Bona fide dispute over debt is required to resist winding-up; confirmed liability after demand supports admission and advertisement.

A winding-up petition may be admitted and advertised where the debt is not shown to be bona fide disputed after statutory demand. The company had earlier confirmed the outstanding balance, and its reply did not challenge the liability itself but referred only to financial strain and losses. On those materials, the Court found no serious dispute as to the debt. A winding-up petition cannot be used as a pressure tactic to recover a genuinely disputed claim, but where the debt remains unpaid and no bona fide dispute is established, the petition may proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding-up petition was liable to be admitted and advertised, or whether the claim was defeated by a bona fide dispute as to liability.

Analysis: The statutory notice was preceded by a confirmation of the outstanding balance on behalf of the company, and the company's reply did not dispute the amount as such. Instead, it referred to financial strain and losses. On the materials placed before the Court, there was no serious or bona fide dispute regarding the debt. A winding-up petition is not to be used as a pressure tactic for recovery of a genuinely disputed claim, but where the debt is not bona fide disputed and the company has not paid after demand, the petition may proceed.

Conclusion: The petition was fit to be admitted and advertised; the objection based on bona fide dispute failed, and the decision was in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the debt claimed in a winding-up petition is not shown to be bona fide disputed after statutory demand, the petition may be admitted and advertised under the Companies Act, 1956.

---