https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96992 A debtor company's bona fide belief that it is legally justified in refusing payment on a demand instrument raises a real dispute as to liability rather than amounting to neglect to pay for the purposes of a winding-up petition. The court applied that principle where the respondent produced affidavits alleging fraud in procurement of the instrument and contested the petitioner's transferee status, finding substantive factual and legal issues. Because a genuine contested liability existed, the winding-up application could not be maintained and was rejected in favour of the respondent. en-us Mon, 16 Aug 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96992 A debtor company's bona fide belief that it is legally justified in refusing payment on a demand instrument raises a real dispute as to liability rather than amounting to neglect to pay for the purposes of a winding-up petition. The court applied that principle where the respondent produced affidavits alleging fraud in procurement of the instrument and contested the petitioner's transferee status, finding substantive factual and legal issues. Because a genuine contested liability existed, the winding-up application could not be maintained and was rejected in favour of the respondent. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Aug 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96992