Winding up on admitted debt remains maintainable despite revival pleas and requests for restructuring support.

A winding up petition was treated as maintainable where the company admitted substantial indebtedness and present inability to repay. Its plea for rehabilitation, restructuring, or further financial support was not accepted as a bona fide dispute about the debt itself. The Court noted that alleged arbitrariness, financial distress, or a possible revival plan did not negate the admitted liability, and that the availability of another recovery remedy did not bar winding up proceedings because they are not recovery actions. The bank could not be compelled to extend further assistance against its commercial judgment, and the petition was admitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding up petition was maintainable and liable to be admitted where the respondent company admitted substantial indebtedness and inability to repay, but claimed entitlement to rehabilitation and further financial support.

Analysis: The respondent company did not dispute the existence of substantial debt or its present inability to discharge the liability. Its defence rested on a claim that the petitioner bank ought to provide further assistance, restructure the loan account, and extend a rehabilitation package. That controversy was treated as separate from the core question of liability to pay the admitted debt. The Court held that reasons for the company's financial distress, allegations of arbitrariness, or the existence of a possible revival plan did not create a bona fide dispute regarding the debt itself. The availability of another statutory remedy for recovery did not bar a winding up petition, because such proceedings are not recovery proceedings. The Court also declined to compel further financial assistance against the bank's commercial wisdom.

Conclusion: The defence was not a valid bar to admission of the winding up petition, which was admitted.

---