Winding-up for inability to pay debts requires equitable balance; inability alone does not compel a winding-up order.

Winding-up relief based on inability to pay debts is examined: while a winding-up petition is a recognised mode of execution for recovery of a just debt, its grant depends on equitable considerations and judicial discretion, so proof of inability to pay does not automatically entitle a petitioner to winding up. The analysis notes admitted partial payments, repeated offers and tenders to pay, a separate bank suit in existence, and disputes over the precise debt amount and contractual interest; on these factual and equitable grounds the petition for winding up was dismissed and no winding-up order was made.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order for winding up the respondent company under sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts.

Analysis: The petition relied on a statutory notice and the unpaid balance claimed by the petitioner to establish inability to pay. Legal principles applicable include that a winding-up petition is a recognised mode of execution for enforcing payment of a just debt but its grant is subject to equitable considerations and judicial discretion; proof of inability to pay does not automatically entitle a petitioner to a winding-up order if the balance of equities does not clearly favour winding up. Relevant factual matters considered include admitted payments made by the company after notice, the company's repeated offers and tenders to pay the balance, the existence of a separate suit by a bank which has not intervened in the petition, and disputes as to the exact amount claimed and the contractual basis for interest.

Conclusion: The petition is dismissed and the petitioner is denied a winding-up order; the decision is against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

---