https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98551 Where a company neglects a statutory demand under section 434(1)(a), the deeming provision may render it prima facie unable to pay its debts under section 433(e) unless the company raises a credible, substantial bona fide dispute on the existence or payment of the debt; absent such a dispute the winding-up petition should be admitted. A defence based on asserted contractual adjustment was rejected as insubstantial because consent terms required cash payment, no adjustment was pleaded in response to the statutory notice, and subsequent conduct undermined the defence. Motive of the petitioner or lack of commercial insolvency does not preclude admission at the prima facie stage. en-us Thu, 19 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:17:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98551 Where a company neglects a statutory demand under section 434(1)(a), the deeming provision may render it prima facie unable to pay its debts under section 433(e) unless the company raises a credible, substantial bona fide dispute on the existence or payment of the debt; absent such a dispute the winding-up petition should be admitted. A defence based on asserted contractual adjustment was rejected as insubstantial because consent terms required cash payment, no adjustment was pleaded in response to the statutory notice, and subsequent conduct undermined the defence. Motive of the petitioner or lack of commercial insolvency does not preclude admission at the prima facie stage. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 19 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98551