Bona fide debt dispute defeats winding up; non-reply to statutory notice alone does not establish liability or insolvency.

A winding up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 is not maintainable where the debt is subject to a bona fide and substantial dispute, including disputes over quality, contractual acceptance conditions, and liability under the supply terms. The court treated the respondent's partial payments and court deposit as supporting commercial solvency, so the statutory presumption of inability to pay was not attracted. It also held that a mere failure to reply to a notice under section 433 does not by itself create liability or trigger the deeming provision under section 434. Winding up jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary recovery proceedings where the claim is genuinely contested.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 was maintainable when the respondent asserted a bona fide dispute regarding the debt, relied on the contractual terms concerning quality and acceptance of goods, and resisted the statutory presumption of inability to pay; and whether the respondent's non-reply to the notice under section 433 by itself justified winding up.

Analysis: The dispute centered on the quality of PIJF cables supplied and the resulting liability, with the purchase orders containing conditions for final acceptance after inspection, quality guarantees, and contractual remedies for defects. The respondent had made substantial payments, including a payment of Rs. 25 lakhs and a further deposit in Court, which supported its plea that it was commercially solvent and not unable to pay its debts. The Court held that such a contested claim could not be resolved in summary winding up proceedings, where the existence of a bona fide and substantial dispute requires the Court to stay its hands. The mere omission to reply to the statutory notice did not, by itself, create liability or attract the deeming provision under section 434. The Court also noted that the winding up jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary recovery proceedings or as pressure for payment where the claim is genuinely disputed.

Conclusion: The dispute was bona fide, the presumption of inability to pay was not attracted, and the winding up petition was not maintainable.

---