Bona fide defence in winding up petitions requires prima facie proof; speculative counter-claims will not defeat admitted debt.

A winding up petition based on admitted debt was upheld because the company failed to show a bona fide, substantial defence or counter-claim supported by prima facie proof. Allegations of confidentiality breach, negligence, or future damages were treated as speculative and unquantified, and did not displace the existing indebtedness. The Court also recognised that a secured creditor could present the petition and found that the company had ceased manufacturing, remained financially unviable, and was unable to pay its debts. The objections on substratum and duplication of claims were rejected, and winding up followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the company had raised a bona fide and substantial defence or counter-claim sufficient to defeat the winding up petition based on the admitted debt. (ii) Whether a secured creditor had locus standi to present the winding up petition and whether the company was unable to pay its debts so as to justify winding up.

Issue (i): Whether the company had raised a bona fide and substantial defence or counter-claim sufficient to defeat the winding up petition based on the admitted debt.

Analysis: A debt dispute can defeat a winding up petition only if the company shows a genuine defence with substance. A mere assertion of breach of confidentiality, negligence, or a future damages claim is not enough. The company produced no prima facie proof of any breach by the bank, and the alleged counter-claim remained speculative and unquantified. The materials also showed that the company itself had acknowledged liability and that the disputed loss, even if pursued elsewhere, did not displace the existing admitted indebtedness.

Conclusion: The defence and counter-claim were not bona fide or substantial enough to resist winding up, and this issue was decided against the company.

Issue (ii): Whether a secured creditor had locus standi to present the winding up petition and whether the company was unable to pay its debts so as to justify winding up.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits a secured creditor to present a winding up petition. The Court found that the company had ceased manufacturing operations, had lost financial viability, and had substantial debts remaining unpaid. The objections based on substratum, alleged duplication of claims, and supposed postponement of liabilities did not answer the admitted indebtedness. The company's own correspondence acknowledged its liability and sought rehabilitation rather than denial of debt.

Conclusion: The secured creditor was competent to present the petition, and the company was found unable to pay its debts; this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The objections failed, and the company was ordered to be wound up with the Official Liquidator appointed to administer the liquidation in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: In a winding up petition based on inability to pay debts, a disputed debt or counter-claim will not defeat the petition unless the company establishes a bona fide, substantial defence supported by prima facie proof; absent such proof, and where indebtedness remains admitted or substantial, winding up may follow.

---