# In the matter of Kee Projects Ltd. Vs. Sharda Rawat CA (AT) No. 139-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-09-01. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00124. The appellant, M/s. Kee Projects Ltd., filed an appeal against the judgement dated July 6,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 1 Sept 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00124
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/kee-projects-ltd-vs-sharda-rawat-ca-ade6437a

## Summary

### Background

The appellant, M/s. Kee Projects Ltd., filed an appeal against the judgement dated July 6, 2017, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi in CO.PET. No.662/2016. The Adjudicating Authority, through the impugned order, treated a transfer petition of winding-up under Section 439 read with Section 443 read with Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, preferred by the respondent, Sharda Rawat, as an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pursuant to a Central Government Notification dated December 7, 2016, and admitted the application.

## Facts

M/s. Kee Projects Ltd. (the appellant) appealed against a judgement by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) in CO.PET. No.662/2016. The Adjudicating Authority had treated a winding-up petition filed by Sharda Rawat (the respondent) as an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and admitted it. The appellant's main grievance was that the order was passed without notice, violating natural justice principles. The appellant claimed settlement with the respondent and partial payment of Rs. 9,21,619/-. The respondent's counsel admitted the lack of notice to the appellant. The Appellate Tribunal noted the absence of appearance on behalf of the 'Corporate Debtor'. The relevance of these facts lies in the procedural fairness required in

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting the application under Section 9 of the …

**Ratio:** The ratio decidendi is that the Adjudicating Authority is bound to issue a limited notice

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the impugned order was passed in violation of the rules of

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the law is that while the IBC aims for a swift resolution

…

**Application:** In this specific case, the court applied the ratio and reasoning by setting

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Balvinder…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Kee Projects…; Sharda…

## Timeline

- **2017-07-06 — Judgement by Adjudicatin…**: The Adjudicating Authority passed a judgement treating a winding-up petition as an…
- **2017-08-19 — Partial Payment by…**: The appellant made a partial payment of Rs. 9,21,619/- to the respondent via a draft…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

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/kee-projects-ltd-vs-sharda-rawat-ca-ade6437a