Secured creditor parity under resolution plans requires proof of first charge or breach of Section 30(2) to upset distribution.

An approved resolution plan cannot be disturbed on a claim of preferential treatment among secured creditors unless a breach of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or some material irregularity is shown. The appellant failed to prove first charge over the corporate debtor's assets, so it could not demand priority over other secured creditors under Sections 40 or 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Since secured creditors are treated as a distinct class and equitable treatment within that class was maintained, the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom was not interfered with. The challenge to the resolution plan therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the approved resolution plan violated Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by treating secured creditors unequally and by denying any preferential treatment to an alleged first charge holder.

Analysis: The claim to preferential treatment failed because there was no material on record to establish that the appellant was a first charge holder over the corporate debtor's assets. Secured creditors form a distinct class, and equitable treatment is required within that class; the Court would not interfere with the distribution under the resolution plan merely because one secured creditor received a different share, so long as the plan did not contravene Section 30(2). In the absence of proof of violation of the IBC or any material irregularity in the corporate insolvency resolution process, the appellant could not invoke Sections 40 or 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to claim a better position.

Conclusion: The resolution plan was held not to be invalid on the ground urged, and the appellant's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: Interference with the resolution plan was declined because no breach of the statutory requirements governing resolution plans or the distribution approved by the Committee of Creditors was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: A resolution plan cannot be interfered with on the basis of alleged preferential treatment among secured creditors unless a violation of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or material irregularity is established; in the absence of proof of first charge, equitable treatment within the creditor class prevails and the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is not to be disturbed.

---