Adjudicating Authority denies applicant's claim due to lack of evidence on missing parts

The Adjudicating Authority granted the applicant possession of machineries purchased from a company under insolvency resolution. Subsequently, the applicant alleged missing parts but failed to provide concrete evidence. The Authority emphasized the importance of proper documentation during possession transfer. As the applicant acknowledged possession based on inspection and lacked evidence of missing parts, the application was deemed not maintainable. The Authority rejected the application, advising the Resolution Professional to perform duties diligently to avoid future disputes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application filed under Section 424 (3) of the Companies Act 2013 and Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for possession of machineries.
2. Dispute regarding possession of machineries purchased through auction from a company under insolvency resolution.
3. Allegations of missing parts of machineries and request for direction to resolve the issue.
4. Lack of inventory or inspection memo during the transfer of possession leading to dispute.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed seeking direction to release control and custody of machineries purchased by the applicant, which were lying with a company under insolvency resolution. The applicant approached the Adjudicating Authority for relief, which was granted on 19.12.2019, allowing possession of the machineries. An appeal against this order was withdrawn, making the order final and conclusive.

2. Subsequently, the applicant found missing parts of the machineries and filed a new application requesting various reliefs, including dismantling and taking possession of the machineries. The Resolution Professional (RP) handed over possession on "as is where is basis," and the applicant accepted it without objection. However, during inspection, no inventory or inspection memo was prepared by either party, leading to a lack of clarity on missing parts.

3. The applicant alleged missing parts but failed to provide evidence such as an inspection memo or inventory list to substantiate the claim. Despite additional affidavits filed, no concrete evidence was presented to support the allegation of missing parts. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the importance of proper documentation during possession transfer to avoid disputes and noted the lack of evidence to draw any conclusion on the missing parts.

4. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the application was not maintainable due to the absence of concrete evidence and the applicant's acknowledgment of possession based on the inspection. The RP was advised to perform duties diligently to prevent future disputes. The application was deemed misconceived and an abuse of the legal process, leading to its rejection without costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings, the issues raised, the evidence presented, and the final decision of the Adjudicating Authority in resolving the dispute over possession of machineries purchased during insolvency proceedings.

---