CoC commercial wisdom prevails where resolution plan revisions and no written rejection notice do not vitiate approval.

CoC approval of a resolution plan is not invalid merely because a competing resolution applicant was not separately informed in writing that its plan was rejected. The absence of such communication does not affect the legality of the approval once the competing plan was considered and another plan was accepted. Regulation 39(1A) limits repeated modification by the resolution professional, but it does not reduce the CoC's commercial discretion to seek revisions or negotiate with applicants. Nor does the non-use of a challenge mechanism, which is only an enabling tool for value maximisation, by itself vitiate approval. Both challenges failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-communication in writing of rejection of the resolution applicant's plan vitiated the approval of the successful resolution applicant's plan; (ii) Whether revision of resolution plans and absence of a challenge mechanism could invalidate the CoC-approved resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether non-communication in writing of rejection of the resolution applicant's plan vitiated the approval of the successful resolution applicant's plan.

Analysis: The approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors is not dependent on a separate written intimation to a competing resolution applicant regarding rejection of its plan. Once the competing plan was considered and the successful resolution applicant's plan was approved, the absence of written communication to the appellant did not affect the legality of the CoC's resolution.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of non-communication failed and was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether revision of resolution plans and absence of a challenge mechanism could invalidate the CoC-approved resolution plan.

Analysis: Regulation 39(1A) restrains the resolution professional from permitting modification of a resolution plan more than once, but it does not curtail the CoC's commercial discretion to seek revisions or negotiate with resolution applicants. The challenge mechanism is only an enabling tool for value maximisation, and its non-use does not by itself render the approval illegal.

Conclusion: The challenge based on repeated revisions and absence of a challenge mechanism failed and was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were found meritless, and the rejection of both applications was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The CoC's commercial wisdom in approving a resolution plan cannot be interfered with on the grounds of non-communication to a competing applicant, permitted revisions sought during the process, or non-holding of a challenge mechanism, unless a statutory infraction affecting the decision is shown.

---