Respondent's Defences Deemed Insufficient, Winding-Up Petition Admitted for Further Proceedings

The court found that the Respondent company's defences were not bona fide or substantial. The acknowledgments of debt and lack of evidence for reconciliation or conditional payments led to the admission of the winding-up petition. The arbitration clause did not impact the petition's maintainability. The impugned judgment dismissing the petition was set aside, and Company Petition No.198 of 2012 was admitted for further proceedings. The appeal was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Respondent company is "unable to pay its debts" and thus liable for winding up under Section 433(e) and Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Whether the debt claimed by the Appellant is bona fide disputed and whether the defence raised by the Respondent is substantial.
3. The impact of an arbitration clause in the purchase orders on the maintainability of the winding-up petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inability to Pay Debts:
The Appellant sought the winding up of the Respondent company on the grounds of its inability to pay debts amounting to Rs. 99,74,784/-. The Appellant supplied engineering items to the Respondent, raising invoices totaling Rs. 2,16,64,437/-, out of which Rs. 1,31,44,778/- was paid. The Respondent acknowledged the remaining debt of Rs. 81,94,426/- through a written undertaking dated 29 July 2009. Despite repeated notices and partial payment of Rs. 25 Lakhs, the balance remained unpaid, leading the Appellant to seek winding up under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.

2. Bona Fide Dispute and Substantial Defence:
The learned Company Judge initially dismissed the petition, citing that the defence of full and final settlement was baseless and that the debt was subject to reconciliation and payments from HAL. However, the higher court found that the Respondent's acknowledgments in the balance confirmation letters and the undertaking indicated no substantial or bona fide dispute over the debt. The Respondent's claim of reconciliation was deemed vague and unsupported by any material evidence. Additionally, the defence that payments were contingent upon receipts from HAL was not raised in initial communications and thus was considered an afterthought.

3. Arbitration Clause:
The Respondent contended that the existence of an arbitration clause in the purchase orders precluded the winding-up petition. However, the court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., which clarified that a winding-up petition is not a claim for money but a declaration of commercial insolvency. Therefore, an arbitrator cannot order the winding up of a company, and the arbitration clause does not bar the maintainability of the winding-up petition.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Respondent company's defences were neither bona fide nor substantial. The acknowledgments of debt and the lack of material evidence for reconciliation or conditional payments from HAL led to the admission of the winding-up petition. The arbitration clause did not affect the maintainability of the petition. Consequently, the impugned judgment dismissing the petition was set aside, and the Company Petition No.198 of 2012 was admitted for further proceedings. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.

---