Admitted debt with only a quantification dispute will not defeat a winding-up petition where liability is otherwise clear.

A winding-up petition may be admitted where liability is admitted and the dispute is confined to quantification or currency conversion, because a mere disagreement over the exact amount due does not amount to a bona fide and substantial dispute. Here, the controversy was limited to whether payment had to be made in Swiss francs or Indian rupees and the applicable exchange rate, while the debt itself was not genuinely denied. The record also showed failure to clear the admitted dues despite notice and opportunity, supporting the finding that the company was unable to meet the liability. The objection based only on quantification was rejected and winding-up proceedings were set in motion.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding-up petition can be admitted where the debt is admitted but the dispute is confined to quantification and the company is unable to pay the amount due.

Analysis: The admitted materials showed that liability to the petitioner was not genuinely denied; the controversy was only whether payment was to be made in Swiss Francs or in Indian Rupees and at what exchange rate. The Court applied the settled principle that a bona fide and substantial dispute will defeat a winding-up petition, but a mere dispute as to the precise amount does not, where indebtedness is otherwise clear. The respondent had already failed to clear the dues despite notice and prior opportunity, and the record supported the conclusion that the company was not in a position to meet the admitted liability.

Conclusion: The petition was admitted and the winding-up process was set in motion; the objection based only on quantification was rejected.

---