# In the matter of Karismaa Foundations P.L. Vs. Indust Cityscapes Constructions P.L. CA(AT) No. 315-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-01-04. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00404. The case involves an appeal against the rejection of an application filed by the appellant…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 Jan 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00404
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/karismaa-foundations-pl-vs-indust-cityscapes-constructions-pl-ca-04b4e434

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against the rejection of an application filed by the appellant under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the High Court of Madras, which was later transferred due to the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016. The application was rejected due to non-compliance with the requirement to comply by July 15, 2017, as per Rule 5 and an amended notification dated June 29, 2017. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application on July 6, 2017, citing the aforementioned provisions and non-compliance with an earlier order.

## Facts

M/s. Karismaa Foundations Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) filed an application under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the High Court of Madras, seeking the winding up of M/s. Indust Cityscapes Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The case was transferred to the NCLT due to the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016. The appellant was required to comply with certain requirements by July 15, 2017, as per Rule 5 and an amended notification dated June 29, 2017. The appellant failed to comply with these requirements. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application on July 6, 2017, due to non-compliance. The appellant then appealed this decision. The key fact is the appellant's failure to meet the compliance deadline, which led to the rejection of their

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in rejecting the application under Section 433(e) of …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the principle that statutory deadlines and procedural requirements

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the appellant failed to comply with the requirement to comply by

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation involves understanding the Companies (Transfer of Pending

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…
- **Appellants:** M/s Karismaa…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Indust…
- **Advocates:** Shivam…; Apoorva Sri…

## Timeline

- **1956-01-01 — Companies Ac…**: Appellant filed an application under…
- **2016-01-01 — Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings)…**: Case transferred due to the Companies…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 239 — Power to make rules](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-239)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/karismaa-foundations-pl-vs-indust-cityscapes-constructions-pl-ca-04b4e434