https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293279 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. en-us Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293279 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. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293279