Corporate guarantee claims in CIRP need not be preceded by invocation; maintainability depends on the underlying right to payment.

Invocation of a corporate guarantee is not a prerequisite for filing a financial creditor's claim in CIRP, because the insolvency framework treats claim, debt and default as distinct concepts. A claim may exist on the basis of the underlying right to payment even before the guarantee is invoked, and the moratorium does not extinguish that claim. The earlier view that non-invocation barred admission was rejected. The claim was therefore maintainable, and the resolution professional was required to verify and admit it and restore the creditor's participation in the CIRP.

---

---

Issues: Whether a financial creditor's claim in the corporate insolvency resolution process can be rejected merely because the corporate guarantee was not invoked before filing the claim.

Analysis: The claim of a financial creditor is distinct from the enforcement of recovery rights. The concepts of claim, debt, and default are separately defined under the insolvency framework, and the right to file a claim during CIRP is not dependent on actual default or prior invocation of the guarantee. A claim based on a guarantee may exist even if the guarantee has not been invoked, and the moratorium does not extinguish that claim. The earlier view treating invocation as a condition precedent for admitting the claim was not accepted in light of the later authoritative exposition that the absence of an invocation notice does not defeat the existence of the claim.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claim for non-invocation of the corporate guarantee was erroneous, and the claim was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the claim and excluding the creditor from the committee of creditors was set aside, and the resolution professional was directed to verify and admit the claim and restore the creditor's participation in the CIRP.

Ratio Decidendi: For admission of a claim in CIRP, invocation of a corporate guarantee is not a prerequisite; the existence of a claim depends on the underlying right to payment, not on prior enforcement of the guarantee.

---