https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102451 Petitioner sought a winding-up order for non-payment; respondent raised a bona fide dispute as to existence and quantum of the debt supported by its statement of account and documents, including contested debit entries and excise-related records. Legal principle applied: winding-up is not a mode of debt recovery and should be refused where a company raises a genuine dispute on existence or amount of debt. The petitioner's failure to file its own statement of account and to satisfactorily explain cheque-related circumstances weakened its case. Outcome: the respondent's dispute is prima facie genuine and the petitioner is not entitled to a winding-up order. en-us Tue, 08 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:41:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102451 Petitioner sought a winding-up order for non-payment; respondent raised a bona fide dispute as to existence and quantum of the debt supported by its statement of account and documents, including contested debit entries and excise-related records. Legal principle applied: winding-up is not a mode of debt recovery and should be refused where a company raises a genuine dispute on existence or amount of debt. The petitioner's failure to file its own statement of account and to satisfactorily explain cheque-related circumstances weakened its case. Outcome: the respondent's dispute is prima facie genuine and the petitioner is not entitled to a winding-up order. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102451