https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98179 The court found that Hariprasad and supporting creditors were entitled to file a winding-up petition as creditors of the company. It dismissed the argument that non-payment of the dividend was due to Hariprasad's default and that the petition was an abuse of court process. The court emphasized that a winding-up petition cannot be used to enforce a disputed debt. As the debt was bona fide disputed by the company on substantial grounds, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench's decision, and dismissed the petition without costs. en-us Fri, 08 Jan 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98179 The court found that Hariprasad and supporting creditors were entitled to file a winding-up petition as creditors of the company. It dismissed the argument that non-payment of the dividend was due to Hariprasad's default and that the petition was an abuse of court process. The court emphasized that a winding-up petition cannot be used to enforce a disputed debt. As the debt was bona fide disputed by the company on substantial grounds, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench's decision, and dismissed the petition without costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Jan 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98179