Winding-up for unpaid liabilities follows where statutory notice is ignored, service is valid, and no defence is filed.

A company may be ordered to be wound up where admitted liabilities remain unpaid, statutory notice is ignored, and no effective opposition is filed despite valid substituted service and advertisement of the petition. The Court accepted that unpaid amounts under the company's schemes, together with unanswered statutory notices and the respondent-company's failure to appear or object, established inability to meet liabilities. On that basis, a winding-up order was made and the Official Liquidator was appointed under the Companies Act, 1956.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-company was liable to be wound up on the ground that it was unable to meet its liabilities and no effective opposition was filed.

Analysis: The petitioners established that amounts deposited under the company's schemes remained unpaid despite demand and statutory notices. Service of notice on the company was treated as sufficient after substituted service by publication, and the petition was duly advertised under the Company (Court) Rules, 1959. No appearance or objection was filed on behalf of the respondent-company despite publication and repeated listing. On the materials before the Court, a case for winding up was made out.

Conclusion: The respondent-company was ordered to be wound up, and the Official Liquidator, High Court, Allahabad was appointed as liquidator under section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company's admitted liabilities remain unpaid, statutory notice is unheeded, and no defence is offered despite valid service and advertisement, a winding-up order may be made and the Official Liquidator appointed under the Companies Act, 1956.

---