Bona fide disputed debt bars winding-up jurisdiction; creditor must pursue civil remedies instead of company-court enforcement.

A winding-up petition will not lie where the alleged debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, including dispute over the transaction, receipt of goods, and authority for the cheque. The company court will not be used to enforce a debt requiring proof by positive evidence, and the creditor must pursue ordinary civil remedies instead. The objection regarding the supporting affidavit was noticed, but the petition was decided on the merits of the debt dispute. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was relegated to a civil suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding-up petition could be maintained when the alleged debt was bona fide disputed and whether the petitioner should be relegated to a civil suit.

Analysis: A winding-up petition is not a legitimate means for enforcing a debt that is bona fide disputed. Where the company places material showing a substantial dispute regarding the transaction, receipt of goods, and authority for the cheque, the proper course is to leave the parties to ordinary civil remedies. The court also noted the objection regarding the supporting affidavit under the Companies (Court) Rules, but the petition was decided on the merits of the debt dispute. The petitioner's assertions required proof by positive evidence, which was not suitable for determination in winding-up proceedings.

Conclusion: The debt was held to be bona fide disputed, and the winding-up petition was dismissed. The petitioner was relegated to a civil suit.

Final Conclusion: A disputed debt of this nature could not sustain winding-up jurisdiction, and the proper remedy lay in civil proceedings rather than company court relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A winding-up petition will not lie where the alleged debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds; in such cases, the creditor must pursue a civil suit instead of invoking company-court jurisdiction.

---