Bona fide debt dispute bars winding-up petition when liability is contested and requires trial evidence.

A winding-up petition is not maintainable where the alleged debt is expressly denied and the liability is raised as a bona fide dispute of fact. The company's reply specifically disputed the statutory notice, the existence of the alleged liability, the marketing budget claim, and the character of the payments made. Because the controversy required oral and documentary evidence and could not be resolved summarily, the court held that a company petition cannot replace a regular trial when the debt itself is genuinely contested. The petition was therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding-up petition was maintainable when the alleged debt was expressly denied and the liability was said to be subject to disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The statutory notice claiming outstanding dues was specifically denied in reply. The respondent disputed the very existence of the alleged liability, including the alleged marketing budget and the character of the payments made. In such circumstances, the controversy turned on evidence, both oral and documentary, and could not be conclusively resolved in a winding-up proceeding. A company petition is not a substitute for a regular trial where the debt itself is bona fide disputed.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

---