Appeal to Return Rice Stock Dismissed for Lack of Evidence and Merit

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants seeking the return of rice stock from the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of their claims by the Resolution Professional, citing insufficient evidence to support the Appellants' arguments based on oral agreements. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in proving such claims and found discrepancies in the documents provided. The appeal was dismissed without costs, with the Tribunal concluding that the claims lacked merit and genuineness.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the Appellants' claims for the return of rice stock from the Corporate Debtor.
2. Validity of oral agreements between the Appellants and the Corporate Debtor.
3. Adequacy of documentary evidence provided by the Appellants.
4. Role and findings of the appointed experts (rice and document experts).

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the Appellants' Claims:
The Appellants filed a joint appeal under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the order dated 11.03.2021, where the Resolution Professional rejected their claims for the return of rice stock from the Corporate Debtor. The Appellants argued that the Corporate Debtor illegally retained their rice stock, which was supposed to be processed and returned as per their oral business agreements.

2. Validity of Oral Agreements:
The Appellants claimed that since October 2016, they had oral agreements with the Corporate Debtor for processing rice, where the Corporate Debtor would retain 3% of the rice as consideration. The Appellants emphasized that such arrangements were common in the unorganized sector and did not require written agreements.

3. Adequacy of Documentary Evidence:
The Appellants provided various documents, including rice purchase invoices, material receipts, emails, and an affidavit from an ex-employee of the Corporate Debtor. However, the Respondents contended that the claims could not be verified from these documents. The document expert appointed by the Adjudicating Authority also found several discrepancies and anomalies in the documents provided by the Appellants, leading to the rejection of their claims.

4. Role and Findings of the Appointed Experts:
The rice expert's report partially supported the Appellants' claims, but the document expert's report was against them. The document expert highlighted the lack of written agreements, non-submission of invoices, non-payment of service tax or GST, and non-accounting of job work payments in the Appellants' financial books. The rice expert's report was also questioned for its thoroughness and reliability.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal noted the absence of concrete evidence to substantiate the Appellants' claims. The Tribunal emphasized that oral agreements, while legally valid, are difficult to prove in the absence of supporting documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the document expert and dismissed the appeal, stating that the claims were not genuine and lacked merit. The appeal was dismissed with no costs, and any interlocutory applications were closed.

---