Winding-up petition cannot enforce a disputed interest claim where principal dues are paid and no contractual basis exists.

A creditors' winding-up petition cannot be used to press a disputed interest claim when the principal supply dues have already been paid and no contract, pleaded custom, or legal basis for interest is shown. Interest is ordinarily recoverable only under contract, or by adjudication in an appropriate civil proceeding under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A company petition is not a money recovery suit, and winding-up jurisdiction cannot be invoked to determine a claim for reasonable interest or to compel winding up on that basis. In the absence of the statutory conditions precedent for winding up under the Companies Act, 1956, the petition is not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a creditors' winding-up petition can be maintained where the principal dues have been paid but the claim for interest remains disputed and unsupported by any contract, custom, or law.

Analysis: The petition was founded on non-payment of supply dues after notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, but the respondent paid the entire principal amount during pendency of the petition. The remaining claim was only for interest, and no agreement, pleaded custom, or legal basis for charging interest was established on record. The Court held that the award of interest is ordinarily governed by contract and, in its absence, by adjudication in an appropriate civil proceeding under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A company petition is not a suit for recovery of money, and the winding-up jurisdiction cannot be used to determine a disputed claim for reasonable interest or to compel winding-up on that basis. The statutory conditions precedent for winding up under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 were not shown to exist.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was not maintainable on the disputed interest claim and was rejected in favour of the respondent.

---