Winding-up petition by contributory requires a bona fide basis; debt, insolvency, and just-and-equitable grounds were not proved.

A fully paid-up shareholder, as a contributory, may present a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956, and the absence of surplus assets does not make the petition incompetent. However, such status gives no automatic entitlement to a winding-up order, and the petitioner must show a real, bona fide basis for relief. The claimed debt was not proved to be due to the petitioners because the amount had been transferred to another person, so the inability-to-pay-debts ground failed. Commercial insolvency, substratum failure, mismanagement, and deadlock were also not established on the evidence, and the court declined to exercise its discretion for compulsory winding up.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether fully paid-up shareholders, as contributories, could maintain a winding-up petition even though the company was said to be insolvent and had no surplus assets; (ii) whether the petitioners were creditors of the company on the strength of the agency deposit and related notices so as to invoke inability to pay debts; and (iii) whether the company's affairs disclosed commercial insolvency, substratum failure, mismanagement, or deadlock justifying winding up on the just and equitable ground.

Issue (i): Whether fully paid-up shareholders, as contributories, could maintain a winding-up petition even though the company was said to be insolvent and had no surplus assets.

Analysis: Section 428 and section 439(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 recognize a contributory's right to present a winding-up petition, and the absence of surplus assets does not by itself make such a petition incompetent. Even so, the court's discretion under section 433 remains relevant, and a contributory with no real interest in the winding up must still make out a genuine and special case for relief.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable in form, but the petitioners' status as contributories gave them no automatic entitlement to a winding-up order.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were creditors of the company on the strength of the agency deposit and related notices so as to invoke inability to pay debts.

Analysis: The amount claimed by the petitioners had been transferred to M.V. Narasimhan, and the statutory effect of that transfer was that the right to recover the debt vested in him and not in the petitioners. The notices issued by the petitioners therefore did not establish that they were creditors, and the later debt claim supported by Narasimhan could not be used to found a case not pleaded in the petition. The alleged debt was thus not proved to be due to the petitioners for the purpose of section 434(1)(a).

Conclusion: The petitioners were not creditors of the company, and the ground of inability to pay debts failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the company's affairs disclosed commercial insolvency, substratum failure, mismanagement, or deadlock justifying winding up on the just and equitable ground.

Analysis: The balance-sheet and evidence did not establish commercial insolvency when the company's fixed assets and plant were taken into account. Mere accumulated losses did not prove that the company had no reasonable prospect of trading at a profit, especially where losses had reduced and business orders had improved. No proof was led of oppression, mismanagement, or deadlock, and the court declined to treat the validity of board appointments as a winding-up question. The majority opposition of shareholders and creditors also weighed against the exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: No ground for winding up on commercial insolvency, substratum failure, mismanagement, or deadlock was made out.

Final Conclusion: The petition disclosed no sufficient basis for compulsory winding up, and the discretionary relief sought was refused after considering the cumulative effect of all the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: A fully paid-up contributory may present a winding-up petition, but an order will not ordinarily be made unless the petitioner shows a real and bona fide basis for relief and establishes a ground that justifies the court's discretion under the Companies Act, 1956.

---