Winding-up jurisdiction cannot be used for disputed interest claims when principal is paid and liability is bona fide disputed.

A winding-up petition cannot be sustained merely because disputed interest remains unpaid where the company has already paid the principal and demonstrated ability to meet its admitted liability. The dispute over interest is a matter for ordinary civil adjudication, not a basis for invoking winding-up jurisdiction. Winding up is a serious, discretionary remedy intended for the collective benefit of creditors and cannot be used as a substitute for recovery proceedings. Where the dispute is bona fide and payment of the principal is undisputed, non-payment of interest alone does not justify winding up; the petitioner must pursue civil remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding-up petition could be maintained solely on the ground that interest claimed by the creditor remained unpaid, when the company had paid the principal amount and disputed the interest liability.

Analysis: Payment of the principal amount showed the company's ability to meet its admitted liability. The dispute regarding interest was treated as a matter for determination in a civil court, not as a basis for invoking winding-up jurisdiction. Winding up was recognised as a serious and discretionary remedy meant for the benefit of all creditors and not as a substitute for ordinary recovery proceedings. Where the dispute is bona fide and the company's ability to pay is otherwise demonstrated, non-payment of disputed interest alone does not justify winding up.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was not maintainable on the facts and was closed, leaving the petitioner to pursue civil remedies for any interest claimed.

---