https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770759 The NCLAT allowed an appeal challenging a Section 9 IBC application against a subsidiary company. The Tribunal held that a subsidiary cannot be held liable for its parent company's debts merely because an employee digitally signed documents on behalf of the parent company. The NCLAT found no privity of contract existed between the subsidiary and the creditor, as services were provided to and invoices raised upon the parent company. Citing precedent establishing holding companies and subsidiaries as distinct legal entities, the NCLAT ruled the subsidiary was not liable for the parent company's obligations and set aside the lower tribunal's order. en-us Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770759 The NCLAT allowed an appeal challenging a Section 9 IBC application against a subsidiary company. The Tribunal held that a subsidiary cannot be held liable for its parent company's debts merely because an employee digitally signed documents on behalf of the parent company. The NCLAT found no privity of contract existed between the subsidiary and the creditor, as services were provided to and invoices raised upon the parent company. Citing precedent establishing holding companies and subsidiaries as distinct legal entities, the NCLAT ruled the subsidiary was not liable for the parent company's obligations and set aside the lower tribunal's order. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770759