Disputed interest claim cannot sustain winding-up jurisdiction where no contractual interest term existed and the principal was already paid.

A winding-up petition cannot be maintained on a genuinely disputed debt. The claimed interest was not admitted, the principal had already been paid, and there was no contractual stipulation for interest between the parties; the demand rested only on bills. On those facts, the alleged liability was not an undisputed or admitted debt capable of grounding winding-up jurisdiction, so the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding-up petition could be maintained on the basis of a disputed claim for interest when the principal amount had already been paid and there was no stipulation for interest between the parties.

Analysis: The claim for interest was not admitted. There was no agreement between the parties providing for payment of interest, and the claim was asserted only on the basis of bills. Since the foundation of the petition itself was a hotly disputed monetary and not an undisputed debt, it could not justify winding-up jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on the disputed interest claim and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A winding-up order cannot be made where the alleged debt is genuinely disputed and the claim is not founded on an admitted or contractually stipulated liability.

---