Winding-up jurisdiction cannot be used for debt recovery when a civil remedy, including a summary suit, is available.

A winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be used as a device for debt recovery where an alternative civil remedy is available. On the facts, the claim arose from an alleged balance for cotton bale supplies and a dishonoured cheque, but the ledger history, past payments, and absence of action under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act indicated that the petition was being used to pressure for payment rather than to invoke winding-up jurisdiction bona fide. The proper remedy for recovery of the disputed amount was a civil suit, including a summary suit if maintainable. Winding-up proceedings were therefore unavailable for mere realisation of bills.

---

---

Issues: Whether a company petition for winding up under the Companies Act, 1956 can be used as a means to recover an alleged debt when the petitioner has an alternative civil remedy.

Analysis: The petition was founded on an alleged outstanding balance for supply of cotton bales and a dishonoured cheque. The outstanding claim was viewed in the context of the parties' ledger and past payments, and the petitioner had not taken action under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petition was treated as an attempt to pressure the company into payment rather than a bona fide invocation of winding-up jurisdiction. The proper course, if recovery was truly sought, was a civil suit, particularly a summary suit, and winding-up proceedings were held to be unavailable for mere realization of bills.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was not maintainable as a debt recovery device and was dismissed.

---