The case involves an appeal against the dismissal of an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, filed by Respondent No. 1, which was dismissed due to a lack of privity of contract. The Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 3) had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement in 2009 but the plant became non-operational. Respondent No. 1 promoted a special purpose vehicle, RSP Energy LLP, and entered into a MoU with the Corporate Debtor in 2016. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed another application under Section 9 of the Code.
The Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 3) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement on January 8th, 2009, to sell electricity. The plant became non-operational. Respondent No. 1 promoted RSP Energy LLP and entered into a MoU with the Corporate Debtor on November 3rd, 2016. Respondent No. 1 initially filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC, which was dismissed due to a lack of privity of contract. Respondent No. 1 then filed an application under Section 9 of the Code, claiming to have supplied raw material (fuel). The Appellant argues that the dismissal of the Section 7 application established a lack of privity of contract, which should also apply to the Section 9 application. The plant was on an operational lease, and the Appellant claims no involvement, stating
…Sign in to view the parties.
Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 3) entered…
Respondent No. 1 entered into a MoU with…
The case involves an appeal against the dismissal of an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, filed by Respondent No. 1, which was dismissed due to a lack of privity of contract. The Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 3) had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement in 2009 but the plant became non-operational. Respondent No. 1 promoted a special purpose vehicle, RSP Energy LLP, and entered into a MoU with the Corporate Debtor in 2016. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed another application under Section 9 of the Code.
The Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 3) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement on January 8th, 2009, to sell electricity. The plant became non-operational. Respondent No. 1 promoted RSP Energy LLP and entered into a MoU with the Corporate Debtor on November 3rd, 2016. Respondent No. 1 initially filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC, which was dismissed due to a lack of privity of contract. Respondent No. 1 then filed an application under Section 9 of the Code, claiming to have supplied raw material (fuel). The Appellant argues that the dismissal of the Section 7 application established a lack of privity of contract, which should also apply to the Section 9 application. The plant was on an operational lease, and the Appellant claims no involvement, stating
…Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 3) entered…
Respondent No. 1 entered into a MoU with…