Supporting evidence is required for insolvency claims; disputed amounts cannot be admitted on assertion alone.

In insolvency proceedings, a claimant cannot compel admission of disputed reimbursement and work-payment claims on bare assertion alone. The Tribunal held that the Resolution Professional was justified in acting only on the documents on record, and that summary jurisdiction could not be used to crystallise claims unsupported by evidence. Because the applicant failed to furnish the required supporting records for the claimed service tax reimbursement and balance work payment, the request for directions to admit those amounts failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction to the Resolution Professional to admit the claimed amounts towards service tax reimbursement and balance payment for executed work.

Analysis: The claim arose from work said to have been executed in 2014-15, but the Resolution Professional had sought supporting records and the applicant did not furnish the required documents. The application sought admission of quantified amounts on assertion alone. In summary jurisdiction, the Tribunal could not crystallize disputed claims or grant relief in the absence of substantiating material, and the Resolution Professional was justified in acting only on the documents available on record.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to the claimed directions, and the request for admission of the claims failed.

Final Conclusion: The application was rejected because the claims were not supported by the necessary documentary evidence and could not be enforced through summary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim in insolvency proceedings cannot be directed to be admitted merely on assertion of amounts; the claimant must substantiate the claim with supporting documents, and the Tribunal will not crystallize disputed claims in summary jurisdiction.

---