Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Tabrez Malawat, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Ayush Kashyap, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Harsha Gollamudi, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Divyam Agarwal, AOR M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AOR Mr. Rhishabh Jetley, AOR Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tajas Popat, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Malviya, Adv. Mr. Shivam Shukla, Adv. Mr. Pranav Narsaria, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nakul Diwan, Sr. Adv. M/S. Juris Corp., AOR Ms. Aditi Sinha, Adv. Ms. Rajnandini Singh, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Niharika Shukla, Adv. Mr. Danish Iqbal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Adv. M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AOR Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Ayush Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Vohra, Adv. Mr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ketan Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashish Bhan, Adv. Ms. Chitra Rentala, Adv. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mrs. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G. [Not Present] Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Raghavendra P. Shankar, A.S.G. Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Dhaval Vora, Adv. Mr. Navneet R., AOR Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Adv. Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra, AOR Mr. Vedant Singh, AOR Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Adv. Mr. Satyadev Singh, Adv. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. Abbas, B, Adv. Mr. Sukesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Abhinav Mathur, Adv. Mr. Yash Tandon, Adv. Mr. Gourav Asati, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Ms. Harsh Lata, AOR Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. K. Singh, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kinger, Adv. Ms. Roopa Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Gehlot, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with their respective references:

• Subject: Insolvency Law - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (!)
• Acts Referred: COMPANIES ACT, Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority Rules, IBBI LIQUIDATION PROCESS REGULATIONS, INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CORPORATE PERSONS REGULATIONS, INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ACT (!)
• Core Principle: The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in approving a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is paramount and non-justiciable, barring clear legal violations (!)
• Appeal Outcome (Category I): Appeals regarding the treatment of recoveries from Avoidance applications in the Resolution Plan were allowed; NCLAT's order setting aside the term allowing SRA to appropriate recoveries was set aside (!) (!)
• Judicial Review Scope: The scope of judicial review by NCLT and NCLAT is limited to compliance with statutory provisions and does not extend to the merits of commercial decisions made by the CoC (!) (!) (!)
• Facts Summary: The appeals arose from NCLAT's judgment modifying the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC, which allowed the SRA to appropriate recoveries from Avoidance applications under Section 66 of the IBC (!) (!)
• Court Findings: The NCLAT's interference with the CoC's decision was unwarranted as the CoC acted within its commercial wisdom, and the approved plan met the statutory requirements (!) (!) (!)
• Key Issue: Whether the NCLAT should have interfered with the CoC's decision regarding the treatment of recoveries from Avoidance applications under Section 66 of the IBC (!) (!)
• Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is non-justiciable and should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of law or material irregularity (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Result: Appeals allowed; NCLAT's order set aside, restoring the NCLT's approval of the Resolution Plan (!) (!)
• Advocates: Represented by firms including Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, M/S. Juris Corp., and various Senior Advocates for both Appellants and Respondents (!)
• Appellants Details: Includes Piramal Capital, Union Bank of India, 63 Moons Technologies, Fixed Deposit Holders, Ex-Promoters (Kapil Wadhawan, Dheeraj Wadhawan), and various Trusts (!) (!) - (!)
• Case Categorization: Appeals were categorized into three groups: (I) Appeals regarding Avoidance Applications, (II) Appeals by FD Holders/NCD Holders, and (III) Appeals by Ex-Promoters (!) (!) - (!)
• Factual Background: DHFL was a housing finance company accused of a massive financial scam; RBI superseded the Board of Directors; CIRP initiated; CoC constituted; Resolution Plan submitted by Piramal Capital approved by 93.65% votes (!) (!) - (!)
• NCLAT Impugned Order: Directed that the term permitting SRA to appropriate recoveries from Section 66 Avoidance applications be set aside and the plan sent back to CoC for reconsideration (!) (!)
• Submissions (SRA): CoC's decision on recoveries falls within commercial wisdom; NCLAT erred in entering the domain of CoC; Section 67 does not relate to Section 66 recoveries; Regulation 37A of Liquidation Regulations not applicable to CIRP (!) (!) - (!)
• Submissions (CoC): CoC comprised banks, institutions, and NCD holders; Section 32 read with Section 61(3) limits grounds for challenge; RBI supersession means ex-promoters vacated offices and have no locus standi (!) (!) - (!)
• Submissions (63 Moons): Recoveries from Avoidance transactions ought to enure to the benefit of creditors, not the SRA; NCLAT correctly set aside the clause as illegal (!) (!) - (!)
• Submissions (FD Holders): RP violated RBI Act and NHB Act mandating full repayment of deposits; Section 238 of IBC does not override these specific provisions (!) (!) - (!)
• Submissions (Ex-Promoters): Recoveries from Avoidance applications should benefit creditors; Ex-promoters were entitled to participate in CoC and get copies of RP; IBC prevails over RBI Act regarding rights (!) (!) - (!)
• Relevant Provisions: Sections 30, 31, 61, 66, 238 of IBC; Sections 45-IE, 45-QA of RBI Act; Sections 36(A) of NHB Act; Regulation 37, 38, 39 of CIRP Regulations (!) (!) - (!)
• Scope of Judicial Review: Legislature gave paramount importance to CoC commercial wisdom; NCLT review limited to Section 30(2); NCLAT review limited to Section 61(3) grounds; judicial restraint required (!) (!) - (!)
• Analysis - Avoidance Applications: Distinction made between Chapter III Avoidance Applications (Preferential, Undervalued, Extortionate) and Chapter VI Fraudulent/Wrongful Trading (Section 66); Section 66 applications are not strictly "Avoidance Applications" under Section 25(2)(j) (!) (!) - (!)
• Analysis - Mandatory Requirements: RP must confirm payment of costs, operational creditors, management of affairs, implementation, and non-contravention of law as per Section 30(2) and Regulation 38 (!) (!) - (!)
• Analysis - Maximization of Value: CoC must consider measures for maximization of asset value; commercial wisdom must be exercised based on full information and expert assessment (!) (!) - (!)
• Analysis - NCLAT Interference: NCLAT erred in tinkering with the RP approved by CoC and NCLT regarding Section 66 recoveries; NCLAT transgressed its jurisdiction under Section 61 (!) (!) - (!)
• Analysis - Estoppel: Appellants (63 Moons, Roopjot) voted in favor of the RP via Authorized Representatives and are estopped from challenging it; their vote was binding on the class (!) (!) - (!)
• Analysis - Regulation 37A: Reliance on Regulation 37A of Liquidation Regulations by NCLAT was misplaced as there is no equivalent provision in CIRP Regulations permitting such assignment to SRA (!) (!)
• Analysis - Notional Value: Valuation of INR 1 for Section 66 applications was notional due to uncertainty of recovery; CoC consciously decided to give these recoveries to SRA after hard bargaining (!) (!) - (!)
• Analysis - Second Category (FD Holders): RBI Act and NHB Act do not mandate full repayment of deposits in CIRP; distribution mechanism falls within CoC commercial wisdom; RP complied with FSP Rules (!) (!) - (!)
• Analysis - Third Category (Ex-Promoters): RBI supersession meant ex-directors vacated offices; they cannot claim rights of suspended directors to attend CoC or participate; approved RP becomes a public document under Evidence Act (!) (!) - (!)
• Conclusion: Impugned NCLAT order set aside; NCLT approval upheld; NCLT directed to decide Avoidance Applications separately under respective sections; Recoveries from Sections 43, 45, 50 go to CoC; Recoveries from Section 66 go to SRA (!) (!) (!)