https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103315 Interest on the value of goods was not shown to arise from any binding contractual stipulation, signed contract, or books of account establishing an ascertained mercantile liability. The court treated section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act and section 3 of the Interest Act as provisions governing civil recovery claims, not as an automatic basis for interest in winding-up proceedings. Winding-up jurisdiction was held to be unavailable where the alleged debt was uncertain, disputed, and inconsistent as to amount and commencement date, since that remedy cannot substitute for a money suit. The petition was therefore rejected because no definite, undisputed company debt was proved. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:17:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103315 Interest on the value of goods was not shown to arise from any binding contractual stipulation, signed contract, or books of account establishing an ascertained mercantile liability. The court treated section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act and section 3 of the Interest Act as provisions governing civil recovery claims, not as an automatic basis for interest in winding-up proceedings. Winding-up jurisdiction was held to be unavailable where the alleged debt was uncertain, disputed, and inconsistent as to amount and commencement date, since that remedy cannot substitute for a money suit. The petition was therefore rejected because no definite, undisputed company debt was proved. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103315