Bona fide debt dispute defeats winding-up petition; unsupported insolvency allegations also fail.

A winding-up petition based on an alleged debt cannot succeed where the company raises a genuine and substantial dispute as to liability; the statutory presumption of inability to pay arises only for an undisputed debt neglected after demand, so the petition failed on that ground. A separate allegation of commercial insolvency or that the company was a bubble company also requires cogent material showing inability to meet admitted liabilities, and unsupported assertions are insufficient. On the record, the company was carrying on business and the insolvency allegation was not proved, so the winding-up grounds were rejected and admission of the petition was refused with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioning creditor could maintain a winding-up petition on the basis of an alleged debt when the company raised a bona fide dispute as to liability; (ii) Whether the company was liable to be wound up on the ground of commercial insolvency or as a bubble company.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioning creditor could maintain a winding-up petition on the basis of an alleged debt when the company raised a bona fide dispute as to liability.

Analysis: For a winding-up petition based on inability to pay debts, the debt must be a clear, valid and legally recoverable debt. The statutory presumption under section 434(1)(a) is attracted only when the company neglects to pay an undisputed debt after demand. Where liability is under genuine adjudication and the dispute is substantial and bona fide, the deeming fiction does not operate. Here, the company had already sought declaratory and rent-related reliefs in pending proceedings under the rent control law, and the dispute over licence charges and standard rent was not shown to be frivolous or merely obstructive.

Conclusion: The alleged debt was bona fide disputed, and the company could not be treated as deemed unable to pay that debt.

Issue (ii): Whether the company was liable to be wound up on the ground of commercial insolvency or as a bubble company.

Analysis: A petition alleging insolvency must be supported by material showing inability to meet admitted liabilities. The record showed that the company was carrying on business and that the allegation of insolvency was not substantiated. The description of the company as a bubble company was held to be unwarranted and unsupported by the petition or evidence. The grounds under section 433(f) were therefore not made out.

Conclusion: The grounds of commercial insolvency and bubble company were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The winding-up petition failed on both grounds and was refused admission, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A winding-up petition based on debt will fail where the alleged liability is under a genuine and substantial dispute, and a separate allegation of insolvency must be supported by cogent material showing inability to meet admitted debts.

---