Resolution Professional's Decision Upheld Due to Lack of Supporting Documents

The Tribunal concluded that the Resolution Professional's rejection of the applicant's claims was justified due to insufficient supporting documents. Emphasizing the importance of proper documentation, the Tribunal upheld the Resolution Professional's decision, ultimately rejecting the application.

---

---

Issues:
Application under Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking direction for acceptance of remaining claim.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application seeking direction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, along with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, to direct the Resolution Professional to accept the remaining claim of Rs. 2,14,24,617/- with interest. The applicant detailed the history of works awarded by the Corporate Debtor, including a boundary wall construction agreement and bonus agreement. Disputes arose regarding service tax deductions and tree-cutting losses. The Resolution Professional accepted a partial claim and rejected the rest without providing reasons. The applicant alleged breach of contractual obligations by the Corporate Debtor and submitted modified claims. The Resolution Professional requested additional information, including tower agreements and payment receipts, which the applicant failed to provide, leading to the rejection of certain claims.

Resolution Professional's Reply:
The Resolution Professional sought additional details from the applicant to review claims, including tower agreements and invoices. Despite multiple requests, the applicant did not furnish the required documents, leading to the rejection of claims. The Resolution Professional verified records and communicated the status of claims to the applicant. The Resolution Professional strictly relied on documents available with the Corporate Debtor in assessing the claims. The Tribunal noted that claims were raised for the first time before the Resolution Professional without adequate supporting documents, making it challenging to grant the claims. The Tribunal emphasized that without the necessary documents, the Resolution Professional was justified in rejecting the claims.

Conclusion:
After considering the contentions of both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal concluded that the Resolution Professional appropriately rejected the claims due to the lack of supporting documents provided by the applicant. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with proper documentation and upheld the Resolution Professional's decision. Consequently, the application was rejected, emphasizing the necessity of providing supporting documents for claims.

---