Tribunal scrutiny of claim assessment under insolvency rules allowed interest and required re-examination of inventory carrying cost.

The Tribunal's supervisory jurisdiction extends to testing whether a Resolution Professional's assessment, exclusion, or reduction of a creditor's claim under the insolvency resolution regulations is justified on the materials available, and the admitted amount may be reviewed accordingly. The invoices here contained a delayed-payment interest clause, and in the absence of any express contractual bar, rejection of the interest component was found arbitrary and the claim was accepted. The inventory carrying cost claim was not finally rejected merely for lack of a specific contractual clause; it required re-examination against the accounts and supporting evidence. The Resolution Professional's remaining adjustments were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the National Company Law Tribunal can examine the correctness of the Resolution Professional's determination and adjustment of a creditor's claim under the insolvency resolution regulations; (ii) whether the claim for interest and inventory carrying cost could be disallowed outright in the absence of an express contractual provision.

Issue (i): Whether the National Company Law Tribunal can examine the correctness of the Resolution Professional's determination and adjustment of a creditor's claim under the insolvency resolution regulations.

Analysis: Regulation 7 permits an operational creditor to lodge a claim, while Regulation 14 requires the Resolution Professional to make a best estimate where the claim is not precise and to revise the admitted amount on the basis of available information. The authority to assess and adjust a claim is not absolute, because the Tribunal retains supervisory jurisdiction to test whether the adjustment is justified on the materials placed before it. The correctness of the exclusion or reduction made by the Resolution Professional can therefore be examined by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal can scrutinize the Resolution Professional's adjustment of the claim and decide whether the admitted amount is correct.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for interest and inventory carrying cost could be disallowed outright in the absence of an express contractual provision.

Analysis: The invoices contained an interest clause for delayed payment, and there was no express bar shown against charging interest. On that basis, the rejection of interest was found to be arbitrary. As to inventory carrying cost, the disallowance was not accepted as a final view because the claim required re-examination against the accounts and supporting evidence rather than outright rejection merely for want of a specific contractual clause. The remaining adjustments made by the Resolution Professional were left undisturbed.

Conclusion: The claim for interest was held admissible, and the inventory carrying cost claim was directed to be re-examined.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed to the extent that the creditor's claim could not be rejected in full, the interest claim was accepted, and the inventory carrying cost required reconsideration on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A Resolution Professional's determination of claim under the insolvency regulations is subject to Tribunal scrutiny, and a contractual claim for delayed-payment interest cannot be rejected merely because the contract lacks an express prohibition against it.

---