https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783407 NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT order admitting a Section 9 IBC application against the corporate debtor. It held there was no privity of contract between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, as both had separate, independent agreements with a third-party trust/hospital. Contractual clauses expressly barred the corporate debtor from acting as agent or sub-granting management, and some invoices were raised directly on the trust/hospital. The corporate debtor's issuance of cheques on behalf of the trust did not create any direct liability or operational debt under Section 5(21) IBC. Consequently, initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor was held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 13:23:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783407 NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT order admitting a Section 9 IBC application against the corporate debtor. It held there was no privity of contract between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, as both had separate, independent agreements with a third-party trust/hospital. Contractual clauses expressly barred the corporate debtor from acting as agent or sub-granting management, and some invoices were raised directly on the trust/hospital. The corporate debtor's issuance of cheques on behalf of the trust did not create any direct liability or operational debt under Section 5(21) IBC. Consequently, initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor was held unsustainable. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783407