Short-delivery liability as a debt supports creditor status and winding-up maintainability under company law.

Liability for short delivery of goods by a common carrier can constitute a debt for winding-up purposes under the Companies Act, 1956, because a present liability to pay an ascertainable sum remains a debt even if the exact amount is quantified later. On that basis, the owner of the goods is treated as a creditor, being the person to whom the debt is payable. The text also notes that a statutory demand under Section 434 must be served and remain unsatisfied for the prescribed period before a winding-up petition is maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether liability arising from short delivery of goods entrusted to a common carrier is a debt within clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the owner of the goods becomes a creditor of the carrier for the short-delivered goods within Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether liability arising from short delivery of goods entrusted to a common carrier is a debt within clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Liability under Sections 8 and 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 arises when goods are not delivered or are short delivered. The liability exists even though the exact amount may require later quantification. A debt includes a present liability to pay an ascertainable sum, and the fact that computation is pending does not destroy its character as a debt.

Conclusion: The liability for short-delivered goods is a debt within clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether the owner of the goods becomes a creditor of the carrier for the short-delivered goods within Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: A creditor is a person to whom a debt is payable. Once the carrier's liability for short delivery is treated as a debt, the owner of the goods stands in the position of a person to whom that debt is payable. The statutory demand under Section 434 was also duly served and remained unsatisfied beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The petitioner was a creditor of the respondent-company and the winding up petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the dismissal of the winding up petition was set aside, and the company was ordered to be wound up.

Ratio Decidendi: An existing liability to pay money, though its amount is yet to be quantified, is a debt for winding up purposes, and the person entitled to recover it is a creditor entitled to present a winding up petition.

---