Mining major Vedanta Ltd was informed in writing that the company had “won” the bid to acquire distressed cement and real estate entity Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), but the decision was subsequently changed, the company’s boss Anil Agarwal said on Sunday.

In a long post on X, Vedanta’s chairman said the company was “declared the highest bidder publicly” after many parties dropped out of the race to acquire JAL. At the end, the battle for the company boiled down to a handful.

While Agarwal did not name them, the resolution plan submitted by Adani Enterprises, the flagship of Gautam Adani’s empire, received approval from the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal earlier this month.

Adani’s bid was preferred by the committee of creditors (CoC) of JAL with an 89 per cent vote share.

Agarwal wrote in the post that he did not wish to go into the details of what transpired. “It was a transparent process. We were informed in writing that we had won. But life is never so simple. After some days, the decision was changed. Don’t want to go into the details. That is for the right forum,” he wrote on social media.

Vedanta has since preferred an appeal against the NCLT order at the appellate authority. However, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal refused to stay the implementation of the resolution plan even as it agreed to examine Vedanta’s appeal.

JAL, which has business interests spanning real estate, cement manufacturing, hospitality, power and engineering and construction, was admitted to insolvency in June 2024 after it defaulted on loan payments aggregating ₹57,185 crore.

The CoC defended its decision, arguing that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not mandate that the bidder with the highest value would be picked.

They said plans were evaluated on multiple factors, including upfront cash, feasibility and execution, not just headline value.

Adani’s bid worth ₹14,535 crore was preferred because it offered around ₹6,000 crore upfront and faster payments within two years, compared with Vedanta’s longer payment timeline of up to five years.

While the NCLAT listed Vedanta’s appeal for further hearing, Agarwal left it to the Almighty.

“We have no attachment to this asset. If it comes, it is God’s grace. If it goes, that is also his wish. But one thing we believe strongly. When something is promised in dharma, it should not be taken back.”

“We will follow the right path,” Agarwal signed off.