Wrapping up the arguments, senior advocate Abhijeet Sinha, representing Vedanta in his rejoinder submission, said there are several issues on which clarity is required from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
"According to me, the CoC in this case has forgotten about transparency and predictability," he said, adding that it has abandoned its own chosen process for value maximisation.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday reserved its order over two petitions filed by Vedanta against the NCLT order, which had on March 17, approved Adani Group's bid.
A two-member NCLAT bench, comprising Chairperson Ashok Bhushan and Member Technical Barun Mitra, concluded its hearing following arguments from Vedanta and respondents, including the Resolution Professional, Committee of Creditors (CoC) and Adani Enterprises.
It asked both parties to submit written submissions within the next two days.
Vedanta's counsel questioned the evaluation metrics adopted by JAL lenders, who selected the bid from Adani Enterprises offering Rs 14,535 crore and rejected Vedanta's higher bid of Rs 17,926 crore.
Over the evaluation matrix used by CoC, which was the basis of the selection of Adani, Sinha said it was like a tool. Evaluation matrix and scoring cannot be substituted for laying down a binding agreement.
"In this case, the single most important feature of the identified criteria is a collective. They said we will decide based on identified criteria, and the identified criteria are collective," he said, asking, "from when that collective, which is not unifocal, which is a focus on net present value and upfront payment, went back to with a complete U-turn".
Sinha said scoring in the evaluation matrix is not equal to consideration.
He further submitted that the NCLAT and the Supreme Court, through various judgments, have said that commercial wisdom should be worth its name, and it must be reflected from the record.
"If a Rs 76,000 crore CIRP is done like this with one meeting with no deliberation, then what message are we sending?...they will keep doing whatever they want to and say that this is commercial wisdom. That is not the object," Sinha said.
For everything which has happened, for which "there is no answer, it is commercial wisdom", he said.
He also contested the allegation of getting help from a leak of the valuation during the insolvency process and said such an allegation should not be made during the arguments, "which does not have any foundation, either on paper, or is without an affidavit".
"These are very serious things. You can not just keep making allegations without a pleading," Sinha said.
During arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on Monday, appearing for lenders, suspected a leak of information on the bidding processes.
On March 24, the NCLAT declined any interim stay over the Vedanta Group's plea against the order passed by the NCLT on March 17, approving Adani Group's bid.
However, it had said that the plan would be subject to the outcome of the appeals filed by the Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta Group.
This order by the NCLAT was challenged before the Supreme Court, which declined to grant a stay. However, the apex court directed that if the monitoring committee planned to take any major policy decision, it should first obtain the tribunal's sanction.
Adani Enterprises had outbid Vedanta and Dalmia Bharat to win the bid for JAL. Adani got the maximum 89 per cent votes from creditors, followed by Dalmia Cement (Bharat) and Vedanta Group.