A Form F claim in insolvency is the claim of a creditor who is neither a financial creditor nor an operational creditor. The form's heading says so: "Proof of Claim by Creditors (other than financial creditors and operational creditors)", filed under regulation 9A of the CIRP Regulations. A flat buyer does not belong there. The Explanation to Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code deems every amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project to be a borrowing, which makes the allottee a financial creditor, and a financial creditor in a class files Form CA under regulation 8A. Form F is the wrong form for you by definition.
Part of the RERA and homebuyer disputes practice at S Jain & Attorneys, Bangalore.
This post is for the buyer who has filed Form CA and is now told to switch. Filling Form CA itself is covered in the Form CA guide.
I was told to file Form F in the builder's insolvency: what is a Form F claim?
Form F is one of the claim formats notified by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India in Circular IBBI/CIRP/94/2026 of 2 June 2026, after the Third Amendment of 2026 moved the forms out of the Schedule and into a circular. Every other claim form is tied to a named category. Form F is the leftover box.
| Form | Regulation | Heading in the circular | Who files it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form B | Regulation 7 | Proof of Claim by Operational Creditors except Workmen and Employees | A supplier, a contractor, a government body |
| Form C | Regulation 8 | Submission of Claim by Financial Creditors | A lender or any financial creditor not in a class |
| Form CA | Regulation 8A | Submission of Claim by Financial Creditors in a Class | An allottee, or any financial creditor in a class of ten or more |
| Form D | Regulation 9 | Proof of Claim by a Workman or an Employee | A workman or employee |
| Form E | Regulation 9 | Proof of Claim submitted by Authorised Representative of Workmen or Employees | One representative for many workmen or employees |
| Form F | Regulation 9A | Proof of Claim by Creditors (other than financial creditors and operational creditors) | A claimant who fits none of the above |
Read the form and the gap is visible. Form F has no entry for choosing an authorised representative and no related-party declaration, because a Form F claimant gets no representative and never sits on the committee of creditors. Form CA calls the claimant "the financial creditor" throughout and asks at entry 11 for the representative of the class.
Who is a creditor "other than financial and operational", and who actually files Form F?
A Form F claimant holds a "claim" under Section 3(6) of the Code, but the debt is neither a financial debt under Section 5(8), money "disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money", nor an operational debt under Section 5(21), a claim for goods or services including employment, or statutory dues. Section 3(10) makes a "creditor" anyone to whom a debt is owed, including "a decree holder", and regulation 9A(1) sweeps in every creditor "other than those covered under regulation 7, 8, 8A or 9". The residual category catches the person who gave the company neither money for a return nor goods or services for a price.
The clearest example the tribunals have dealt with is the landowner who put land into a project for a share of profit. In Mukesh N. Desai v Piyush Patel (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 780 of 2020, decided 24 February 2022), the NCLAT upheld a finding that a landowner entitled to twenty-five percent of a project's net profit under a memorandum of understanding was not a financial creditor, because his contribution carried no time value of money and was an ownership share in the venture. Regulation 9A exists for a creditor like that. A decree holder is named in Section 3(10), but the Supreme Court in Vishal Chelani accepted that a decree takes the character of the debt underneath it, so a decree alone pushes nobody into Form F.
Notice who is missing. Nobody who paid the builder for a flat. Three cards carry the point.
Form F, the leftover box
Regulation 9A covers only a creditor not already covered by regulations 7, 8, 8A or 9, and its heading excludes financial and operational creditors.
Allottee equals financial creditor
The Explanation to Section 5(8)(f) deems money raised from an allottee a borrowing, and Section 5(7) makes the person owed it a financial creditor.
Landowner, not lender
The NCLAT in Mukesh N. Desai held that a landowner sharing project profit under an MoU contributed no money with time value, so he was not a financial creditor.
Why is an allottee not an "other creditor" under the Code?
Because Parliament said so in 2018 and the Supreme Court upheld it in 2019. The Explanation to Section 5(8)(f), inserted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act 2018, reads: "any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing", taking "allottee" and "real estate project" from Section 2(d) and 2(zn) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016. Section 5(7) then makes any person owed a financial debt a financial creditor.
In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 2019, decided 9 August 2019), developers argued that buyers were at most operational creditors. Nariman and Surya Kant JJ rejected every limb: allottees were within Section 5(8)(f) from the inception of the Code, the 2018 Explanation merely clarified doubts, and RERA, the consumer forum and the Code are concurrent remedies.
Section 2(d) of RERA is generous. An allottee is the person to whom an apartment "has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter", and "includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise". A buyer with a registered sale deed is still an allottee.
The last link is regulation 8A. A "creditor in a class" files Form CA, and regulation 2(1)(aa) defines a class as at least ten financial creditors under Section 21(6A)(b). With fewer than ten buyers you are a financial creditor outside a class and file Form C under regulation 8. Either way you are on the financial side of the line.
Key takeaway. The Code classifies you by the money you paid, not by the state of the building. Money paid to a promoter for an apartment is deemed a borrowing by the Explanation to Section 5(8)(f), and the Supreme Court has twice refused to let anyone carve allottees out of that category.
Does part of the project being occupied, or my own possession, change my form?
No, your form turns on your own transaction with the company, not on what has happened to other units. The Code defines a creditor by the debt owed to that creditor. A hundred flats handed to other people do not change the character of the money you paid under your agreement for sale.
Three situations need separating. The buyer who has paid and has neither conveyance nor possession is an unpaid allottee, a financial creditor, Form CA. The buyer with a RERA refund order is still an allottee and still a financial creditor. The buyer who took possession under a registered sale deed and now claims delay compensation or the cost of unfinished work is still an allottee under Section 2(d), but whether a financial debt is still owed, and in what sum, is a question the resolution professional will examine from Section 3(6) and the Explanation. Neither Supreme Court judgment discussed here decides that buyer's classification, so take advice on the form and the figure before filing, and do not resolve the doubt by signing a form that concedes you are an "other creditor".
The RERA order point was settled in Vishal Chelani v Debashis Nanda (Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023, decided 6 October 2023). The resolution professional had put buyers holding UP RERA refund orders into a sub-class with worse terms under the plan. The Supreme Court set that aside: Section 5(8)(f) makes no distinction between one set of allottees and another, an order or decree crystallises the claim but "does not alter or disturb the status" of the allottee as a financial creditor, and the sub-class was "hyper-classification" that fell foul of Article 14. A RERA order is not a reason to leave the class. It is the reason you stay in it.
What do I give up by filing Form F instead of Form CA?
Three things.
The vote. The committee of creditors under Section 21(2) "shall comprise all financial creditors of the corporate debtor". Where a financial debt is owed to a class, Section 21(6A)(b) requires an authorised representative who "shall attend the meetings of the committee of creditors, and vote on behalf of each financial creditor to the extent of his voting share". Section 25A makes that representative vote on the class's instructions, by more than fifty percent of the voting share that voted. A Form F claimant is not on the committee, has no representative, and votes on nothing, including the plan that decides what he is paid.
The rank. Section 53(1) sets the order in liquidation. After process costs come workmen's dues and secured creditors who relinquished security in clause (b), other employees' dues in clause (c), "financial debts owed to unsecured creditors" in clause (d), government dues and the unpaid balance of secured creditors in clause (e), and only then "any remaining debts and dues" in clause (f). An unpaid allottee stands at clause (d). A Form F claimant stands at clause (f), two rungs lower and behind the government.
The record. Filing Form F is a signed statement that you are a creditor "other than" a financial creditor, and the plan can quote it back to you when money is allocated by class.
Common mistake. Filing Form F "as well, to be safe". Two claims for one debt produce a duplicate on the list of creditors, and the second carries a signed declaration that contradicts the first. The safe course is one Form CA, filed in time, with every document attached.
Can the IRP reject my Form CA because of the occupation or the RERA order?
The interim resolution professional can reject a claim only on verification and with written reasons, and never on the ground that an allottee is not a financial creditor. Regulation 13(1A), substituted with effect from 2 June 2026, requires the professional to "either admit or reject the claim, in whole or in part", and to communicate the decision "along with reasons" within seven days. Reclassifying an allottee out of the class is what the Supreme Court undid in Vishal Chelani.
Then there is the person telling you this. Regulation 16A(5) carries a clarification in terms: "The authorised representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class he represents." A message from the representative's office predicting rejection is a prediction by someone with no power to decide. Ask the professional, who has that power, for a written decision with regulation 13(1A) reasons.
If the professional does reject or downgrade the claim, the remedy is an application before the National Company Law Tribunal bench that admitted the insolvency. Section 60(5) gives that tribunal jurisdiction over "any claim made by or against the corporate debtor" and "any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution".
Deadline warning. Regulation 6(2)(c) gives fourteen days from the professional's appointment. After that, regulation 12(1), as substituted in September 2023, allows a late claim "up to the date of issue of request for resolution plans under regulation 36B or ninety days from the insolvency commencement date, whichever is later", and anything beyond ninety days needs reasons and a condonation. A claim withdrawn in a panic and refiled late is a late claim.
What should I do about the WhatsApp group and the AR's office?
What I tell buyers in this position is that the pressure usually comes from one of two places, and neither is a legal authority: a buyer who took possession and wants company, or an office handling several hundred claimants that wants fewer disputed files. Nobody gains by your leaving the class, and you lose your vote and your rank. Where these disputes actually turn is on paper: the form, the date, the agreement, the receipts and any RERA order attached, and whether a rejection states reasons that can be tested under Section 60(5). Nothing said in a group chat is part of that record.
- Do not withdraw the Form CA, and do not sign a Form F, a consent or anything that describes you as other than a financial creditor in the class of allottees.
- Ask the person pressing you to put it in writing: who says the Form CA will be rejected, and whether a regulation 13(1A) decision has been communicated.
- Write one letter to the interim resolution professional at the email address in the public announcement, stating that you are an allottee under Section 2(d) of RERA and a financial creditor under the Explanation to Section 5(8)(f), with the agreement for sale, allotment letter, receipts and any RERA order attached.
- If a Form F was already filed on someone's advice, withdraw it in the same letter and confirm that the Form CA is your only claim.
- Diarise the regulation 12 window: the public announcement date, the ninetieth day from commencement, and the request for resolution plans.
- If a reasoned rejection or downgrade arrives, file under Section 60(5) before the bench that admitted the insolvency, citing Pioneer Urban and Vishal Chelani.
- Give voting instructions to the authorised representative when the plan comes, because the vote, not the group chat, decides your money.
Before you answer anyone, the positions you are protecting are these.
Your vote in the committee
Section 21(6A)(b) gives the class a representative who votes for each allottee to the extent of her share. A Form F claimant votes on nothing.
Your rank in the waterfall
Section 53(1)(d) pays unsecured financial debt before government dues. Clause (f), "any remaining debts and dues", is where a Form F claimant waits, two rungs lower.
Reasons, then the tribunal
Regulation 13(1A) obliges the professional to admit or reject with reasons within seven days, and Section 60(5) lets the NCLT decide any claim or priority.
What does it cost and how long does it take?
The claim is filed at your own cost. Regulation 11: "A creditor shall bear the cost of proving the debt due to such creditor." A lawyer's letter of the kind described above is a modest piece of work, indicatively a few thousand rupees to the low tens of thousands. A Section 60(5) application before the NCLT is a contested proceeding with a filing fee under the NCLT Rules and professional fees that, in Bengaluru, indicatively run from the tens of thousands of rupees to a few lakhs, and it usually takes several months to a decision. None of this is a reason to file the wrong form. File the right one once, early, with everything attached, and read the short answer on what happens when a builder goes into insolvency before the first meeting of the class. The firm's RERA and homebuyer disputes practice handles claims in a promoter's insolvency alongside K-RERA proceedings, and the guide to homebuyer rights when the builder is in insolvency covers the moratorium.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Form F just Form CA under a different name?
No. Form CA is the claim of a financial creditor in a class under regulation 8A, with an entry for choosing the class's authorised representative. Form F is the claim of a creditor who is neither financial nor operational under regulation 9A, with no representative, no vote and a lower rank in liquidation.
Can I file both Form CA and Form F to be safe?
No. They claim the same money in two contradictory capacities, and the Form F declaration is a signed statement that you are not a financial creditor. File one Form CA, and if a Form F has already gone in, withdraw it in writing.
Our project has only eight buyers. Do we file Form F?
No. A class needs at least ten financial creditors under regulation 2(1)(aa), so with eight you are financial creditors outside a class and file Form C under regulation 8. You remain financial creditors either way.
I bought the flat from the original allottee, not from the builder. Am I still an allottee?
Yes. Section 2(d) of RERA expressly includes the person who subsequently acquires the allotment through sale or transfer, and the Explanation to Section 5(8)(f) borrows that definition, so a transferee allottee files Form CA.
I hold a K-RERA order for refund with interest. Does that take me out of the homebuyers' class?
No. In Vishal Chelani v Debashis Nanda the Supreme Court held that a RERA refund order crystallises the claim without altering the allottee's status as a financial creditor, and struck down a plan that gave order-holders worse terms than other buyers.
The professional admitted my claim at a lower figure than I filed. Is that a rejection I can challenge?
It is a rejection in part, and regulation 13(1A) requires reasons for it within seven days. If the reasons do not hold, an application under Section 60(5) before the NCLT is the route, and a best estimate under regulation 14 can be revised as information comes in.
Who actually files Form F in a builder's insolvency?
A claimant whose debt is neither a financial debt nor an operational debt, such as a landowner who contributed land for a share of profit, which the NCLAT in Mukesh N. Desai v Piyush Patel held was not a financial debt. It is a residual category, and buyers who paid for flats are not in it.
If I am wrongly treated as an "other creditor", do I get nothing at all?
Not necessarily nothing, but a Form F claimant ranks at Section 53(1)(f), below unsecured financial creditors and government dues, and has no vote on the plan. The correction is to have your status as a financial creditor recorded, by letter to the professional and, if needed, by an application under Section 60(5).
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice on your specific situation.
