Admitted debt can support winding up despite disputed claims, and curable authorisation defects will not defeat the petition.

An objection that the petition was unsupported by a properly stamped and authorised power of attorney was treated as a curable defect, since the issue had not been raised in the pleadings and a fresh power of attorney had been permitted. The Court further held that a winding up petition could be admitted on the basis of an admitted and unpaid consultancy fee debt that satisfied the statutory threshold, even though the procurement agreement claims were disputed. Because the consultancy liability was not shown to be subject to any bona fide dispute, the technical authorisation objection did not defeat admission of the petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objection to the petition based on the stamp duty and authorisation of the power of attorney was fatal to maintainability; (ii) Whether the winding up petition could be admitted on the basis of the admitted consultancy fee debt notwithstanding the dispute regarding the procurement agreements.

Issue (i): Whether the objection to the petition based on the stamp duty and authorisation of the power of attorney was fatal to maintainability.

Analysis: The power of attorney was held to be an instrument chargeable to duty and, if unstamped, liable to impounding. At the same time, the defect in authorisation and verification was treated as curable, particularly because the objection had not been taken in the pleadings and a fresh power of attorney had been permitted to be filed. Procedural irregularities were not treated as sufficient to defeat substantive adjudication of the petition.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the petition was not dismissed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the winding up petition could be admitted on the basis of the admitted consultancy fee debt notwithstanding the dispute regarding the procurement agreements.

Analysis: The statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 covered both the procurement claims and the consultancy fee claims. Even though the procurement claims were disputed, the consultancy fee liability was found to exceed the statutory threshold and was not shown to be the subject of any bona fide dispute. The Court applied the principle that an admitted and unpaid debt sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement can support admission of a winding up petition even if other components of the claim remain disputed.

Conclusion: The petition was admitted on the basis of the admitted consultancy fee debt.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found fit for admission because the respondent had not shown a bona fide dispute as to the admitted consultancy fee liability, and the technical objection regarding authorisation did not defeat the proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: A winding up petition may be admitted where a debt exceeding the statutory minimum is admitted and unpaid, even if other components of the claim remain disputed, and curable procedural defects in authorisation will not defeat the proceeding.

---