2022 (7) TMI 612 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking direction to Resolution Professional to accept the remaining claim up to the date of actual realization - HELD THAT - It is admitted position the alleged claims arise out of a work executed somewhere in 2014. The Resolution Professional could not have granted anything merely based on the assertion on a particular amount against a particular head and without any supporting documents thereto - This Adjudicating Authority cannot adjudicate upon the question of loss or profit interest etc. This Tribunal in its summary jurisdiction can in no way go into crystallizing the alleged claims. It is clear from the above position the works were executed somewhere in 2015 and the claims have been raised for the first time before the Resolution Professional and that too, as observed by Resolution Professional, without the required documents in support. In the absence of documents sought by the Resolution Professional, the Resolution Professional is right in saying it was not possible for him to grant any claim that has been rejected - there are no error as such by the Resolution Professional. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking direction for acceptance of remaining claim.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application seeking direction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, along with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, to direct the Resolution Professional to accept the remaining claim of Rs. 2,14,24,617/- with interest. The applicant detailed the history of works awarded by the Corporate Debtor, including a boundary wall construction agreement and bonus agreement. Disputes arose regarding service tax deductions and tree-cutting losses. The Resolution Professional accepted a partial claim and rejected the rest without providing reasons. The applicant alleged breach of contractual obligations by the Corporate Debtor and submitted modified claims. The Resolution Professional requested additional information, including tower agreements and payment receipts, which the applicant failed to provide, leading to the rejection of certain claims.

Resolution Professional's Reply:
The Resolution Professional sought additional details from the applicant to review claims, including tower agreements and invoices. Despite multiple requests, the applicant did not furnish the required documents, leading to the rejection of claims. The Resolution Professional verified records and communicated the status of claims to the applicant. The Resolution Professional strictly relied on documents available with the Corporate Debtor in assessing the claims. The Tribunal noted that claims were raised for the first time before the Resolution Professional without adequate supporting documents, making it challenging to grant the claims. The Tribunal emphasized that without the necessary documents, the Resolution Professional was justified in rejecting the claims.

Conclusion:
After considering the contentions of both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal concluded that the Resolution Professional appropriately rejected the claims due to the lack of supporting documents provided by the applicant. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with proper documentation and upheld the Resolution Professional's decision. Consequently, the application was rejected, emphasizing the necessity of providing supporting documents for claims.