Winding-up petitions against operating companies should be refused where a bona fide dispute and alternate civil remedies exist, requiring suit instead.

Winding-up petitions based on isolated commercial supply claims should be refused where the company raises a bona fide dispute as to liability and effective alternate remedies exist; the remedy of winding up is discretionary and extreme, terminates corporate existence, and is inappropriate absent a strong prima facie case. Factors include the nature of the claim, availability of ordinary civil proceedings, asserted bona fide defences and offsets, and commercial viability of the running company. Operative effect: the winding-up petition is not maintainable and the petitioner must pursue available alternate remedies such as a civil suit for recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of a running company should be entertained where the company raises a bona fide dispute as to liability and an alternative remedy in ordinary civil suit is available.

Analysis: The petition concerns an isolated commercial transaction for supply of goods and a claimed debt of Rs. 6,14,404. The respondent admits the transaction but raises a bona fide and plausible defence, including alleged quality complaints from a buyer and offsets, and disputes the existence or admission of the debt. Winding up is a discretionary and extreme remedy that terminates a company's existence; section 443(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits refusal to order winding up where other remedies are available. Considerations include nature of the claim, availability of alternate remedies, existence of bona fide defence, the financial viability and commercial consequences for the running company, and whether a strong prima facie case for winding up exists.

Conclusion: The petition for winding up is not maintainable and is dismissed; the petitioner must pursue available alternate remedies such as a civil suit for recovery.

---