Bona fide dispute in winding up proceedings requires contemporaneous support; a later, unsupported objection will not defeat payment.

A winding up defence must be supported by contemporaneous material to qualify as a bona fide dispute. Where statutory notice was issued to the old management, remained unanswered, and the company later challenged the invoices only after a change in management without documentary support, the court treated the objection as a delayed attempt to resist payment. Prior payments against the invoices and the absence of any contemporaneous dispute over the unpaid balance undermined the defence. The recall application therefore failed because the alleged dispute was not genuine and was seen as intended to defer payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company had raised a bona fide dispute to resist the winding up petition and recall of the earlier order.

Analysis: The statutory notice had been issued during the tenure of the old management and remained unanswered. The company's later attempt to dispute the bills after a change of management was found unsupported by contemporaneous documents. Payments had already been made against the invoices, and the unpaid balance had not been contemporaneously disputed by the erstwhile management. The defence was therefore treated as not genuine and intended to delay payment.

Conclusion: The defence was held to be not bona fide and the application for recall could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a winding up proceeding, a defence unsupported by contemporaneous material and raised only to defer payment after a change of management is not a bona fide dispute.

---