Orders in case of preferential transactions
Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with orders in case of preferential transactions. The Adjudicating Authority, may, on an application made by the resolution professional or liquidator under sub-section (1) of section 43, by an order: (a) require any property transferred in connection with the giving of the preference to be vested in the corporate debtor; The Act was enacted on 28 May 2016.
The Adjudicating Authority, may, on an application made by the resolution professional or liquidator under sub-section (1) of section 43, by an order:
(a) require any property transferred in connection with the giving of the preference to be vested in the corporate debtor;
(b) require any property to be so vested if it represents the application either of the proceeds of sale of property so transferred or of money so transferred;
(c) release or discharge (in whole or in part) of any security interest created by the corporate debtor;
(d) require any person to pay such sums in respect of benefits received by him Adjudicating Authority may direct;
(e) direct any guarantor, whose financial debts or operational debts owed to any person were released or discharged (in whole or in part) by the giving of the preference, to be under such new or revived financial debts or operational debts to that person as the Adjudicating Authority deems appropriate;
(f) direct for providing security or charge on any property for the discharge of any financial debt or operational debt under the order, and such security or charge to have the same priority as a security or charge released or discharged wholly or in part by the giving of the preference; and
(g) direct for providing the extent to which any person whose property is so vested in the corporate debtor, or on whom financial debts or operational debts are imposed by the order, are to be proved in the liquidation or the corporate insolvency resolution process for financial debts or operational debts which arose from, or were released or discharged wholly or in part by the giving of the preference:
Provided that an order under this section shall not—
(a) affect any interest in property which was acquired from a person other than the corporate debtor or any interest derived from such interest and was acquired in good faith and for value;
(b) require a person, who received a benefit from the preferential transaction in good faith and for value to pay a sum to the liquidator or the resolution professional.
Explanation I.— For the purpose of this section, it is clarified that where a person, who has acquired an interest in property from another person other than the corporate debtor, or who has received a benefit from the preference or such another person to whom the corporate debtor gave the preference,—
(i) had sufficient information of the initiation or commencement of insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor;
(ii) is a related party,br
it shall be presumed that the interest was acquired or the benefit was received otherwise than in good faith unless the contrary is shown.
Explanation II.—A person shall be deemed to have sufficient information or opportunity to avail such information if a public announcement regarding the corporate insolvency resolution process has been made under section 13.
Section 44, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Raman Prakash Mangla vs Anuj Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan, circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Authority cannot interfere with the commercial aspects of the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors. If the Adjudicating Authority finds shortcomings in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters of keeping the corporate debtor as a going concern, maximizing the value of its assets, and taking care of interests of all stakeholders, it must send the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration, not modify the plan itself. Payment to dissenting financial creditors must be in monetary terms, not in kind or through transfer of equity or land. Once homebuyers as a class vote in favor of a resolution plan through their authorized representative, individual homebuyers cannot challenge the plan as dissenting creditors or aggrieved persons. The INR 750 crores deposited by the holding company pursuant to Supreme Court orders in Chitra Sharma is the property of the holding company, not the corporate debtor, and cannot be appropriated by the corporate debtor or the resolution applicant.
On this section: Avoidance of preferential transactions
-
Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs Axis Bank Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mortgage transactions executed by a subsidiary to secure loans of its holding company constitute preferential transactions under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 when: (1) the transactions transfer the subsidiary's property for benefit of the holding company (a related party and creditor of the subsidiary) for antecedent debts owed by the subsidiary to the holding company; (2) the transactions put the holding company in a beneficial position compared to other creditors in liquidation distribution; (3) the transactions fall within the two-year look-back period for related party transactions; and (4) the transactions are not made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the subsidiary, which requires reading the word 'or' in Section 43(3)(a) as 'and' to ensure both the subsidiary's and transferee's ordinary course of business are considered. Furthermore, lenders of a holding company cannot be categorized as financial creditors of a subsidiary merely by holding mortgages on the subsidiary's assets because financial debt requires disbursal against consideration for time value of money to the corporate debtor, and mortgage debt does not satisfy this essential requirement. The distinction between secured creditor and financial creditor must be maintained, with financial creditors being those with direct engagement in the corporate debtor's functioning from inception, involvement in assessing viability, and role in restructuring.
On this section: Adjudicating Authority may order property vested in corporate debtor; security interest released or discharged; person to pay sums to liquidator or resolution professional
-
Rajesh Gupta vs Nbcc (india) LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan is limited to verifying compliance with the mandatory requirements specified in Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Authority cannot modify the commercial terms of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors by the requisite majority (66% or more of voting share). If the Authority finds that the resolution plan does not meet the specified parameters (keeping corporate debtor as going concern, maximizing asset value, protecting stakeholder interests), it must remit the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration rather than modifying it itself. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is non-justiciable and cannot be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority on equitable or quantitative grounds. Dissenting financial creditors must receive payment in monetary terms (cash) equivalent to their liquidation value, not in kind through equity or land transfers. The INR 750 crores deposited by the holding company JAL pursuant to Supreme Court orders in the Chitra Sharma case remains the property of JAL and cannot be treated as an asset of the corporate debtor JIL for purposes of the resolution plan. Homebuyers as a class are bound by the decision of their authorized representative in the Committee of Creditors under Section 25A(3A), and individual homebuyers cannot maintain separate challenges to the resolution plan. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prevails over the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in case of conflict, though both statutes must be interpreted harmoniously. Concession Agreements with statutory authorities are not statutory contracts and their material terms cannot be modified without the consent of the other contracting party. Security interests not avoided under Section 43 of the Code cannot be unilaterally extinguished through a resolution plan.
On this section: Avoidance of preferential transactions; discharge of security interests created through such transactions
-
Chandra Prakash Jain RP vs Mr. Rajendra Sharma & Ors.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A consolidated interlocutory application in insolvency proceedings may be bifurcated into separate applications addressing distinct sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code when such bifurcation promotes procedural efficiency and does not prejudice the rights of any party. The tribunal has the discretion to segregate applications to streamline complex insolvency proceedings involving multiple respondents and diverse legal issues.
On this section: One of the sections addressed in the bifurcated IA 23/2022, relating to specific aspects of insolvency proceedings
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 44
What have the courts held on Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
Raman Prakash Mangla vs Anuj Jain (24 Mar 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Avoidance of preferential transactions. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2020 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 44, section 44 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Raman Prakash Mangla vs Anuj Jain (24 Mar 2021).
What should I read with Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 13 (Declaration of moratorium and public announcement), section 43 (Preferential transactions and relevant time), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When was Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enacted?
Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, cited as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 44, was enacted on 28 May 2016 as Act 31 of 2016. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 240. Power to make regulations2349 words
- 5. Definitions2326 words
- 3. Definitions1381 words
- 29A. Person not eligible to be resolution applicant1152 words
- 239. Power to make rules963 words
- 196. Powers and functions of Board942 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.