Unpaid consultancy charges and disputed liability led to interim deposit directions, with recovery left to civil suit.

Unpaid consultancy charges can justify interim protection in a winding-up dispute where liability is contested and the debtor alleges defects without contemporaneous complaint evidence. The Bombay HC noted material suggesting the respondent's chairman had agreed to pay the stated amount, while the absence of correspondence on alleged defects weakened the defence. Instead of immediate winding-up adjudication, the Court ordered an interim deposit in court, permitted the petitioner to pursue a civil suit for recovery, and linked the fate of the winding-up petition to compliance with the deposit direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding-up petition should be admitted on the basis of the alleged unpaid consultancy charges, and whether the dispute should instead be relegated to a civil suit with an interim deposit.

Analysis: The petition was founded on non-payment of consultancy charges and service of statutory notice under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent disputed liability and relied on alleged defects in the petitioner's work. The order records that there was material indicating an agreement by the respondent's chairman to pay a specified amount and that no correspondence was produced to show contemporaneous complaint about defects. On that basis, the Court considered that an interim arrangement was appropriate rather than immediate winding-up adjudication.

Outcome: The respondent was directed to deposit Rs. 1 crore in court within one month, the petitioner was permitted to pursue a civil suit for recovery within eight weeks, and the winding-up petition was to stand disposed of if the deposit was made or stand admitted if it was not made.

---