Contemporaneous proof required for missing machinery claims; unsupported handover disputes are not maintainable and will be rejected.

A claim that machinery was handed over with missing parts was rejected as unsupported because the applicant had taken possession on an as-is-where-is basis and produced no contemporaneous inspection memo, inventory, or other record showing the condition at handover. In the absence of proof of any discrepancy, the Tribunal held that the application was misconceived and not maintainable. It also noted that the additional affidavit left no substantive relief surviving beyond a residuary prayer, so nothing remained for adjudication. The proceedings were therefore rejected without granting relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking directions regarding alleged missing parts of the machineries and further reliefs was maintainable and liable to be entertained.

Analysis: The application was filed after the applicant had already taken possession of the machineries on an as is where is basis, and the applicant did not produce any inspection memo, inventory, or contemporaneous record showing the condition of the machineries at the time of handover. In the absence of such supporting material, it was not possible to determine whether any parts were actually missing. The applicant's additional affidavit also indicated that no relief survived except the residuary prayer, leaving nothing substantive to be adjudicated. The Tribunal further observed that the resolution professional ought to act diligently under the Code to avoid future disputes, but the lack of proof in the present case rendered the application misconceived.

Conclusion: The application was held to be not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was not proved on record and the proceedings were brought to an end without granting any substantive relief to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim of missing assets in handover proceedings cannot be entertained in the absence of contemporaneous inspection or inventory records establishing the alleged discrepancy, and a misconceived application unsupported by proof is liable to be rejected.

---