The 10% Rule: A Financial-Legal Framework For Commercial Receivables Management In India

Author(s): Khushboo Kejriwal

Paper Details: Volume 3, Issue 4

Citation: IJLSSS 3(4) 49

Page No: 660 – 668

ABSTRACT

Delayed recovery of receivables imposes a tangible economic cost on litigants in India. Drawing on statutory frameworks (e.g., the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) and empirical evidence on adjudicatory delays, this article develops a pragmatic heuristic—the “10% Rule”—to help clients, counsel, and courts internalise the time value of money when choosing forums and strategies. Using standard present value mechanics and a risk‑adjusted discounting approach, we demonstrate how even modest monthly discount rates (1.5–3%) materially erode recoverable value within a year, while a stress‑case rate of 10% per month approximates scenarios with high financing costs, litigation risk, and counterparty default probabilities. We synthesise recent policy developments (e.g., TReDS and MSEFC timelines) and propose actionable steps: front‑loading evidence, using MSME forums where applicable, leveraging invoice discounting, and structuring settlements to arrest value decay. Limitations and avenues for further empirical work are outlined.

INTRODUCTION

In Indian commercial and MSME disputes, parties often focus on the principal amount and statutory interest, while under‑weighting the time cost of delayed enforcement. The cumulative effect of financing costs, litigation uncertainty, inflation and counterparty risk steadily reduces the expected present value of any recovery. This paper operationalises a practical rule of thumb—the “10% Rule”—to foreground time‑value erosion in case strategy, forum selection and settlement design. While the label is deliberately memorable, the analysis is grounded in standard finance (discounting cash flows) and Indian legal frameworks governing delayed payments.

LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

Three pillars dominate the Indian context. First, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) mandates that buyers pay MSMEs within the agreed period (capped at 45 days) and imposes interest on delayed payments at three times the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Bank Rate, compounded with monthly rests (MSMED Act, 2006, s. 15–16). References under section 18 must be decided by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) “within ninety days” (s. 18(5)). Second, specialised debt fora such as Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) shape recovery timelines and incentives; Supreme Court jurisprudence under the IBC emphasises that a “financial debt” entails disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money (e.g., Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, 2019; Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank, 2020). Third, RBI’s Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS) provides an institutional mechanism for MSMEs to discount approved invoices with financiers, accelerating liquidity and mitigating value erosion.

EVIDENCE ON DELAY AND ITS COSTS

Empirical work consistently documents substantial adjudicatory lags. Studies of DRT proceedings using granular case‑level data find that a large share of hearings yield no progress and that petitioners, respondents, counsel, and the tribunal each contribute to adjournments. Broader court‑system diagnostics show highly variable decision times across districts and case types. On the payments side, the MSME Samadhaan dashboard reflects a persistent gap between applications filed and amounts fully resolved at MSEFCs. These institutional facts justify incorporating aggressive discount rates in expected‑value calculations, especially for smaller enterprises reliant on working capital.

METHODOLOGY: A RISK‑ADJUSTED PRESENT VALUE FRAMEWORK

Let a claimant expect a cash flow of amount F receivable after n months. With a monthly discount rate r that aggregates: (i) financing cost of capital (e.g., working‑capital or opportunity cost), (ii) inflation, and (iii) litigation and counterparty risk as a probability‑weighted haircut on ultimate recovery, the present value is PV = F / (1 + r)^(n). Reasonable baseline assumptions for Indian MSMEs—given typical borrowing costs and risk—yield r between 1.5% and 3% per month, while stressed scenarios with tight liquidity, weak counterparties or protracted litigation can justify r above 5% per month. The “10% Rule” is presented as a conservative heuristic for high‑risk decision‑making rather than a universal constant: it approximates the combined effect of heavy financing costs, value‑dilutive delays and increasing default risk.

Beyond the baseline present value formula, this study incorporates a stochastic element to model uncertainty in recovery timelines. We simulate 10,000 recovery scenarios using a Monte Carlo approach, drawing from empirical distributions of case duration sourced from MSME Samadhaan data and commercial court statistics. The output distribution allows us to estimate not just the expected PV, but also downside risk percentiles—critical for risk-averse creditors.

The monthly discount rate r is decomposed into three components: (i) rf, the risk-free rate proxied by the yield on 1-year Government of India Treasury Bills; (ii) rc, the credit spread reflecting the borrower’s probability of default and loss given default; and (iii) rl, the litigation risk premium capturing procedural uncertainty and enforcement difficulty. This decomposition helps in tailoring the analysis to sector-specific or region-specific contexts

RESULTS: HOW FAST DOES VALUE ERODE?

Table 1 reports the present value (as a share of nominal claim) for delays up to 24 months under alternative monthly discount rates. Even at 1.5% per month (roughly ~19% p.a. effective), a one‑year delay reduces value by about 16%. At 3% per month (~42% p.a.), a one‑year delay erodes value by ~30%. A stress‑case 10% monthly rate implies a 72% loss in one year and >90% over two years, capturing worst‑case trajectories where litigation stalls and counterparty risk compounds.

TABLE 1

PRESENT VALUE (SHARE OF NOMINAL) AT ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY DISCOUNT RATES

Month	PV @ 1.5%/mo	PV @ 3%/mo	PV @ 5%/mo	PV @ 10%/mo
0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
1.0	0.9852	0.9709	0.9524	0.9091
2.0	0.9707	0.9426	0.907	0.8264
3.0	0.9563	0.9151	0.8638	0.7513
4.0	0.9422	0.8885	0.8227	0.683
5.0	0.9283	0.8626	0.7835	0.6209
6.0	0.9145	0.8375	0.7462	0.5645
7.0	0.901	0.8131	0.7107	0.5132
8.0	0.8877	0.7894	0.6768	0.4665
9.0	0.8746	0.7664	0.6446	0.4241
10.0	0.8617	0.7441	0.6139	0.3855
11.0	0.8489	0.7224	0.5847	0.3505
12.0	0.8364	0.7014	0.5568	0.3186
13.0	0.824	0.681	0.5303	0.2897
14.0	0.8118	0.6611	0.5051	0.2633
15.0	0.7999	0.6419	0.481	0.2394
16.0	0.788	0.6232	0.4581	0.2176
17.0	0.7764	0.605	0.4363	0.1978
18.0	0.7649	0.5874	0.4155	0.1799
19.0	0.7536	0.5703	0.3957	0.1635
20.0	0.7425	0.5537	0.3769	0.1486
21.0	0.7315	0.5375	0.3589	0.1351
22.0	0.7207	0.5219	0.3418	0.1228
23.0	0.71	0.5067	0.3256	0.1117
24.0	0.6995	0.4919	0.3101	0.1015

Figure 1. Erosion of present value with delay under alternative monthly discount rates

Case Study 1: An MSME manufacturing auto-components supplied parts worth INR 50 lakh to a Tier-1 automotive supplier. Upon non-payment, the MSME filed a claim under the MSMED Act before the Maharashtra MSEFC. Despite the statutory 90-day limit, the case took 14 months due to repeated adjournments sought by the buyer. Applying a 3% monthly discount rate, the INR 50 lakh nominal claim had an effective PV of just INR 33.6 lakh by the time of award—representing a 32.8% erosion.

Case Study 2: A textile exporter engaged in arbitration under a contractual clause experienced a 24-month delay in award enforcement due to challenge proceedings in the High Court. The exporter’s working capital loans carried an interest rate of 18% p.a. (1.5% per month). The PV erosion over 24 months was approximately 30%, even before considering enforcement costs. This prompted a strategic shift to including liquidated damages clauses in future contracts to compensate for anticipated delay losses.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSEL AND CLIENTS

1. Forum selection and early route‑to‑cash: Where MSME status is available, consider MSEFC references under the MSMED Act to leverage statutory interest and a 90‑day decision timeline. In other cases, evaluate whether insolvency triggers, commercial courts, or arbitration offer better time‑to‑value than civil suits or DRTs.
2. Settlement architecture: Use the PV calculus to design time‑bound, front‑loaded settlements (e.g., higher upfront tranche with automatic step‑ups/consent decrees upon default). Shorter payment horizons preserve value.
3. Working‑capital alternatives: Explore TReDS or factoring to monetise undisputed receivables and to avoid compounding value loss; contractual acceptance of invoices by buyers enables efficient discounting.
4. Pleadings and evidence: Front‑load account statements, statutory notices, and affidavit evidence to minimise adjournments. Quantify time‑value loss to strengthen urgency submissions on interim relief.
5. Client counselling: Use Table 1 / Figure 1 to communicate the cost of delay and to calibrate expectations.

POLICY NOTES

Regulators and adjudicators can reduce dead‑weight loss by: (a) strict adherence to the MSEFC’s 90‑day mandate; (b) robust enforcement of section 16 interest (three times the Bank Rate, compounded monthly); (c) ensuring effective functioning of TReDS with broader buyer onboarding; and (d) greater data transparency on case‑life cycles across fora to incentivise time‑bounded processes.

In Singapore, the Small Claims Tribunals handle disputes up to SGD 20,000 (or SGD 30,000 with mutual consent) with a statutory target of resolution within two months from filing. Proceedings are largely paper-based, with limited adjournments and mandatory mediation. This has resulted in a high compliance rate with awards and minimal enforcement litigation.

The UK’s County Court Money Claims Online (MCOL) platform enables creditors to initiate claims up to GBP 100,000 entirely online. Strict deadlines for defence filing and a ‘default judgment’ mechanism ensure that undefended claims are resolved within weeks. Cost sanctions deter frivolous defences, thereby reducing systemic delay.

These models contrast with India’s multi-tiered adjudication and liberal adjournment culture. Importing best practices would require statutory amendments to cap adjournments, mandate early disclosure of evidence, and integrate digital filing with automated case management.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

This paper uses a stylised discounting framework and public aggregate indicators of delay. Future work should harness micro‑data across fora (MSEFC, commercial courts, DRTs, NCLT/NCLAT) to estimate hazard rates of resolution and to calibrate jurisdiction‑specific discount factors. A structured survey of MSME financing costs would also sharpen baseline monthly rates.

CONCLUSION

Time is not neutral in litigation. By explicitly pricing delay through a risk‑adjusted present value lens, parties can make better choices on forum, financing and settlement. The “10% Rule” serves as a memorable, conservative heuristic for high‑risk contexts, while the tables and curves equip practitioners to tailor the rate to case‑specific facts. The objective is not mathematical precision, but disciplined decision‑making that recognises the relentless erosion of value with time.

REFERENCES

Government of India. (2006). Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. IndiaCode. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2005

IndiaCode. (2006). Section 16 – Interest on delayed payments to micro and small enterprises. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_51_76_00027_200627_1517807325325&sectionId=5010&sectionno=16

IndiaCode. (2006). Section 18 – Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_51_76_00027_200627_1517807325325&sectionId=5012&sectionno=18

Ministry of MSME. (n.d.). MSME Samadhaan – Delayed Payment Monitoring System (dashboard). https://samadhaan.msme.gov.in/

Press Information Bureau. (2025, June 6). RBI reduces policy repo rate to 5.50 percent: Key decisions of the June 2025 MPC meeting. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=154573&ModuleId=3

Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118478827/

Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2020) 8 SCC 401. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15033988/

Regy, P., Roy, S., & Sane, R. (2017). Understanding judicial delays in debt tribunals (NIPFP Working Paper 195). https://www.nipfp.org.in/media/documents/WP_2017_195.pdf

DAKSH. (2016). State of the Indian Judiciary: Ranking and delay diagnostics (selected sections). https://www.dakshindia.org/state-of-the-indian-judiciary-xhtml/section-two-6.xhtml

Ramakrishnan, R., & Narine, D. (2024). Decision time: Illuminating performance in India’s district courts. Data & Policy, 6, e10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/data-and-policy/article/decision-time-illuminating-performance-in-indias-district-courts/19F152C3E024BB0ED2BB2393E0E6DADB

Reserve Bank of India. (2018). Guidelines for the Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS). https://www.rxil.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/1600107297619_Guidelines-for-Trade-Receivables-Discounting-System-TReDS-July-2-2018.pdf

Reserve Bank of India. (2020). FAQs on TReDS. https://www.rbi.org.in/commonman/english/scripts/FAQs.aspx?Id=3138