How the Resolution Professional Adjudicates Contingent Claims in CIRP

Regulation 14 of the CIRP Regulations requires the Resolution Professional to estimate, rather than exclude, any contingent claim against a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including uninvoked guarantees, pending litigation, and indemnities whose amount is not yet fixed. The Section 14 moratorium freezes the external proceedings that would otherwise determine such claims, leaving the estimate as the only route to admission. A creditor who does not file within the CIRP timeline loses the claim entirely once the resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1). This article explains how estimation, the moratorium, and plan approval interact for contingent creditors.

What Counts as a Contingent Claim in CIRP?

The IBC does not define "contingent claim" explicitly, which has led to a degree of interpretive variation in how RPs and courts treat them. In practice, the term describes any claim against the corporate debtor where the right to payment, or its quantum, is not fixed as of the insolvency commencement date (ICD). Categories that come up most often in CIRP include: claims under uninvoked corporate or personal guarantees; pending litigation or arbitration awards not reduced to a decree before the ICD; indemnification claims under contracts where the triggering event has not yet occurred; damages claims arising from terminated contracts where assessment is pending; and tax and regulatory demands that are under challenge or appeal before adjudicatory forums.

The common thread is uncertainty: either the liability may never crystallise, or it will crystallise but at an amount not yet known. The CIRP framework must accommodate both types without either excluding them from the process or allowing their unresolved status to paralyse plan approval.

Regulation 14 of the CIRP Regulations: Estimation Where Quantum Is Indeterminate

Regulation 14 of the CIRP Regulations empowers the RP to estimate the value of a claim that cannot be precisely determined as of the ICD. The RP must record the reasons for the estimate in writing. This is the statutory workaround for the problem of unliquidated or contingent claims: rather than excluding them, the RP estimates them and admits them provisionally.

The estimative exercise is difficult in practice. The RP must assess the probability that the contingency will occur, the likely quantum if it does, and any contractual or statutory caps on liability. There is no prescribed methodology, and the IBBI has not issued detailed guidance. In practice, RPs draw on actuarial principles, contractual terms, and the amounts claimed by the creditor as reference points. The estimate may differ substantially from what the creditor considers its rightful claim, which leads to disputes before the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the IBC.

Does the Section 14 Moratorium Stop Adjudication of Contingent Claims?

Section 14 of the IBC imposes an automatic moratorium on the corporate debtor from the ICD. Under Section 14(1)(a), no suit or proceeding against the corporate debtor can be instituted or continued during CIRP. This has a direct and disruptive effect on contingent claims that were in active adjudication before CIRP: civil court proceedings, arbitral proceedings, and appeals before statutory tribunals all freeze when the moratorium takes effect.

The RP is therefore left to estimate claims whose quantum was in the process of being determined by an external forum that can no longer proceed. In some cases, the very determination of whether the contingency has occurred at all depends on pending proceedings. The moratorium does not suspend proceedings in which the corporate debtor is the plaintiff or claimant, but it does prevent any adjudication that would fix a liability against the debtor.

Uninvoked Corporate Guarantees: Filing Requirements and the Clean Slate Effect

Corporate guarantees that have not yet been invoked as of the ICD represent one of the most litigated categories of contingent claims. The position, as clarified through judicial interpretation, is that a creditor holding an uninvoked corporate guarantee must still file its claim with the RP during CIRP. The claim is admitted as a contingent claim, estimated by the RP under Regulation 14, and treated in the resolution plan accordingly.

A creditor who does not file, on the reasoning that the guarantee has not yet been called and so no claim exists, risks losing its claim entirely. On approval of the resolution plan under Section 31(1), all claims are extinguished except as provided in the plan. If the creditor's claim was not filed and not accounted for, the clean slate doctrine leaves no room for recovery, even if the creditor later invokes the guarantee and demands payment.

Treatment in the Resolution Plan: Distribution to Contingent Creditors

A resolution plan must address all admitted claims, including contingent ones. Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC requires that a plan provide operational creditors an amount not less than the liquidation value of their claims. For contingent operational creditors, the liquidation value of a claim is itself a probabilistic figure, and resolution applicants and creditors often price it very differently.

Where a resolution plan provides nominal or zero value to contingent creditors, those creditors may challenge plan approval before the NCLT. The NCLT's review is confined to the grounds specified in Section 30(2), and courts have consistently deferred to the CoC's commercial judgment on the commercial terms of a plan. Where a plan entirely ignores a class of admitted contingent creditors, however, the challenge has more substance, particularly where the liquidation value of the contingent claims is not negligible.

Post-Approval Crystallisation: Contingent Claims That Materialise After Plan Approval

Section 31(1) of the IBC makes an approved resolution plan binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members, creditors, guarantors, and all other stakeholders. Past claims are extinguished except to the extent provided in the plan. This applies to contingent claims as much as to fixed claims.

If a contingent claim crystallises after plan approval, the creditor's position depends entirely on how the plan treated that claim. If the claim was admitted and accounted for in the plan, the creditor receives what the plan provides. If the claim was admitted but the plan provided nothing for it, the creditor may challenge plan approval but cannot revisit the claim post-approval. If the claim was not filed at all, the creditor has no recourse regardless of when the contingency materialises.

This last scenario is the harshest consequence of the clean slate principle. A creditor holding a non-crystallised indemnity or guarantee, who chose not to file a protective claim during CIRP, finds itself without any remedy against the resolved corporate debtor, even if the contingency later produces a concrete liability worth substantially more than what the creditor might have recovered under the plan.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a contingent claim for purposes of CIRP?

A contingent claim is one where the creditor's right to payment, or its quantum, is not fixed as of the insolvency commencement date. It includes uninvoked guarantees, pending litigation claims, indemnification obligations, and tax demands under appeal or challenge.

Can the RP reject a contingent claim on the ground that it has not yet crystallised?

No. Regulation 14 of the CIRP Regulations specifically empowers the RP to estimate unliquidated and contingent claims and include them in the creditor list. Rejection solely on the ground that the claim has not crystallised would be challengeable before the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the IBC.

Does the Section 14 moratorium stop proceedings relevant to a contingent claim?

Yes. The moratorium stays all suits and proceedings against the corporate debtor, including pending civil court litigation and arbitration. The RP must estimate the claim without waiting for those proceedings to conclude.

What happens if a contingent creditor fails to file its claim during CIRP?

The claim is extinguished when the resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1). This applies even if the contingency crystallises after plan approval. The creditor has no recourse against the resolved corporate debtor for claims that were not filed during CIRP.

Can a resolution plan provide zero value to admitted contingent claims?

This is contested. Where contingent creditors are operational creditors, Section 30(2)(b) requires the plan to provide at least the liquidation value of their claims. Providing zero where liquidation value is positive is challengeable. For contingent financial creditors, the position is governed by what the CoC approves, subject to the NCLT's review under Section 30(2).

Are uninvoked corporate guarantees treated as contingent claims?

Yes. An uninvoked corporate guarantee claim must still be filed with the RP during CIRP and will be treated as a contingent claim subject to estimation under Regulation 14. Failure to file means the claim is extinguished on plan approval, even if the guarantee is later called.

Can the RP's estimate of a contingent claim be challenged?

Yes. A creditor who disagrees with the RP's estimation may apply to the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the IBC, which gives the Tribunal broad jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the insolvency resolution process, including disputes over the admission or estimation of claims.

What is the deadline for a contingent creditor to file a claim during CIRP?

A creditor must file its claim with the Resolution Professional within the timeline specified in the public announcement made under Section 15 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ordinarily within ninety days of the insolvency commencement date, though the Adjudicating Authority can permit late filing before the resolution plan is approved in limited circumstances.

How does the Resolution Professional determine the probability that a contingent claim will crystallise?

Regulation 14 gives no prescribed methodology. In practice, the Resolution Professional considers the contractual terms creating the liability, the procedural stage of any underlying litigation or arbitration, statutory or contractual caps on liability, and the amount claimed by the creditor, recording the reasoning for the estimate in writing as Regulation 14 requires.

What is the difference between a contingent claim and a disputed claim in CIRP?

A disputed claim is one the corporate debtor contests on its merits, even though the amount may be fixed. A contingent claim is one where the right to payment, or its amount, has not yet crystallised as of the insolvency commencement date. The Resolution Professional deals with both under the CIRP Regulations, but the estimation exercise under Regulation 14 applies specifically to contingent and unliquidated claims.

Can a personal guarantor's contingent liability affect the corporate debtor's CIRP?

A personal guarantee given by the corporate debtor's promoter is a separate liability and is generally pursued through insolvency proceedings against the guarantor personally under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It does not, by itself, alter how the corporate debtor's own contingent claims are estimated or admitted during its CIRP.

Does an arbitration clause survive the Section 14 moratorium for a contingent claim?

The arbitration agreement itself survives, but Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 stays the arbitral proceeding against the corporate debtor for the duration of CIRP. The Resolution Professional must estimate the claim under Regulation 14 rather than wait for the arbitration to resume, though a revived proceeding after CIRP concludes can determine a different quantum if the claim was not resolved through the plan.

What recourse does a creditor have if it disagrees with a zero valuation of its contingent claim?

The creditor can apply to the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging the estimation as arbitrary or contrary to Regulation 14. The Tribunal examines whether the Resolution Professional recorded adequate reasons and applied a rational basis, though it does not ordinarily substitute its own commercial valuation for the Resolution Professional's estimate.

Do tax demands under appeal count as contingent claims in CIRP?

Yes. A tax or regulatory demand that the corporate debtor is contesting before an appellate authority is treated as a contingent claim, since the final liability depends on the outcome of the appeal. The relevant tax authority must file its claim with the Resolution Professional during CIRP, and the claim is estimated under Regulation 14 pending the appeal's outcome.

Vikrant D. Shetty | Vikrant D. Shetty leads the Insolvency and Arbitration Practice at Vikrant D. Shetty & Associates, Advocates & Solicitors. The firm advises financial creditors, operational creditors, and corporate debtors in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, and represents parties in domestic and international commercial arbitrations seated in India and abroad, including enforcement and challenge proceedings before the Bombay High Court.

Related reading: IBC vs SARFAESI: Which Route Delivers Faster Asset Realisation.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please seek direct consultation with an advocate.