https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786590 A corporate insolvency application under Section 9 failed where the contract required payment to the contractor only on a back-to-back basis, after receipt of funds from the insurer. The record did not show that the insurer had paid the respondent and that such payment was then withheld from the appellant. The material relied on, including RTI-based information, indicated only payment by the Government to the insurer and did not establish remittance to the respondent. As the essential element of default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not proved, the insolvency petition was not maintainable on the facts established. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Feb 2026 09:13:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786590 A corporate insolvency application under Section 9 failed where the contract required payment to the contractor only on a back-to-back basis, after receipt of funds from the insurer. The record did not show that the insurer had paid the respondent and that such payment was then withheld from the appellant. The material relied on, including RTI-based information, indicated only payment by the Government to the insurer and did not establish remittance to the respondent. As the essential element of default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not proved, the insolvency petition was not maintainable on the facts established. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786590