As per case facts, unsuccessful resolution applicants challenged the NCLAT's affirmation of the NCLT's approval of SEML's Resolution Plan. They alleged that SEML illegally modified its commercial offer after negotiations ... by increasing bank guarantee commitments and converting deferred payments to upfront, thereby causing discrimination and material irregularity in the process. The question arose whether SEML's clarifications constituted an impermissible enhancement or modification of its Resolution Plan, and if the Supreme Court could intervene given the plan's approval and implementation. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding that SEML's clarifications did not alter its commercial offer or involve material irregularity by the Resolution Professional. It reiterated the paramount nature of the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom, which is non-justiciable, and emphasized that judicial intervention is limited to statutory compliance, especially when a plan is already implemented, warning against strategic litigation by unsuccessful bidders.