https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301185 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. en-us Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301185 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. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301185