https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794490 Set-off against an admitted liquidation liability was unavailable where the claimed cross-dues related to separate group entities rather than the same parties. The corporate debtor was treated as a distinct juristic person, each entity had undergone separate insolvency or liquidation proceedings, and Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits set-off only on mutual dealings between the same parties. Separate load security deposits and separate billing supported the absence of mutuality. The liquidator was acting within statutory duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the admitted dues remained recoverable assets of the liquidation estate. The Electricity Act argument did not change this result, and payment of the admitted amount with interest was upheld. en-us Fri, 03 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:39:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794490 Set-off against an admitted liquidation liability was unavailable where the claimed cross-dues related to separate group entities rather than the same parties. The corporate debtor was treated as a distinct juristic person, each entity had undergone separate insolvency or liquidation proceedings, and Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits set-off only on mutual dealings between the same parties. Separate load security deposits and separate billing supported the absence of mutuality. The liquidator was acting within statutory duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the admitted dues remained recoverable assets of the liquidation estate. The Electricity Act argument did not change this result, and payment of the admitted amount with interest was upheld. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 03 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794490