Tribunal dismisses application due to lack of contract, no liability for PSU

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Corporate Debtor, citing the absence of privity of contract and non-compliance with contractual provisions by the Operational Creditor. Despite being a PSU, the Corporate Debtor was not held liable due to the lack of a direct contractual relationship. The Tribunal refrained from imposing costs on the Operational Creditor, considering the correspondence between the parties and the benefit of the doubt provided. The importance of privity of contract, compliance with contractual provisions, and clear documentation to establish liability in insolvency proceedings was emphasized.

---

---

Issues:
1. Privity of contract between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor.
2. Validity of letters of assurance as a contract.
3. Compliance with contractual provisions for payment.
4. Liability of Corporate Debtor in absence of privity of contract.
5. Abuse of process of law and imposition of costs.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Privity of contract between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor
The Operational Creditor filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the Corporate Debtor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to default in payment. The Operational Creditor claimed to have rendered services to the Corporate Debtor based on work orders from a main contractor, Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd. (FCIPL). The Corporate Debtor argued that there was no privity of contract between them and the Operational Creditor, as the latter was a sub-contractor engaged by FCIPL. The Tribunal examined the contractual clauses and letters of assurance provided by the Corporate Debtor to determine the existence of privity of contract.

Issue 2: Validity of letters of assurance as a contract
The Operational Creditor relied on two letters of assurance issued by the Corporate Debtor, stating that payments for work done by the Operational Creditor would be made directly by the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal analyzed the contents of these letters and concluded that they did not establish a direct contract between the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor. The letters outlined specific conditions and formalities for payment, including certification of invoices by the main contractor and Project Manager of Engineers India Ltd. The Tribunal found that the letters did not create a direct liability on the Corporate Debtor.

Issue 3: Compliance with contractual provisions for payment
The Tribunal noted that the direct payments mentioned in the letters of assurance were conditional upon the completion of pending work and submission of certified invoices. It was observed that the main contractor had not raised bills for the outstanding amount or retention money, and no claims had been filed before the Resolution Professional of FCIPL. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with contractual provisions for payment and found that the Operational Creditor had not fulfilled the necessary requirements for invoking liability against the Corporate Debtor.

Issue 4: Liability of Corporate Debtor in absence of privity of contract
Based on the analysis of the contractual documents and correspondence between the parties, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of privity of contract and non-compliance with contractual provisions prevented the Operational Creditor from establishing a cause of action against the Corporate Debtor. Despite being a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), the Corporate Debtor was not held liable due to the lack of direct contractual relationship with the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal refrained from imposing costs on the Operational Creditor, considering the correspondence between the parties.

Issue 5: Abuse of process of law and imposition of costs
The Tribunal addressed the issue of potential abuse of the legal process by the Operational Creditor in filing the application against the Corporate Debtor without establishing a clear contractual relationship. While the Tribunal acknowledged the lack of privity of contract and non-compliance with contractual provisions, it refrained from imposing costs on the Operational Creditor due to the benefit of doubt provided based on the correspondence between the parties. The application was ultimately dismissed and the matter disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Corporate Debtor, emphasizing the importance of privity of contract, compliance with contractual provisions, and the need for clear documentation to establish liability in insolvency proceedings.

---