Claim verification in insolvency permits further evidence requests, and only duly proved amounts as on commencement date are admissible.

A Resolution Professional is permitted to seek additional documents and clarifications when verifying a claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and CIRP Regulations; such verification does not amount to adjudication, and the request for further particulars was upheld. The farmers' compensation claim was not admitted in full because its basis, area-wise computation, attribution to the corporate debtor, and payment date were not sufficiently proved. The higher claim for time extension charges was also reduced, since admission was confined to the amount correctly computed up to the insolvency commencement date and excluded any period beyond that date. The appeal failed and the claim-verification order was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Resolution Professional acted beyond jurisdiction by seeking additional documents and clarifications while verifying the claim; (ii) whether the claim towards farmers' compensation and the higher amount claimed towards time extension charges were liable to be admitted in full.

Issue (i): Whether the Resolution Professional acted beyond jurisdiction by seeking additional documents and clarifications while verifying the claim.

Analysis: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 require the Resolution Professional to collect, verify and collate claims, and permit him to call for evidence or clarification necessary to substantiate the claim. Seeking supporting material for verification does not amount to adjudication of the claim. The demand for further particulars was therefore within the statutory function of verification.

Conclusion: The objection to the Resolution Professional's conduct was rejected, and the request for additional information was held to be permissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim towards farmers' compensation and the higher amount claimed towards time extension charges were liable to be admitted in full.

Analysis: The farmers' compensation claim remained unsubstantiated because the basis of the amount claimed, the area-wise computation, the share attributable to the corporate debtor, and the date of payment were not adequately proved. The time extension charges were also correctly recalculated up to the insolvency commencement date, and the higher figure claimed by the appellant included a period beyond that date and reflected computational error. The admitted amounts were therefore based on the available material and the correct contractual and insolvency timeline.

Conclusion: The claim for farmers' compensation was rightly not admitted in full, and the reduced admission of time extension charges was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order rejecting interference with the Resolution Professional's claim verification was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Resolution Professional may seek additional evidence or clarification to substantiate a claim and may admit only that part of the claim which is duly proved and correctly computed as on the insolvency commencement date.

---