<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Vedanta questions evaluation metrics behind selection of Adani&#039;s bid for JAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72336</link>
    <description>Vedanta Group challenged the evaluation matrix and challenge process used by the committee of creditors in the insolvency resolution of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, contending that the framework was inconsistent with value maximisation and commercial wisdom. The dispute concerned scoring methodology, the weight given to feasibility and viability analysis, and allegations that the process lacked transparency and fairness because only the highest net present value was disclosed after each round. The committee of creditors defended the selection by stating that plans were assessed on multiple factors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 17:46:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 17:46:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Vedanta questions evaluation metrics behind selection of Adani&#039;s bid for JAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72336</link>
      <description>Vedanta Group challenged the evaluation matrix and challenge process used by the committee of creditors in the insolvency resolution of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, contending that the framework was inconsistent with value maximisation and commercial wisdom. The dispute concerned scoring methodology, the weight given to feasibility and viability analysis, and allegations that the process lacked transparency and fairness because only the highest net present value was disclosed after each round. The committee of creditors defended the selection by stating that plans were assessed on multiple factors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.</description>
      <category>News</category>
      <law>-</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 17:46:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>