Winding-up petitions and bona fide defence: admitted debt, ineffective security, and technical objections may not defeat maintainability.

A winding-up petition for inability to pay debts cannot be defeated by technical objections where the debt is admitted and the defence is not bona fide. The article notes that admitted inter-corporate deposits, supporting correspondence, and delay in responding may show a dilatory defence rather than a genuine dispute. It also states that a running loan transaction, once disclosed, is not turned into a new cause of action by later pleadings, so limitation is not extended and amendment may be unnecessary. Claimed securities and procedural objections to the supporting affidavit will not defeat maintainability if the security is not real or legally effective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent-company had raised a bona fide defence sufficient to defeat the winding-up petition on the ground of inability to pay debts; (ii) Whether the petition was barred by limitation or required amendment to bring the transaction clearly on record; (iii) Whether the alleged securities and supporting affidavit prevented admission of the winding-up petition or rendered it not maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent-company had raised a bona fide defence sufficient to defeat the winding-up petition on the ground of inability to pay debts.

Analysis: The admitted receipt of inter-corporate deposits aggregating Rs. 182 lakhs, the correspondence confirming the transactions, and the conduct of the respondent in delaying the filing of its reply showed that the defence was not genuine. The Court found that the respondent was using technical objections and dilatory tactics rather than raising a real dispute on liability.

Conclusion: The defence was not bona fide and did not prevent the winding-up order.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition was barred by limitation or required amendment to bring the transaction clearly on record.

Analysis: The Court treated the loan arrangement as a running transaction beginning in October 1991 and renewed thereafter. It held that the later pleadings and documents only amplified the same transaction already disclosed in the original petition and did not introduce a new cause of action or extend limitation. The proposed amendments were found unnecessary because the material relied upon was already on record.

Conclusion: The petition was not barred by limitation, and the amendment sought was unnecessary.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged securities and supporting affidavit prevented admission of the winding-up petition or rendered it not maintainable.

Analysis: The Court held that the claimed security in shares had no realisable value and was not a real security in law. It further found that the alleged collateral security was not shown to have been validly created, and the respondent's own affidavits were inconsistent on that aspect. The Court also held that the affidavit filed with the petition satisfied the applicable procedural requirements under the Companies (Court) Rules and that the petition remained maintainable under the statutory provisions governing winding up for inability to pay debts.

Conclusion: The alleged securities did not defeat maintainability, and the procedural objection to the affidavit failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court found that the respondent-company was unable to pay its debts, rejected the respondent's objections, and ordered winding up of the company.

Ratio Decidendi: A winding-up petition based on inability to pay debts cannot be defeated by technical objections where the debt is admitted, the defence is not bona fide, and the alleged security is not shown to be real or legally effective.

---