https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283218 The court dismissed Co. Pet. No. 380/2008 due to the absence of a written contract, while admitting Co. Pet. No. 8/2009 and Co. Pet. No. 107/2009. The court deferred further orders for six weeks to allow negotiation or deposit of principal amounts by the Respondent. The court highlighted the importance of commercial solvency in debt payment disputes and reiterated the doctrine of privity of contract, emphasizing that the Respondent must fulfill obligations despite disputes with third parties. Interest issue was left unresolved. en-us Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:09:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283218 The court dismissed Co. Pet. No. 380/2008 due to the absence of a written contract, while admitting Co. Pet. No. 8/2009 and Co. Pet. No. 107/2009. The court deferred further orders for six weeks to allow negotiation or deposit of principal amounts by the Respondent. The court highlighted the importance of commercial solvency in debt payment disputes and reiterated the doctrine of privity of contract, emphasizing that the Respondent must fulfill obligations despite disputes with third parties. Interest issue was left unresolved. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283218