https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388436 The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's payments to R1 did not qualify as 'Financial Debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as they lacked evidence of interest or a predetermined repayment schedule. Additionally, there was no privity of contract between the Applicant and Respondents R2, R3, and R4, leading to their exclusion as corporate debtors. The proposed MoUs were deemed unenforceable draft documents, and the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the financial debt claim. As a result, the application was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the Applicant to seek alternative legal remedies. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:20:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388436 The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's payments to R1 did not qualify as 'Financial Debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as they lacked evidence of interest or a predetermined repayment schedule. Additionally, there was no privity of contract between the Applicant and Respondents R2, R3, and R4, leading to their exclusion as corporate debtors. The proposed MoUs were deemed unenforceable draft documents, and the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the financial debt claim. As a result, the application was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the Applicant to seek alternative legal remedies. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388436