Related-Party Financial Creditors under the IBC

Related-Party Financial Creditors under the IBC, Voting Exclusion, Section 53 Priority and Liquidation-Value Protection

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) treats a related-party financial creditor differently for Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) participation, but not necessarily for distribution under the liquidation waterfall. This distinction becomes important where a related-party financial creditor is secured or unsecured and is excluded from voting under the first proviso to Section 21(2).

Two questions arise:

1. Can a related-party financial creditor be placed in a different category from other secured or unsecured financial creditors under Section 53?

2. Does the liquidation-value protection available to operational creditors and dissenting financial creditors extend to a related-party financial creditor that has no voting rights?

The better view, supported by the statutory structure and the authorities discussed below, is that related-party status does not create a separate rank under Section 53. However, a related-party financial creditor excluded from voting does not automatically obtain the liquidation-value floor applicable to a dissenting financial creditor under Section 30(2)(b)(ii).

Section 21: exclusion from CoC participation

The first proviso to Section 21(2) provides:

“Provided that a financial creditor who is a related party of the corporate debtor shall not have any right of representation, participation or voting in a meeting of the committee of creditors.”

The provision is directed at the creditor’s role in the CoC. It does not state that the underlying debt ceases to be financial debt, or that the creditor becomes an operational creditor.

This distinction was explained by the Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Spade Financial Services Limited, (2021) 3 SCC 475. The Court held that the exclusion under the first proviso to Section 21(2):

“is related not to the debt itself but to the relationship existing between a related party financial creditor and the corporate debtor.”

The purpose of the exclusion is to prevent a related party from exercising influence over the insolvency process when its interests may conflict with those of independent creditors. The exclusion therefore concerns CoC governance, not the statutory identity of the creditor.nclt.gov+3

A related-party creditor remains a financial creditor, subject to the statutory consequences of its related-party status.

Section 53 does not create a related-party category

Section 53 establishes the order of priority for distribution in liquidation. Its relevant structure is based on:

• liquidation and insolvency-resolution costs;

• workmen’s dues and debts owed to secured creditors who relinquish security;

• employee dues;

• unsecured financial debts;

• government dues and unpaid secured-creditor claims after enforcement; and

• remaining debts and dues.

Section 53 does not create an independent category for “related-party financial creditors.” Its classification is based principally on the character of the debt and the creditor’s security position.

Accordingly, a secured related-party financial creditor and a secured unrelated financial creditor are ordinarily dealt with according to the applicable secured-creditor provision. Similarly, an unsecured related-party financial creditor falls within the category of unsecured financial debts under Section 53(1)(d), unless the claim is otherwise found not to constitute a genuine financial debt.

The NCLAT’s decision in Times Innovative Media Limited v. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal (Liquidator) & Anr. is particularly relevant. The tribunal held that an unsecured financial creditor’s priority under Section 53 is not displaced merely because the creditor is a related party. The principle was expressed as follows:

“Section 53 of the IB Code, 2016 does not envisage any difference between unsecured debtors and related party unsecured Financial Creditors.”

The NCLAT consequently rejected the argument that an operational creditor should rank above a related-party unsecured financial creditor. It held that unsecured financial creditors fall under Section 53(1)(d), whereas operational creditors fall within the residual category under Section 53(1)(f).

The decision supports the proposition that related-party status, by itself, does not alter the Section 53 ranking of an otherwise valid financial debt.

Resolution plan versus liquidation distribution

A distinction must be maintained between:

• distribution during liquidation under Section 53; and

• payments proposed under a resolution plan under Section 30(2).

In liquidation, Section 53 supplies the statutory waterfall. If the claim is a valid financial debt, its position is determined by the applicable category under Section 53. The liquidator cannot ordinarily create a new category of “related-party financial creditor” and place it below other creditors of the same statutory class merely because of the relationship.

The position is different during CIRP. A resolution plan may propose differential treatment between creditor classes, provided that it complies with the mandatory requirements of Section 30(2), the regulations, and applicable judicial principles. A related-party financial creditor may therefore receive less, or even no payment, under a resolution plan where the statutory requirements for protected classes are satisfied.

This does not mean, however, that the resolution plan can rewrite the Section 53 waterfall for the purpose of an actual liquidation. Section 53 remains the benchmark where the Code expressly requires comparison with liquidation entitlement.

Section 30(2): statutory protection for specified classes

Section 30(2)(b) protects operational creditors. The resolution plan must provide for payment to operational creditors in the manner specified by the Board, subject to the statutory minimum linked to the amount they would receive under Section 53(1) in liquidation.

Section 30(2)(b)(ii) protects a dissenting financial creditor. It requires payment of not less than the amount payable to that creditor under Section 53(1) in the event of liquidation.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the statutory protection of dissenting financial creditors in DBS Bank Limited, Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3. The Court recognised that a dissenting financial creditor is entitled to payment not less than the amount payable under Section 53(1) in liquidation.

These protections are not expressed as a general guarantee for every creditor who does not vote. They are linked to particular statutory categories:

• an operational creditor under Section 30(2)(b); and

• a financial creditor who dissents from the resolution plan under Section 30(2)(b)(ii).

Is a non-voting related-party creditor a dissenting financial creditor?

A related-party financial creditor excluded under Section 21(2), first proviso, cannot participate or vote in the CoC. It therefore does not cast a vote against the resolution plan.

This is conceptually different from a financial creditor who participates in the CoC and votes against the plan. The latter is a dissenting financial creditor. The former is a non-participating financial creditor.

Therefore, the better interpretation is that a related-party financial creditor does not become a dissenting financial creditor merely because the law prevents it from voting. The statutory condition of dissent is not fulfilled by mere exclusion from the voting process.

The distinction may be illustrated as follows:

Creditor	Voting position	Section 30(2) consequence
Operational creditor	Ordinarily no CoC vote	Protected under Section 30(2)(b)
Independent financial creditor voting against plan	Votes against	Protected as dissenting FC under Section 30(2)(b)(ii)
Related-party financial creditor excluded under Section 21(2)	Cannot participate or vote	Not automatically protected as a dissenting FC
Related-party financial creditor in liquidation	No CoC voting issue	Paid according to its Section 53 category, subject to validity of claim

The difficulty is that the related-party financial creditor is denied the very vote that would enable it to dissent. This creates a policy tension. Nevertheless, courts generally apply statutory categories as enacted and do not extend the Section 30(2)(b)(ii) protection by analogy.

Does Section 53 nevertheless provide protection?

The answer depends on the stage of the insolvency process.

In liquidation

Yes, the related-party financial creditor receives the benefit of its statutory Section 53 ranking, provided the underlying debt is admitted and valid. For example, an unsecured related-party financial creditor ordinarily falls within Section 53(1)(d), alongside other unsecured financial creditors.

That is not a special related-party protection. It is the ordinary protection flowing from the creditor’s classification as an unsecured financial creditor.

In resolution

Not necessarily. Section 30(2)(b)(ii) does not say that every financial creditor must receive its liquidation entitlement. It refers specifically to a dissenting financial creditor.

A related-party financial creditor excluded from voting is not, on the better view, a dissenting financial creditor. Consequently, its liquidation entitlement under Section 53 does not automatically operate as a minimum amount payable under the resolution plan.

This produces an apparent asymmetry:

• if the company enters liquidation, the related-party financial creditor receives the benefit of the applicable Section 53 category; but

• if a resolution plan is approved, the creditor may not receive the Section 53 amount merely because it was excluded from voting.

That asymmetry results from the statutory distinction between liquidation distribution and minimum payments under a resolution plan.

Important qualification: validity and character of the debt

The conclusion that related-party status does not alter Section 53 ranking assumes that the claim is a genuine and admissible financial debt.

A related-party claim may still be challenged on other grounds, including:

• absence of disbursement against the consideration for the time value of money;

• sham, collusive or circular transactions;

• lack of genuine commercial effect;

• extinguishment, waiver or subordination under the transaction documents;

• treatment as capital contribution rather than debt; or

• statutory exclusion under the IBC or applicable regulations.

In Phoenix Arc, the Supreme Court’s discussion also emphasised the need to examine collusive transactions and the real nature of the financial arrangement. Thus, the proposition that Section 53 does not distinguish between related-party and unrelated financial creditors does not prevent adjudication of whether the claim is, in substance, a genuine financial debt.

If the claim is not a genuine financial debt, the creditor cannot invoke Section 53(1)(d) merely by labelling the amount as a loan.

Conclusion

The better legal position may be stated in four propositions:

1. Related-party status affects CoC rights, not necessarily creditor classification. Under Section 21(2), first proviso, a related-party financial creditor cannot participate or vote; under Phoenix Arc, the exclusion relates to the relationship, not the character of the debt.

2. Section 53 does not create a separate related-party rank. A valid secured or unsecured related-party financial debt is ranked according to its security status and the applicable Section 53 category. Times Innovative Media supports this position in relation to unsecured related-party financial creditors.

3. Liquidation-value protection under Section 30(2) is class-specific. Operational creditors are protected under Section 30(2)(b), while dissenting financial creditors are protected under Section 30(2)(b)(ii).

4. A related-party financial creditor excluded from voting is not automatically a dissenting financial creditor. Its non-voting status does not, by itself, create a Section 30(2)(b)(ii) liquidation-value floor during CIRP. In liquidation, however, the creditor remains entitled to the applicable Section 53 treatment, subject to the validity and admissibility of its claim.

The principal unresolved policy issue is whether denying a related-party financial creditor the right to vote should also deny it the statutory minimum available to a dissenting financial creditor. Unless the legislature or a binding higher judicial authority addresses that anomaly, the stronger textual position is that non-participation is not dissent, and that the Section 30(2)(b)(ii) floor cannot be extended by analogy.

B. Thus, a related party operational creditor is on better footing for distribution in CIRP.

On a close reading of the IBC scheme and the authorities, a related-party operational creditor is indeed in a better position than a related-party financial creditor in at least two critical respects: (i) entitlement to a liquidation-value floor under Section 30(2)(b), and (ii) ranking in liquidation under Section 53 in many fact patterns.

1. Statutory protection under Section 30(2)(b)

Section 30(2)(b) is expressed in terms of operational creditors, without carving out “related-party operational creditors” as an excluded class.

• Section 30(2)(b), IBC: A resolution plan must provide for payment to operational creditors in the manner specified by the Board, which shall not be less than the amount they would receive under Section 53(1) in liquidation (or the liquidation value, as specified).

There is no parallel provision that says “operational creditors who are related parties shall not be entitled to the Section 30(2)(b) minimum.” By contrast, the Code does expressly strip related-party financial creditors of CoC rights under Section 21(2), first proviso, but it does not strip related-party operational creditors of their Section 30(2)(b) protection.

Consequently:

• A related-party operational creditor is entitled to at least the liquidation-value amount (or the amount computed under the applicable regulation) in a resolution plan.

• A related-party financial creditor who cannot vote is not a dissenting financial creditor and therefore does not automatically get the Section 30(2)(b)(ii) floor.

This already places the related-party operational creditor on a stronger footing in CIRP.

2. Liquidation ranking under Section 53

In liquidation, the position is more nuanced but often still favours the operational creditor where the alternative is a related-party financial creditor whose claim is vulnerable to challenge.

(a) Plain Section 53 ranking

On a plain reading of Section 53(1):

• Unsecured financial debts fall under Section 53(1)(d).

• Operational debts (to the extent not covered earlier) generally fall under the residual category in Section 53(1)(f).

In that sense, an unrelated unsecured financial creditor ranks above an operational creditor.

However, where the unsecured financial creditor is a related party, two additional considerations arise.

(b) Vulnerability of related-party financial claims

Related-party financial claims are frequently scrutinised on grounds such as:

• whether there was actual disbursement against consideration for the time value of money;

• whether the transaction was collusive, circular or colourable;

• whether the advance was, in substance, a capital contribution rather than a loan; or

• whether the claim should be subordinated on equitable grounds.

If a related-party financial claim is recharacterised, disallowed or subordinated, the operational creditor may in practice receive a larger share, or the related-party financial creditor may be pushed below operational creditors in the distribution.

By contrast, an operational debt (for goods, services, employment or statutory dues) is usually more straightforward to establish and less susceptible to being recharacterised as equity.

(c) NCLAT’s approach in Times Innovative Media

The NCLAT in Times Innovative Media Ltd. v. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal (Liquidator) & Anr. held that Section 53 does not distinguish between related-party and unrelated unsecured financial creditors, and that unsecured financial creditors rank above operational creditors.

That decision supports the view that, if the related-party financial claim is admitted as a genuine unsecured financial debt, it will rank above operational creditors under Section 53(1)(d).

Even so, the operational creditor retains the Section 30(2)(b) protection in resolution, while the related-party financial creditor does not enjoy a corresponding Section 30(2)(b)(ii) protection if it cannot vote.

3. CoC composition and voting

There is a third, structural reason why a related-party operational creditor can be better off:

• Related-party financial creditors are expressly barred from representation, participation and voting in the CoC under Section 21(2), first proviso.

• Operational creditors, whether related or not, are generally not members of the CoC and do not have voting rights, except in the narrow situations where there are no financial creditors or all financial creditors are related parties (Regulation 16 of the CIRP Regulations).

Thus, neither class typically votes. But only the operational creditor class has a statutory minimum payment floor in resolution. The related-party financial creditor has neither voting rights nor a guaranteed minimum.

4. The resulting asymmetry

Putting these threads together:

• A related-party operational creditor:

• Is entitled to the Section 30(2)(b) minimum (liquidation value or as specified) in a resolution plan.

• In liquidation, ranks according to Section 53(1)(f) (or other applicable head), but its claim is usually less vulnerable to recharacterisation than a related-party financial claim.

• A related-party financial creditor:

• Is excluded from CoC voting under Section 21(2), first proviso.

• Does not automatically qualify as a dissenting financial creditor and therefore lacks the Section 30(2)(b)(ii) floor.

• In liquidation, may rank above operational creditors under Section 53(1)(d) if the claim is admitted as a genuine unsecured financial debt, but the claim is more exposed to challenges on validity, character and subordination.

The net effect is that the related-party operational creditor enjoys a statutory liquidation-value guarantee in resolution and a relatively more secure claim profile, whereas the related-party financial creditor suffers both governance exclusion and absence of a parallel statutory minimum.

5. Policy tension

• The Code excludes related-party financial creditors from CoC voting to prevent conflicts of interest.

• But by denying them the ability to dissent, it also denies them the protective floor that attaches to dissent under Section 30(2)(b)(ii).

• Meanwhile, a related-party operational creditor, who also does not vote, retains the Section 30(2)(b) protection because the statute does not exclude related-party operational creditors from that class.

Unless and until the legislature or a binding higher judicial authority addresses this asymmetry, the stronger textual position remains:

• Related-party operational creditors are protected under Section 30(2)(b).

• Related-party financial creditors excluded from voting are not entitled to protection under Section 30(2)(b)(ii).

In the current statutory scheme and case law, a related-party operational creditor is on a better footing than a related-party financial creditor who lacks voting rights.

Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this article is for creating awareness and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision, commercial or otherwise. One must do its own research or read the original text of the judgment or seek professional advice if it intends to take any action or decision using the material covered here.

-------------------------------------------------

Whether the right of subrogation is automatic or needs assertion in the Liquidation Process.

 Whether the right of subrogation is automatic or needs assertion in the Liquidation Process.

The right of subrogation in Indian law is automatic by operation of law upon payment of the debt/loss; it does not require a separate assertion, assignment, or registered instrument to arise, though the subrogee must plead and prove payment when enforcing the right.

Core position: automatic upon payment

• In insurance, the insurer’s right of subrogation vests automatically as soon as the insurer indemnifies the insured for the loss; it is an equitable right that arises by operation of law and does not depend on any express agreement or letter of subrogation.

• In suretyship/guarantee, under Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, once the surety pays the creditor, the surety is invested with the creditor’s rights against the principal debtor; the right accrues on payment, not on any separate assertion.c

• Courts describe subrogation as “inherent, incidental and collateral to a contract of indemnity” and emphasize that it occurs automatically when the claim is settled; no writing is necessary to create the right.

But: payment is the trigger; mere claim or promise is not enough

• Subrogation does not arise until payment is actually made; until indemnity is discharged, there is no subrogation.

• For insurers, payment may be for a total or partial loss; the right arises upon payment of the loss for which the insurer is liable.

Enforcement: you must plead and prove payment (and sometimes register, in mortgage redemptions)

• While the right arises automatically, to enforce it in litigation the subrogee must plead and prove that it has paid/indemnified the insured (or discharged the debt, in case of surety).

• In mortgage redemption contexts under Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a person who advances money to redeem a prior mortgage gets subrogation only if the mortgagor has executed a registered instrument agreeing to such subrogation; absent that, mere payment may not confer statutory subrogation rights against other mortgagees.

• This registration requirement is specific to the mortgage redemption scenario in TPA #92 and should not be conflated with insurance/surety subrogation under the Contract Act.

Practical takeaway;

• You do not need a prior “assertion” or assignment to have the right; it vests on payment.

• To use the right (file suit, claim recovery, issue notice), you should:

• Clearly plead the legal basis (e.g., Section 140 ICA for surety; equitable subrogation for insurer).

• Attach proof of payment/indemnity (receipts, settlement advice, discharge voucher).

• In mortgage-redemption cases, ensure there is a registered subrogation instrument if relying on TPA #92 against other mortgagees.

In an IBC liquidation, a guarantor who has paid the creditor does not automatically replace the creditor in the Regulation 31 “list of stakeholders”; the right of subrogation under Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act vests on payment, but to be reflected as a stakeholder and to receive distribution from the liquidation estate the guarantor must submit/modify a proof of claim and get it admitted (or seek modification of the creditor’s entry) under the Liquidation Process Regulations.

Why the right is automatic, but entry in the list is not

• Subrogation itself is automatic on payment: Once the guarantor discharges the guaranteed debt (here, via court‑ordered auction of guarantor’s property and payment to the creditor), Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act invests the guarantor with all the rights which the creditor had against the principal debtor to the extent of payment.

• Regulation 31 is claim‑driven: The liquidator prepares the list of stakeholders “on the basis of proofs of claims submitted and accepted” under the Regulations; it is not a mechanical substitution of names upon payment.

• Liquidation distribution is tied to admitted claims: Distribution under Section 53 and the waterfall operates against the admitted claims in the liquidation; a person who does not have an admitted proof generally cannot draw distribution.

Correct procedural route for the guarantor

Given creditor’s claim already admitted; guarantor later pays via auction proceeds:

1. Guarantor files a proof of claim (or application for modification)

• The guarantor should file a proof of claim (as a financial creditor, to the extent of payment) together with:

• Auction/sale of guarantor’s property;

• Sale/auction records and proof of payment to the creditor;

• Creditor’s no‑dues/discharge certificate or acknowledgment that the debt stands satisfied from guarantor’s proceeds.

• Alternatively, where the creditor’s claim is already admitted, the liquidator or guarantor can seek modification of the existing entry in the list of stakeholders under Regulation 31(3) (liquidator may apply to AA to modify an entry when additional information warrants it).

2. Liquidator’s duty upon being satisfied

• On being satisfied that the creditor’s dues are extinguished by the guarantor’s payment, the liquidator should:

• Reduce/eliminate the creditor’s admitted claim (to the extent paid); and

• Admit the guarantor’s claim (as subrogee) for the same amount, and seek directions of AA to update the list of stakeholders accordingly.

• The updated list must be filed with the Adjudicating Authority and made available for inspection; Regulation 31(5) expressly contemplates that the list is available for inspection by guarantors as well.

3. If the liquidator refuses or delays

• The guarantor may approach the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) under the IBC seeking:

• A direction to the liquidator to accept the proof of claim and modify the list under Regulation 31(3); and/or

• Appropriate orders to ensure distribution in accordance with the waterfall under Section 53, recognizing the guarantor’s subrogated rights.

Important nuance: extent of subrogation and double recovery

• The guarantor’s subrogation is only up to the amount actually paid and only to the extent the principal debtor’s liability to the creditor is discharged; there cannot be double recovery by both creditor and guarantor for the same debt.

• Practically, once the creditor is paid in full from the guarantor’s proceeds, the creditor should withdraw/reduce its proof; the guarantor then steps into that slot (same security status, same priority) for the paid portion.

Bottom line scenario

• Right of subrogation: automatic on payment (Section 140).

• Replacement in Regulation 31 list / entitlement to distribution: not automatic; requires proof of claim and admission (or modification of the creditor’s entry) so that the liquidator can update the stakeholder list and distribute proceeds accordingly.

Specific court judgments addressing this exact scenario

There is no single Supreme Court/NCLAT judgment that lays down a bright-line rule saying “a paying guarantor automatically replaces the creditor in the Regulation 31 list without filing a proof”, but there is a clear line of authority that 

• (i) confirms the automatic subrogation right on payment, and 

• (ii) shows how tribunals treat guarantor claims/subrogation in insolvency/liquidation contexts, 

Below are the most on-point authorities 

1. Subrogation of guarantor is automatic on payment (general law)

• K.V. Jayaprakash v. State Bank of India (Madras High Court) reiterates the classic position under Section 140, Indian Contract Act: once the surety/guarantor pays what he is liable for, he is “invested with all the rights which the creditor had against the principal debtor”. This is the bedrock for saying the right arises on payment, not on assertion.

2. Subrogation in IBC: limited to amount actually paid; does not extinguish creditor’s balance claim.

• BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2024) is the leading modern IBC case on guarantor subrogation. The Court held:

• Subrogation in favour of a guarantor (or resolution applicant paying on behalf of a corporate guarantor) is only to the extent of the amount actually recovered/paid to the creditor.

• Even after such payment, the creditor’s right to recover the balance from the principal debtor is not extinguished.
  This squarely supports the proposition that the guarantor steps into the creditor’s shoes pro tanto, but only for what has been paid.

While BRS Ventures was in a resolution context (not liquidation), its core subrogation principle is routinely applied by tribunals in liquidation matters as well, because it interprets the interaction of the Contract Act with the IBC scheme.

3. Resolution plans can (and often do) expressly extinguish guarantor’s subrogation claims in CIRP

Several NCLAT decisions show that in CIRP, resolution plans commonly provide that guarantors’ subrogation/indemnity claims stand released from the “effective date”, precisely because such claims would otherwise compete with other creditors in distribution. Examples:

• In at least one NCLAT order, the approved plan stated:
  “On and from the Effective Date, the guarantors … shall not be entitled to exercise any subrogation right … Since the guarantor’s subrogation right would be an unsecured right, and their liquidation value is NIL …”
  This reflects the tribunal’s acceptance that, within the IBC process, subrogation claims are treated as claims that must be dealt with under the plan/liquidation framework, not as an automatic seat at the table without a proof.

• The Essar Steel line of NCLAT jurisprudence similarly treats guarantor subrogation/indemnity as something that gets neutralised or restructured by the resolution plan once the underlying debt is paid under the plan.

These cases are important because they show tribunals do not treat subrogation as a self-executing entry into the creditor hierarchy; instead, it is a claim that is either (a) admitted and paid in accordance with the plan/liquidation, or (b) expressly released.

4. Liquidation-specific framework: list of stakeholders is claim-based; modification mechanism exists

While not a “guarantor-specific” judgment, the statutory scheme under Regulation 31 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 is repeatedly cited by NCLAT/NCLT in liquidation appeals, and IBBI’s own discussion papers highlight that:

• The liquidator prepares the list of stakeholders on the basis of proofs of claim submitted and accepted.

• Where additional information emerges (e.g., creditor has been paid by a guarantor), Regulation 31(3)–(4) contemplate that the liquidator may apply to the Adjudicating Authority to modify an entry in the list, and shall modify it as directed.

Once the guarantor pays, given creditor’s claim is already admitted, the correct route is either (i) guarantor files a proof of claim (as subrogee) and/or (ii) liquidator seeks modification of the creditor’s entry under Regulation 31(3)–(4). There is no reported case that bypasses this and says the substitution is automatic without any proof/modification step.

5. Practical synthesis for exact fact-pattern

Putting these together:

• BRS Ventures confirms: guarantor’s subrogation is limited to the amount paid and does not wipe out the creditor’s claim beyond that.

• K.V. Jayaprakash confirms: subrogation vests on payment under Section 140.

• NCLAT resolution-plan cases show: subrogation claims are treated as claims within the IBC process, capable of being released or restructured; they do not operate outside the claim/admission framework.

• Regulation 31 scheme + IBBI discussion papers show: in liquidation, the list of stakeholders is proof-driven, and the proper tool when a creditor is paid by a guarantor is modification of entry (or admission of a new proof), not automatic replacement.

So while there is no judgment that uses the exact phraseology (“automatic replacement in Regulation 31 list”), the combined effect of BRS Ventures (subrogation quantum), K.V. Jayaprakash (vesting on payment), and the Regulation 31 modification mechanism (as discussed in NCLAT/IBBI materials) gives a strong, court-aligned basis to argue:

• The guarantor’s right arises automatically on payment; but

• To be reflected in the list of stakeholders and to receive distribution from the liquidation estate, the guarantor must either file a proof of claim or have the creditor’s entry modified under Regulation 31(3)–(4) upon showing that the creditor has been paid from the guarantor’s property.

Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this blog is to create awareness on the subject and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision, commercial or otherwise. One must do his own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this blog.

---------------------------------------------------------