Bona fide defence in winding-up requires a substantial, good-faith case; admitted unpaid debt can justify advertisement.

In a winding-up petition, a defence must be bona fide, substantial, and likely to succeed; a mere denial of liability is insufficient. Where supply and agreed price are undisputed, short payment of the admitted balance without a credible basis indicates neglect to pay a due debt. The unpaid price may also carry interest from the date of delivery under the Sale of Goods Act. On that footing, the petition can be directed for advertisement if payment of the balance with interest is not made.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-company had a bona fide defence to the winding-up petition and whether the unpaid price for the supplied goods, with interest, justified an order for advertisement of the petition.

Analysis: The supply of 1,60,000 HPDE bags and the agreed rate were not in dispute. The company had made short payment without a credible basis, and the withholding of the admitted balance despite repeated demands indicated neglect to pay a due debt. In a winding-up petition, the defence must be bona fide, in good faith, substantial, and likely to succeed; that standard was not satisfied. Interest on the unpaid price was also treated as payable from the date of delivery under the Sale of Goods Act.

Conclusion: The respondent-company had no bona fide defence, and the petitioner was entitled to an directing payment of the balance with interest, failing which the winding-up petition was to be advertised.

---