Referring to suitable case law(s), discuss the scope of Judiciary in the matter of 'Commercial Wisdom' and state who has to exercise 'Commercial Wisdom' judiciously for the benefit of all the stakeholders.

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) hold a determinant position in the CIRP as it is subject to the commercial wisdom of CoC to decide whether Corporate Debtor (CD) is to be revived or liquidated. It is a heterogeneous body made of financial creditors having varied interests. The CoC is solely responsible for actions and decisions accordant with Section 28 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. As abovementioned, the approval threshold by CoC under Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 showcases the powers of CoC in determining the fate of corporate debtor. Hence, it is undoubtedly clear that the commercial wisdom is a substantial factor which needs to serve the purpose as entailed in Preamble of the Code. In Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd. v. Ravindra Loonkar, RP of ACIL Ltd. and Anr. decided on November 21, 2023 by Supreme Court of India held that in Pratap Technocrats Private Limited (supra) , the Court, after considering the relevant case-laws, pointed out that the Indian Legislature had departed from foreign insolvency regimes, the Apex Court viewed that the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom. Nor is there a residual equity-based jurisdiction in the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority to interfere in this decision, so long as it is otherwise in conformity with the provisions of IBC and the Regulations under the enactment. Further, the Apex Court held that it also cannot be lost sight of that it is for the Financial Creditors who constitute the CoC to take a call, one way or the other. Stricto sensu, it is now well settled that it is well within the CoC's domain as to how to deal with the entire debt of the Corporate Debtor. In this background, if after repeated negotiations, a Resolution Plan is submitted, as was done by the Resolution Applicant, including the financial component which includes the actual and minimum upfront payments, and has been approved by the CoC with a majority vote, such commercial wisdom was not required to be called into question or casually interfered with. The obligation of exploring the panorama of possibilities, including restructuring, negotiation, resolution, etc. before triggering liquidation lies upon the Creditors' Committee and the three broad parameters of value maximization, balancing stakes and keeping of the entity as a going concern shall be kept in mind for selecting the most appropriate disposition. But in the case of Sunil S. Kakkad v. Atrium Infocom Private Limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & ors. , while upholding the constitutional validity of the Code made, inter alia, important ruling with regard to the role of the Committee of Creditor in the CIR process. It had emphasized the primacy of the commercial wisdom of the CoC in the resolution process as to whether to rehabilitate the corporate debtor or not by accepting a particular resolution plan. It also states that prior to approving the resolution plan, the Committee is required to assess the "feasibility and viability" of the resolution plan, which takes into account "all the aspects of the resolution plan, including the manner of distribution of funds among various class of creditors." In this regard, the Committee is free to negotiate with the resolution applicant by suggesting modifications in the commercial proposal on a case-to-case basis.