Bona fide dispute or counterclaim bars winding-up petition under section 163 where liability is genuinely disputed.

The central issue is whether a winding-up petition founded on a statutory demand is maintainable where the company denies liability and raises a bona fide dispute or counterclaim. Applying the statutory test of inability to pay debts, the Court held that a genuine, substantial bona fide dispute as to liability, or a bona fide cross claim that may extinguish or reduce the debt, negates the statutory neglect to pay required by section 163; where liability is genuinely disputed, winding-up is not the proper mode, particularly for unliquidated damages, and the petition is therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition to wind up a company founded on a demand served under section 163 of the Indian Companies Act lies where the company denies liability and raises a bona fide dispute or counterclaim.

Analysis: The question turns on the statutory test of inability to pay debts in section 163 and the effect of a bona fide dispute or bona fide cross claim on the character of the company's refusal to pay. If the company's refusal to comply with the statutory demand is explained by a bona fide dispute as to liability or by a bona fide cross claim that may extinguish or reduce the claimed debt, the statutory precondition of neglect to pay within the meaning of section 163 is not established. The existence of a substantial, bona fide dispute as to liability or the nature of the liability means the winding up procedure is not the proper mode to enforce the disputed claim, particularly where the claim is for unliquidated damages.

Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The Court concludes that where there is a bona fide dispute or bona fide counterclaim as to the company's liability, the company cannot be treated as having neglected to pay its debts under section 163 and a winding up petition on that basis is not maintainable, favouring the respondent.

---