Decree debt supports winding up jurisdiction where default is admitted and procedural defects are only technical.

A decree-holder may maintain a winding up petition on default of a decree debt, and the availability of execution does not exclude recourse to inability-to-pay jurisdiction under section 433(e). Technical objections based on defects in verification and form under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and Form 46 do not defeat a petition where there is substantial compliance and the material facts are admitted. The analysis treats a consent decree, admitted non-payment of instalments, and non-compliance with statutory demand as sufficient support for maintainability and for a finding of inability to pay debts.

---

---

Issues: Whether a creditor holding a decree could maintain a winding up petition against the company, and whether defects in verification and form justified rejection of the petition at the threshold.

Analysis: The petition was founded on a consent decree and the company's admitted default in payment of instalments. The statutory notice under section 434 was also admitted, as was non-compliance with the demand. The objections based on Rules 6, 11(a), 17, 21 and 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and Form 46 were treated as technical, because the petition substantially complied with the procedural requirements and the material facts were not denied. The Court further held that a decree debt can form the basis of a winding up petition and that a petition under section 433(e) is not excluded merely because execution is also available.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and the company's objections failed. The company was held unable to pay its debts, and the winding up petition was admitted while the company application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Technical defects in verification and form did not defeat a substantively supported winding up petition based on an admitted decree debt and default.

Ratio Decidendi: In winding up proceedings, substantial compliance with procedural requirements is sufficient where the material facts are admitted, and a decree-holder may invoke inability-to-pay jurisdiction under section 433(e) on default of a decree debt.

---