Claim verification in insolvency must rest on supporting receipts and bank records, not mere suspicion of forgery.

A resolution professional must verify a creditor's claim on the basis of relevant supporting material and cannot keep verification pending merely on suspicion of forgery. Under the CIRP Regulations, proof of debt may be supported by payment receipts, claim verification must be completed within time, and a best estimate may be made where the amount is not exact. Receipts, bank withdrawal details and other supporting materials were treated as sufficient proof, and the absence of the corporate debtor's books did not justify indefinite withholding of verification. The documents were also regarded as capable of evaluation as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act. The claim was directed to be verified for the full financial debt claimed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the resolution professional was justified in refusing to finalise the applicant's financial claim at Rs. 9 lakhs and restricting it to Rs. 2 lakhs, despite the money receipts and bank statement relied upon by the applicant.

Analysis: Regulation 8A(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 permits proof of debt through relevant documents, including receipts of payment made. Regulation 13 requires verification of claims within the prescribed time, while Regulation 14 contemplates a best estimate where the amount claimed is not precise. The supporting money receipts, together with the bank withdrawal details, were treated as relevant proof, and the absence of the corporate debtor's books of account was held not to justify keeping the claim pending indefinitely. The materials were also considered capable of being evaluated as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The resolution professional was found to have gone beyond the limited administrative role assigned under the Code by withholding final verification on a mere apprehension that the receipt might be forged.

Conclusion: The applicant's claim was directed to be verified on the basis of the receipts and bank statement, and the full financial debt was to be treated as Rs. 9 lakhs.

---