https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768156 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of Section 9 petition. The tribunal found no privity of contract between appellant and respondent regarding operational debt. Appellant had raised invoices against a third party (EPC contractor) but later initiated insolvency proceedings against respondent for the same invoices, which was deemed an afterthought. The adjudicating authority correctly concluded that mere involvement in project reconciliation or work completion signing by the project owner did not establish debtor-creditor relationship. No invoices were raised against respondent, no payments received from respondent, establishing absence of contractual privity required for Section 9 proceedings. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2025 08:35:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768156 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of Section 9 petition. The tribunal found no privity of contract between appellant and respondent regarding operational debt. Appellant had raised invoices against a third party (EPC contractor) but later initiated insolvency proceedings against respondent for the same invoices, which was deemed an afterthought. The adjudicating authority correctly concluded that mere involvement in project reconciliation or work completion signing by the project owner did not establish debtor-creditor relationship. No invoices were raised against respondent, no payments received from respondent, establishing absence of contractual privity required for Section 9 proceedings. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768156