Genuine dispute over debt bars winding-up jurisdiction; contested commercial claims must be resolved in civil court.

A winding-up petition under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 is not maintainable where the company's liability is genuinely disputed. A contested balance for supplies, with only partial liability admitted, shows that the claim is a disputed commercial debt rather than an undisputed debt suitable for summary winding-up jurisdiction. The proper forum for resolving such a dispute is a civil court, because winding-up is intended to address inability to pay debts, not to determine the merits of a contested money claim. The petition was therefore rejected, with liberty to pursue the disputed debt before the civil court.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding-up petition under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 could be entertained when the company's liability to pay the claimed amount was genuinely disputed.

Analysis: The petition was founded on an alleged unpaid balance for supplies, but the respondent had consistently disputed a substantial part of the claim and admitted liability only to a lesser extent. The existence of a genuine dispute as to the balance meant that the controversy turned on a contested money claim, which could not be resolved in a summary winding-up proceeding. Winding-up jurisdiction is intended to address inability to pay debts, not to serve as a forum for determining disputed commercial claims; where the debt itself is disputed, the proper remedy lies before the civil court.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for winding-up on the disputed claim and was rejected, with liberty to pursue the disputed debt before the civil court.

---