Secured Vs Unsecured Creditor Rights.
Secured vs Unsecured Creditor Rights
Definition:
Secured Creditors: Creditors who hold a security interest (charge or lien) over the debtor’s assets. Their claims are backed by collateral, giving them priority in recovery.
Unsecured Creditors: Creditors who do not have any security over debtor assets. They rely solely on the debtor’s promise to pay.
In insolvency, this distinction is critical because secured creditors have preferential recovery rights, whereas unsecured creditors are paid from the remaining assets after secured claims and preferential claims are satisfied.
1. Rights of Secured Creditors
Right to Enforcement of Security
Can enforce their security independently of insolvency proceedings (except during moratorium under Section 14 of IBC).
Priority in Liquidation
Secured creditors are paid before unsecured creditors from the proceeds of the secured asset.
Option to Relinquish Security
Under Section 52(1)(c) of IBC, a secured creditor can relinquish security and claim as an unsecured creditor in insolvency.
Voting Rights in Committee of Creditors (CoC)
Secured financial creditors are part of CoC and can vote on resolution plans based on their claims.
Right to File Claims
Must submit claims to the Resolution Professional (RP) or Liquidator for recognition.
2. Rights of Unsecured Creditors
No Security Interest
Cannot enforce claims against specific assets directly.
Payment from Residual Assets
Paid only after secured creditors and preferential creditors have been satisfied.
Voting in CoC (if financial creditors)
Only financial unsecured creditors (like banks) are allowed in CoC; operational creditors usually do not have voting rights in resolution process (but have claims in liquidation).
Right to Challenge Resolution Plan
Can object if the plan unfairly discriminates or undervalues their claims.
Participation in Liquidation
Unsecured creditors share pro-rata in the liquidation pool after secured and preferential claims.
3. Key Legal Provisions (India)
| Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Sec 52, IBC | Rights of secured creditors in liquidation |
| Sec 53, IBC | Distribution waterfall; secured creditors’ priority |
| Sec 14, IBC | Moratorium prevents independent enforcement of security during CIRP |
| Sec 21, IBC | CoC formation; voting rights for secured financial creditors |
| Sec 66, IBC | Challenge to fraudulent/undervalued transactions affecting all creditors |
4. Indian Case Laws
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019, SC)
Recognized the distinction between secured and unsecured creditors, emphasizing priority in the IBC waterfall.
K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank (2019, SC)
Clarified that secured creditors have rights to enforce security, but during moratorium, they must act through the RP.
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2019, NCLAT)
Secured creditors had priority in recovery; unsecured financial creditors were paid after secured claims were satisfied.
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. (2020, NCLAT)
Reinforced secured creditors’ rights in liquidation; unsecured creditors’ recovery was contingent on residual assets.
ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2018, NCLAT)
Court clarified voting rights and recovery hierarchy; secured creditors’ votes carry weight in CoC.
M. S. Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator (2017, NCLT Chennai)
Demonstrated that unsecured creditors must wait until secured creditors are fully paid, highlighting asset distribution fairness.
5. Practical Implications
For Secured Creditors:
Maintain valid security agreements and monitor the moratorium period to enforce rights through RP.
For Unsecured Creditors:
Keep accurate claim records; participate in resolution or liquidation proceedings to maximize recovery.
For Insolvency Professionals:
Identify secured assets, prioritize claims, and manage fair distribution per Section 53 waterfall.
6. Summary Table
| Feature | Secured Creditor | Unsecured Creditor |
|---|---|---|
| Security Interest | Yes (asset-backed) | No |
| Priority in Payment | High (before unsecured) | Low (after secured & preferential) |
| Enforcement of Claim | Can enforce security (except during moratorium) | Only through liquidation/resolution process |
| Voting Rights in CoC | Yes | Only if financial creditor |
| Protection from Fraudulent Transfers | Yes, via Sections 43–66 | Yes, but only residual recovery |
| Participation in Liquidation | Paid from secured assets first | Paid pro-rata from remaining assets |
Conclusion:
The distinction between secured and unsecured creditors is fundamental in insolvency law. Secured creditors enjoy higher recovery and enforcement rights, while unsecured creditors rely on fair treatment under the liquidation waterfall. Indian courts have consistently upheld these principles to balance interests and ensure equitable recovery.
RELATED Blog
comments