Admitted debt and sham defence led to winding up admission after documentary evidence and statutory notice service were established.

A winding up petition was admitted where the petitioner established an admitted debt arising from a written arrangement, supported by payment of security deposit and advance rent. The respondent's alternative explanation for the received sums was rejected because it was not backed by the documentary record and was treated as a sham defence. Presumption of service of the statutory notice was drawn from the dispatch record, and the oral version contrary to admitted documents was not accepted under the documentary evidence rule. On the material placed on record, the debt was treated as established and the respondent was found unwilling and unable to pay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner established an admitted debt due from the respondent and whether the respondent's defence was credible enough to resist admission of the winding up petition.

Analysis: The petition was founded on a written arrangement under which the petitioner had paid a security deposit and advance rent, and the respondent did not satisfactorily explain the receipt or character of the admitted sums. The Court found the respondent's alternative explanation to be unsupported by the documentary record and treated it as a sham defence. The presumption of service of the statutory notice was drawn from the dispatch record, and the oral version contrary to the admitted documents was held to be barred by the documentary evidence rule. On the material on record, the balance amount was treated as a debt within the meaning of the winding up provisions and the respondent was found unwilling and unable to pay.

Conclusion: The winding up petition was admitted because the debt stood established and the respondent's defence was rejected as unreliable.

---