https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407832 The petition was found not maintainable against Respondent No. 2 due to lack of privity of contract and failure to demonstrate any claim against them. The Petitioner's deficiencies in authorization, compliance with Adjudicating Rules, and adding multiple respondents were highlighted, leading to the rejection of the petition against Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal ruled in favor of removing Respondent No. 2 from the list of parties, granting liberty to the Petitioner to modify the petition if desired, with no order as to costs. en-us Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 May 2021 08:35:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407832 The petition was found not maintainable against Respondent No. 2 due to lack of privity of contract and failure to demonstrate any claim against them. The Petitioner's deficiencies in authorization, compliance with Adjudicating Rules, and adding multiple respondents were highlighted, leading to the rejection of the petition against Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal ruled in favor of removing Respondent No. 2 from the list of parties, granting liberty to the Petitioner to modify the petition if desired, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407832