Discretionary winding up relief depends on full disclosure, and concealment of material facts can justify refusal to admit the petition.

Winding up under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 is a discretionary remedy and not a matter of right. The High Court held that concealment of material facts, including the respondent's reply to the statutory notice and part-payment made towards the claim, justified refusal to exercise that discretion. The petitioner had not amended its pleading even after the reply affidavit was filed, nor corrected the suppressed position. On that basis, refusal to admit the winding up petition was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding up petition under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be entertained in view of the petitioner's concealment of the respondent's reply to the statutory notice and part-payment made by the respondent, and whether refusal to exercise discretionary jurisdiction was justified.

Analysis: The remedy of winding up is discretionary and not a matter of right. The petitioning company had concealed material facts, including the respondent's reply to the statutory notice and the payment of Rs. 1,50,000. Even after the reply affidavit was filed, no amendment was sought to disclose the suppressed facts or to reduce the claim. In these circumstances, refusal to exercise discretion under section 433 was found to be justified.

Conclusion: The refusal to admit the winding up petition was upheld, and the challenge to that order failed.

---