Court dismisses winding-up petitions due to lack of statutory notice proof & insufficient proof of company's inability to pay debts.

The High Court dismissed the winding-up petitions against the company for non-payment of debts. The petitioners failed to provide proof of serving statutory notices as required by the Companies Act, leading to the inability to invoke the deemed inability provision. Additionally, the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate the company's inability to pay debts, and the disputes raised by the company were considered genuine. The court emphasized the importance of complying with notice requirements and substantiating claims of a company's inability to pay debts. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues involved: Winding up petitions against a company for non-payment of debts, service of statutory notices, company's alleged inability to pay debts, disputes raised by the respondent company.

Judgment Summary:

Service of Statutory Notices:
The petitioners sought winding up of the company for non-payment of debts. However, the petitioners failed to provide proof of serving statutory notices as required by section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The notices were not delivered at the registered office of the company, as mandated. The failure to comply with the notice requirements precludes the petitioners from invoking the deemed inability of the company to pay its debts under section 434(1)(a).

Company's Alleged Inability to Pay Debts:
Even without invoking the deemed inability provision, a creditor can seek winding up if the company is unable to pay its debts under section 433(e) read with section 434(1)(c). The petitioners did not specifically plead the company's inability to pay debts or address contingent liabilities. Disputes raised by the respondent company regarding the issuance of cheques before the due date, lack of funds, and non-receipt of goods were found to be bona fide. The respondent company's contentions were considered genuine, and the petitioners failed to provide evidence to counter them.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the winding-up petitions, noting that the respondent company raised bona fide disputes regarding the claims made. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict compliance with statutory notice requirements and the need for petitioners to substantiate claims of a company's inability to pay debts with sufficient evidence.

---