1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Winding-up application dismissed due to genuine dispute over debt amount</h1> The application for winding up under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 was dismissed by the court. The judge ruled that the company's ... Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up Issues:Application for winding up under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 based on non-payment of dues by the company.Analysis:The petitioner entered into an agreement with the company for construction work, claiming non-payment of dues amounting to Rs. 37,27,972.71. The petitioner sought winding up of the company due to outstanding payments. The company disputed the claim, alleging violations by the petitioner, including non-compliance with statutory requirements and poor workmanship. The company also claimed expenses exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs due to the petitioner's actions. The petitioner issued a notice, but the company reiterated its demand for payment from the petitioner.During the hearing, the petitioner argued for winding up based on the agreement and unpaid bills, while the company contended that the dispute was bona fide and the defense substantial. The legal provisions under sections 433(e) and 434 of the Act regarding inability to pay debts were highlighted. The company cited legal precedents to support its position that a bona fide dispute prevents winding up.Referring to the Supreme Court decision in a similar case, the judge emphasized that a debt must not be bona fide disputed with a substantial defense for the court to reject a winding-up petition. In this case, the company had raised a cross-claim of over Rs. 15 lakhs even before receiving the petitioner's notice, indicating a genuine dispute. Therefore, the judge concluded that ordering winding up would contradict established legal principles.Based on the facts and legal arguments presented, the judge dismissed the petition for winding up the company, stating that doing so would go against the settled legal position. Consequently, the application for winding up was rejected, and the case was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
