Winding up not maintainable where debt is bona fide disputed and limitation raises a mixed question of law and fact.

A winding up petition cannot be used as a recovery tool where the alleged debt is genuinely disputed and the debtor raises a bona fide limitation defence. The Court noted that a summary winding up jurisdiction is not intended to decide a contested civil money claim, and the petitioner must show a clear debtor-creditor relationship and an undisputed admitted debt. Because the respondent's denial of liability appeared prima facie tenable and limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact, the petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding up petition should be admitted or dismissed in view of the respondent-company's bona fide dispute regarding the debt and the plea that the claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The petition was founded on an alleged debt said to be reflected in the accounts and balance-sheets, but the respondent denied liability and raised limitation as a substantive defence. The Court held that a winding up petition cannot be used as a pressure tactic for recovery of a disputed amount and that such proceedings are not meant to adjudicate a civil money dispute in summary jurisdiction. Since limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and the respondent's defence appeared prima facie bona fide and legally tenable, the petitioner had not established a clear debtor-creditor relationship or an undisputed admitted debt warranting winding up.

Conclusion: The petition for winding up was not maintainable on the facts and was liable to be dismissed.

---