Winding-up jurisdiction survives parallel recovery proceedings where the debt is admitted and no bona fide dispute is shown.

Pending recovery proceedings under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 do not by themselves oust the company court's jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956. The winding-up remedy is distinct from mere debt recovery and may be admitted where the company's commercial inability to pay is shown and the debt is not bona fide disputed. On the facts discussed, the company had repeatedly acknowledged the liability, and objections about interest and short disbursement were treated as frivolous and vexatious. The petition was therefore maintainable and properly admitted, with consequential directions for advertisement and restraint on dealing with assets.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the company court had jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition notwithstanding pending proceedings under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; (ii) whether the respondent-company had raised any bona fide dispute to the debt so as to defeat admission of the winding-up petition.

Issue (i): Whether the company court had jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition notwithstanding pending proceedings under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Analysis: The jurisdiction to order winding up under the Companies Act, 1956 is distinct from the remedy of recovery under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Pending recovery proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act do not by themselves oust the company court's power under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The winding-up proceeding is not merely a recovery action but serves the broader function of addressing a company's commercial inability to pay its debts and protecting creditors and the public. The availability of another remedy does not bar admission where the debt is not bona fide disputed.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was maintainable and the jurisdictional objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent-company had raised any bona fide dispute to the debt so as to defeat admission of the winding-up petition.

Analysis: The debt was supported by written documents and was repeatedly acknowledged by the company in correspondence, including requests for waiver of interest. The objections regarding absence of an interest agreement and alleged short disbursement of the sanctioned loan were found to be frivolous and vexatious. Since the liability was not shown to be genuinely disputed, the company could not resist admission by relying on pending recovery proceedings or by characterising the petition as coercive.

Conclusion: No bona fide dispute was established, and the petition was properly admitted.

Final Conclusion: The company was treated as commercially unable to pay its admitted debt, and the winding-up petition was admitted with consequential directions for advertisement and interim restraint on dealing with assets.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending recovery proceeding under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 does not bar a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 where the debt is not bona fide disputed; the company court may admit the petition if the debtor company's liability is admitted or otherwise proved and the defence is merely frivolous or vexatious.

---