Admitted debt and statutory notice can support winding-up jurisdiction once BIFR-related suspension is lifted.

A company's admitted failure to discharge an acknowledged debt after statutory notice can justify winding-up jurisdiction. The text notes that the respondent-company admitted liability in correspondence and objections, yet did not pay the outstanding dues. It also states that earlier suspension of the winding-up proceedings on account of a BIFR reference was recalled after the reference abated, so the petition proceeded on merits. On those facts, non-payment of the admitted debt was treated as sufficient to support winding up, and the petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-company was liable to be wound up for failure to discharge an admitted debt despite statutory notice and prior BIFR-related proceedings.

Analysis: The respondent had, in correspondence and in its objections, acknowledged liability and the inability to clear the outstanding dues. The record also showed that statutory notice had been issued and payment was not made. Earlier suspension of the winding-up proceedings on account of BIFR reference had been recalled after the reference abated, restoring the petition for adjudication on merits. In these circumstances, the non-payment of the admitted debt justified the invocation of winding-up jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The respondent-company was held liable to be wound up, and the winding-up petition was allowed.

---