Admitted debt and ignored statutory notice can justify winding up; belated, unsupported defences will not block admission.

An admitted debt above the statutory threshold, coupled with non-response to a statutory winding-up notice, can justify admission of a winding up petition. Discrepancies in the exact outstanding amount did not defeat admission where liability was acknowledged in correspondence. Allegations of defective goods were rejected as a belated moonshine defence because the goods were admitted to conform to specification and no contemporaneous complaint had been made. The absence of an express interest clause in the invoices also did not bar admission, since interest may still be claimed and the admitted debt was sufficient. The petition was admitted and directed to be advertised, with interim protection for ordinary business operations and accounts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the winding up petition deserved admission on the basis of the respondent's admitted liability and the statutory notice issued under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) whether the defences relating to discrepancy in the outstanding amount, alleged defective goods, and absence of provision for interest in the invoices could defeat admission of the petition.

Issue (i): Whether the winding up petition deserved admission on the basis of the respondent's admitted liability and the statutory notice issued under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The correspondence showed that the petitioner had demanded payment and the respondent had acknowledged an outstanding amount, even if the exact figure varied between the emails. The respondent did not reply to the statutory notice and did not clear the admitted dues. The admitted liability was above the statutory threshold, so the petition could not be rejected merely on the basis of the discrepancy in the amount claimed in the communications.

Conclusion: The petition was liable to be admitted.

Issue (ii): Whether the defences relating to discrepancy in the outstanding amount, alleged defective goods, and absence of provision for interest in the invoices could defeat admission of the petition.

Analysis: The Court found that the respondent had admitted in its reply affidavit that the goods supplied were as per specification, and no contemporaneous complaint had been made regarding defects. The plea of defective goods was therefore treated as an afterthought and a moonshine defence. The objection regarding interest in the invoices was also rejected, as there was no bar to claiming interest and, in any event, the admitted debt itself was sufficient for admission.

Conclusion: These defences did not prevent admission of the winding up petition.

Final Conclusion: The winding up petition was admitted and directed to be advertised, with interim protection granted regarding the respondent's ordinary course of business operations and accounts.

Ratio Decidendi: An admitted debt above the statutory threshold, coupled with non-response to a statutory notice, can justify admission of a winding up petition, and belated, unsupported defences to liability may be rejected as moonshine.

---