Bona fide debt dispute, one-time settlement limits and SARFAESI statutory remedy shaped the winding-up and writ challenge outcome.

A company's objection to winding up failed because its own borrowings, balance sheets and prior rehabilitation proposal showed the debt was not genuinely disputed, and the admitted dues remained unpaid. The RBI one-time settlement framework was held inapplicable because it was meant for SME accounts below the stipulated threshold, which the company did not establish. A writ challenge to SARFAESI measures was also rejected because action had already been taken under section 13(4), leaving the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as the proper course. The repeated proceedings were treated as lacking bona fides and as an abuse of process, and the winding-up petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company's defence to the winding-up petition disclosed a bona fide dispute of debt; whether the RBI one-time settlement guidelines could be invoked to reduce or reschedule the secured dues; and whether the writ petition challenging the SARFAESI measures was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under the Act.

Analysis: The company had acknowledged large borrowings and had itself proposed a rehabilitation package before the BIFR, under which substantial principal and interest were payable. The Court found that the company had not complied with that settlement and that the amounts shown as due in its own balance sheets negated the plea that only a nominal sum remained payable. After the admission of the winding-up petition and dismissal of the connected appeals, the company could not be permitted to reopen the issue of bona fide dispute at that stage. The Court further held that the RBI one-time settlement scheme relied upon by the company was not available in the facts, since the scheme was framed for SME accounts below the stipulated threshold and the company did not establish that it fell within that category. The challenge to the SARFAESI action was also rejected because the company had approached the Court after measures under section 13(4) had been taken, when the proper remedy lay before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The repeated proceedings were treated as lacking bona fides and as an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The defence to the winding-up petition was held not bona fide, the winding-up petition was allowed, and the company's writ petition challenging the SARFAESI measures was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The secured creditors' claims were upheld, the company was ordered to be wound up, and the SARFAESI challenge was left to the statutory remedy before the DRT.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a company's indebtedness is supported by its own admissions and accounts, and the statutory remedy under SARFAESI is available after measures under section 13(4), the debtor cannot resist winding up or invoke writ jurisdiction on a purportedly disputed debt or an inapplicable settlement scheme.

---