In our view, the NCLAT's interpretation of treatment of invocation of corporate guarantees as admissible during the CIRP commencement date but not during the moratorium period, amounts to a critical oversight on the part of NCLAT, by failing to address the Supreme Court's decision in the case of China Development Bank v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3829), where it was categorically observed that whether the cause of action for invoking a guarantee has arisen or not is not relevant in defining a 'claim'. This judgment implies that an uninvoked guarantee would be admissible as a claim, whereas, as per NCLAT, an actually invoked guarantee during moratorium (where liability has crystallized) would not. This creates an untenable contradiction that requires urgent judicial clarification to establish consistent treatment of contingent liabilities arising from corporate guarantees throughout CIRP.