Jaiprakash Associates Ltd creditors extend bid deadline by 15 days
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd faces debt resolution. NARCL, the lead creditor, extends the bid submission deadline by 15 days. This decision follows requests from interested bidders. The company owes creditors ₹57,185 crore. Several companies including Adani Enterprises and Dalmia Bharat have shown interest. NARCL holds the majority of the debt. The resolution process continues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Creditors to Manoj Gaur-promoted Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), led by National Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd ( NARCL ), have decided to extend the timeline for submission of bids by another 15 days from June 9. The decision was taken at the meeting of the committee of creditors (CoC) over the weekend after requests from some bidders for more time to submit their bids. "Some bidders requested for more time and NARCL, which is the largest creditor, has agreed. This will be conveyed to all stakeholders on Monday," said a person familiar with the process, who did not wish to be identified.NARCL did not immediately reply to ET's email seeking comments. The debt-laden holding company of the real estate, cement and engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) group, operating mostly in Delhi-National Capital Region, owes creditors a total of ₹57,185 crore. Interested bidders have to submit an earnest money deposit and performance security.Lenders have also sought bank guarantees of ₹8.5 lakh against 100% margin (in the form of a lien marked fixed deposit), to cover for the mining plan for Degarhat Devmaudaldal leased limestone mine of JAL.Media reports said that more than two dozen varied bidders including power and cement companies, alternative asset managers and EPC companies have expressed interest in placing formal bids. They include large companies such as Adani Enterprises Vedanta , Patanjali Ayurveda, Naveen Jindal's Jindal Power, GMR Group, Kotak Alternate Asset Managers, Oberoi Realty and Torrent Power. ET could not immediately ascertain the names of the bidders.NARCL is the single largest creditor to the company, having taken over 87% of the ₹57,185 crore debt from banks in January. Acre ARC, with 4% of the debt, and Axis Bank, with 1.60% of the debt, are the other large creditors.JAL is among the largest companies undergoing the corporate resolution process under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code . In terms of debt size, the JAL resolution is only dwarfed by the ₹65,000 crore owed by Videocon Industries to its creditors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd creditors extend bid deadline by 15 days
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd faces debt resolution. NARCL, the lead creditor, extends the bid submission deadline by 15 days. This decision follows requests from interested bidders. The company owes creditors ₹57,185 crore. Several companies including Adani Enterprises and Dalmia Bharat have shown interest. NARCL holds the majority of the debt. The resolution process continues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Creditors to Manoj Gaur-promoted Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), led by National Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd ( NARCL ), have decided to extend the timeline for submission of bids by another 15 days from June 9. The decision was taken at the meeting of the committee of creditors (CoC) over the weekend after requests from some bidders for more time to submit their bids. "Some bidders requested for more time and NARCL, which is the largest creditor, has agreed. This will be conveyed to all stakeholders on Monday," said a person familiar with the process, who did not wish to be did not immediately reply to ET's email seeking comments. The debt-laden holding company of the real estate, cement and engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) group, operating mostly in Delhi-National Capital Region, owes creditors a total of ₹57,185 crore. Interested bidders have to submit an earnest money deposit and performance have also sought bank guarantees of ₹8.5 lakh against 100% margin (in the form of a lien marked fixed deposit), to cover for the mining plan for Degarhat Devmaudaldal leased limestone mine of reports said that more than two dozen varied bidders including power and cement companies, alternative asset managers and EPC companies have expressed interest in placing formal bids. They include large companies such as Adani Enterprises Vedanta , Patanjali Ayurveda, Naveen Jindal's Jindal Power, GMR Group, Kotak Alternate Asset Managers, Oberoi Realty and Torrent Power. ET could not immediately ascertain the names of the is the single largest creditor to the company, having taken over 87% of the ₹57,185 crore debt from banks in January. Acre ARC, with 4% of the debt, and Axis Bank, with 1.60% of the debt, are the other large is among the largest companies undergoing the corporate resolution process under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code . In terms of debt size, the JAL resolution is only dwarfed by the ₹65,000 crore owed by Videocon Industries to its creditors.
Mint
11 hours ago
- Mint
Independent Sugar to submit revised plan for bankrupt Hindusthan National Glass
Independent Sugar Corp. (INSCO) will submit a revised resolution plan worth ₹2,257 crore to Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd's (HNGIL) committee of creditors in an attempt to turn around the bankrupt container glass manufacturer, a counsel involved in the matter said on the condition of anonymity. The resolution plan has been revised following a Supreme Court directive that ordered INSCO to match its offer with its rival bidder. INSCO was in a race with AGI Greenpac Ltd to acquire Kolkata-based HNGIL, India's largest container glass manufacturer. Also read: Induslaw ties up with global law firm CMS as India opens legal sector to foreign firms Under the revised resolution plan, INSCO will have to pay an upfront cash of ₹1,851 crore. A deferred cash payment of ₹356 crore (net present value— ₹264 crore) will be made to the lenders over a span of three years to match sanitary ware and glass container maker AGI Greenpac's offer. Besides, the operational creditors and workmen will receive ₹50 crore along with a 5% equity in line with INSCO's original offer. On 29 January, the Supreme Court dismissed AGI Greenpac's resolution plan saying that the offer was unsustainable due to non-compliance with the guidelines of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The court specifically noted that AGI Greenpac did not secure prior approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Additionally, the Supreme Court instructed the committee of creditors (CoC) to re-evaluate other resolution plans, such as INSCO's, which had already received CCI clearance. Aggrieved by the Supreme Court order, AGI Greenpac had filed a review petition before the top court. However, the court in its order that was made publicly available on 30 May, dismissed the petition, and directed the NCLT to approve INSCO's resolution plan within six weeks. Also read: Dunzo gets relief in one insolvency case as NCLT dismisses plea More importantly, the Supreme Court had asked INSCO that had already received a CCI approval, to match its offer with AGI Greenpac's. Subsequently, AGI Greenpac moved Competition Commission of India to review and revoke its green channel approval given to INSCO. The competition watchdog, however, rejected the complaint submitted by AGI Greenpac. Also read: NCLAT rejects plea against CCI nod to AGI Greenpac HNGIL was admitted into insolvency in October 2021 by the Kolkata bench of the NCLT. During the corporate insolvency resolution process, two bidders—AGI Greenpac, with a market cap of ₹5,000 crore, and Bermuda-based Independent Sugar Corporation—vied for the acquisition of HNGIL.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Speed of doing business for ease of doing business: Streamlining India's corporate restructuring
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of .) Corporate restructuring is the process of reorganising a company's structure, operations, or ownership through mergers, acquisitions, demergers, or other arrangements, to improve efficiency, unlock value, or respond to changing market a vital mechanism for a dynamic market in India, listed companies alone have a market capitalisation of over USD 5.13 trillion, and corporation tax alone had a GDP contribution of a little over 3% in the last financial year. With such high stakes, streamlining the corporate restructuring process is essential. A smooth, efficient restructuring regime means companies can adapt quickly, investors gain confidence, and the overall business climate remains long ago, corporate restructurings in India used to be court-driven and extremely drawn-out processes. The Companies Act 2013 sought to modernise this by shifting jurisdiction from High Courts to a specialised tribunal. Thus, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was empowered to approve or reject schemes of arrangement, mergers, demergers, and other corporate restructuring plans for both listed and unlisted practice, while NCLT did bring some improvement over the High Courts, the gains have been limited. Over time, NCLT's workload expanded dramatically beyond just Companies Act schemes. Notably, with the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, NCLT became thein India. The tribunal that was meant to fast-track restructuring approvals found itself swamped with thousands of bankruptcy cases, in addition to other company law matters. The transfer of jurisdiction achieved one goal, moving matters out of the general courts, but it also inadvertently concentrated a vast array of complex proceedings (from mergers to insolvency to shareholder disputes) in a single institution, leading to bottlenecks in the restructuring approval process once data on NCLT case pendency and throughput underscore the severity of the challenge. As of March 2025, over 15,000 cases were pending before the NCLT. This congestion directly translates into delays. On average, companies must wait 9 to 12 months or more from the time of filing a scheme of arrangement to finally get NCLT approval. It is not uncommon for straightforward mergers, even those approved by all shareholders and regulators, to languish for several months awaiting a tribunal hearing and order. Such delays impose significant costs: business plans are put on hold pending legal sanctions, synergies from mergers are deferred, and uncertainty looms over employees and investors.A key reason for the delay is theof NCLT's. Under the IBC, resolution proceedings are time-bound (330 days outer limit, though often extended) and tend to dominate tribunal schedules due to their urgency and the stakes involved. As a result, merger/demerger applications (which have) oftenAnother issue is that the NCLT process suffers from the delicacy of efforts. For listed companies, before approaching NCLT, a scheme must be vetted by SEBI (via stock exchanges) for compliance with securities laws and minority shareholder protection. After SEBI and shareholders' approval, the matter goes to NCLT, which primarily checks whether due process was followed. In effect, NCLT's role in many merger cases is largely supervisory, ensuring legal compliance, rather than. This raises the question: Is the extra layer of NCLT approval always necessary, especially in casesA favourable jurisprudence is ideally one that minimises judicial intervention in routine business matters. In this regard, India can draw valuable lessons from global models that have struck a more efficient regulatory balance. The United States, for instance, adopts a market-led, regulatory-overseen model where corporate mergers typically do not require court approval unless a dispute arises. Regulatory bodies like the SEC and the antitrust authority step in only for specific oversight, and even those processes are governed by well-defined, time-bound frameworks. This clarity and predictability reduce legal uncertainty and allow corporate transactions to close swiftly, often in under three months. A similar principle underlies Singapore's restructuring framework, where administrative merger routes are standard and courts play a role only when necessary. A step ahead of USA in terms of regulatory feasibility, Singapore's Companies Act permits court-free statutory amalgamations, where two companies can merge simply by gaining shareholder approval and notifying the regulator (ACRA), thereby further reducing the role of state (let alone judiciary) in what essentially is supposed to be a market driven practice. The United Arab Emirates also conducts corporate mergers under its Commercial Companies Law, following an administrative process, requiring no court approval unless objections arise from creditors or significant minority shareholders. Even then, the objection period is capped at 30 days, after which the merger proceeds by default. The UAE has further institutionalised time-bound regulatory review: its Competition Committee, empowered under the 2023 Competition Law, must assess large merger notifications within 90 days. Globally, trust is placed in regulatory frameworks and judicial intervention, reserved for exceptions, is not the norm. By emulating global best practices, India has the opportunity to reimagine its corporate restructuring the Indian government signalled in the latest budget that it similarly intends to extend and simplify such speedy merger processes for a broader set of companies. In the Union Budget speech in February 2025, the Finance Minister announced that 'requirements and procedures for speedy approval of company mergers will be rationalised. The scope for fast-track mergers will also be widened and the process made simpler.' The government has shown intent, and thus, a timely policy recommendation is stated objectives of efficiency and regulatory comity with globally aligned standards can be achieved in two unlisted entities, a potential path to fast-track restructuring is to expand the mandate for the Regional Directors (RDs) of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), who already oversee certain corporate approvals. India's legal framework already contains a germ of this idea in the form of 'Fast Track Mergers.' The Companies Act, 2013, provides a simplified route for certain small mergers (e.g. between a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, or between two small companies) where NCLT approval is not required. This fast-track mechanism is narrow in scope, applicable only to small firms or intra-group restructurings. However, it demonstrates the viability of bypassing the tribunal when matters are straightforward or low risk. In fact, to make fast-track mergers more effective, the government amended the rules in 2023 to enforce strict timelines: the RD must ordinarily confirm within 45 days (if no objections) or 60 days (if minor objections) of receiving the scheme, failing which the scheme is deemed the government can create a 'Corporate Restructuring Authority', akin to SEBI, for approving schemes of arrangement of unlisted companies. Such an authority would operate under the MCA and specialise in corporate restructurings of privately held companies with a mandated timeline crossing which the proposal shall be considered passed per defaltam. NCLT shall only be resorted to in cases where the proposed authority finds something amiss. Such a dedicated body would bring several advantages: it would build expertise in restructuring, corporate valuation, accounting, and legal compliance for merger schemes, leading to more consistent and informed decisions; it would be more accessible; and it could maintain faster turnaround times. In essence, unlisted companies would get a regulator dedicated to their restructuring needs, ensuring they are not left behind in the push for listed companies, a compelling case can be made that the final approval of merger/demerger schemes should be handled by the SEBI, without requiring NCLT intervention. SEBI is already deeply involved in the process. As the capital markets regulator, it reviews and comments on every scheme of arrangement involving a listed firm. No listed company merger or demerger can even be filed at NCLT without prior SEBI approval and a compliance certificate from the stock exchange. In other words, SEBI serves as a first-line gatekeeper. SEBI has the expertise and mandate to protect investors, which is the core concern in listed-company restructurings. The NCLT's authority in such cases is primarily to act as a watchdog, ensuring the procedure was fair, minority shareholders and creditors were not short-changed, and all legal formalities are in order. Thus, by the time a scheme has passed through SEBI and shareholder approvals, the role left for NCLT is quite limited and arguably adds redundant delay.A useful precedent exists in India's banking sector. Bank mergers do not go to NCLT at all. They are governed by a separate mechanism under the Banking Regulation Act, wherein the final authority to sanction the merger lies with the RBI, not a court or tribunal. This framework has worked well to facilitate faster consolidation in the banking industry, a testament to the efficacy of this could play an analogous role for listed non-bank companies, where it could act as a nodal authority, cutting out several months of waiting and procedural hearings, leading to shorter timelines for deal closure, reduced legal uncertainty, and one less layer of regulatory cost for listed-company schemes entirely to SEBI, expanding fast-track merger eligibility, and creating a dedicated Corporate Restructuring Authority under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for unlisted firms would not only cut down on procedural bottlenecks but also align India's business landscape with the regulatory agility of leading economies. This must be a timely reform to power the
