Burden of proof in liquidation claims requires reconciliation of competing ledger entries; lack of independent evidence defeats recovery.

Whether an Official Liquidator's ledger-based claim was recoverable under Section 446(2)(b) and Rule 9 turned on the adequacy of documentary proof and reconciliation of competing account entries; the court treated the issue as one of evidential sufficiency, requiring independent corroboration where respondent records and oral evidence disputed ledger entries and alleged rejections and credits. Because the claimant relied on an unreconciled statement of account and the witness lacked knowledge of key rejection entries, the claim was not proved and was dismissed in favour of the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim of Rs. 6,47,394.79 filed by the Official Liquidator against the respondent, based on ledger entries and invoices, was proved and recoverable under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1959.

Analysis: The claim relied primarily on a statement of account and receivable ledger entries. The respondent produced documentary records and oral evidence disputing the ledger entries by showing that certain supplies were rejected and that payments or credits were recorded against other invoices. The plaintiff's documentary witness admitted lack of knowledge on specific rejection entries and was confronted with respondent documents that directly addressed the disputed invoices. The evidence required reconciliation of accounts and resolution of competing documentary entries, and the claimant failed to provide independent supporting evidence to overcome the respondent's contrary records.

Conclusion: The claim for Rs. 6,47,394.79 was not proved and is dismissed in favour of the respondent.

---