Hi Vani, in this case, I guess it can be both - Carlyle "couldn't" and also "wouldn't" pay a control premium. "Couldn't" because the new investors may have been against paying a control premium. "Wouldn't" because it may have put Carlyle in a sticky situation, making it tough for it to explain the control premium to the new investors. Hard to say.
To the second question, any deal - preferential allotment or rights - would have meant two sets of Carlyle investors QIH and Pluto in PNBHFL. QIH, the older fund, wouldn't invest more since it had already been invested for 6 years, more than its usual investment horizon. So, the money had to come in through a new fund, in this case, Pluto. In the fundraise, QIH's interest would have been 'no heavy discount to market price', while Pluto's interest would have been 'no heavy premium to market price'. So, a Goldilocks price had to be arrived at - neither too high, nor too low. A rights issue would have meant heavy discount to market price and high shareholding dilution of QIH. So, a preferential issue was chosen, say sources, since it would mean lesser shareholding dilution of QIH.