Winding-up petition fails where alleged debt lacks particulars, supporting correspondence, and a credible explanation for delay.

A winding-up petition based on alleged unpaid invoices failed because the claim was not supported by sufficient particulars or contemporaneous evidence of demand. The court noted the long delay between the invoices, the statutory notice, and the filing of the petition, together with the absence of correspondence or other material explaining the delay or proving the earlier demands. It also found that the statutory notice did not match the invoice details later relied on in the petition. As a result, the alleged debt was held insufficiently substantiated to justify winding up for inability to pay debts, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner made out a case for winding up of the respondent company on the ground of inability to pay debts.

Analysis: The petition was founded on alleged unpaid invoices of 1992 and a statutory notice issued in 2001, but the petition itself was filed only in 2002. The materials showed no satisfactory explanation for the long delay in seeking recovery, and no supporting correspondence or particulars were produced to substantiate the alleged earlier demands. The statutory notice also did not contain the invoice details later relied on in the petition. In these circumstances, the claim was found to be lacking in the necessary particulars and incapable of supporting a winding up order under the Companies Act, 1956.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish grounds for winding up, and the petition was dismissed.

---