“172. No doubt, it is sought to be urged, that since there has been a material irregularity in exercise of the powers by RP, N CLAT was justified in view of the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the I&B Code to interfere with the exercise of power by RP. However, it could be seen, that all actions of RP have the seal of approval of CoC. No doubt, it was possible for RP to have issued another Form „G‟, in the event he found, that the proposals received by it prior to the date specified in last Form „G‟ could not be accepted. However, it has been the consistent stand of RP as well as CoC, that all actions of RP, including acceptance of resolution plans of Kalpraj after the due date, albeit before the expiry of timeline specified by the I&B Code for completion of the process, have been consciously approved by CoC. It is to be noted, that the decision of CoC is taken by a thumping majority of 84.36%. The only creditor voted in favour of KIAL is Kotak Bank, which is a holding company of KIAL, having voting rights of 0.97%. We are of the considered view, that in view of the paramount importance given to the decision of CoC, which is to be taken on the basis of “commercial wisdom”, N CLAT was not correct in law in interfering with the commercial decision taken by CoC by a thumping majority of 84.36%.”
