https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111228 After acceptance of a bill of exchange, the acceptor is primarily liable to the holder in due course, and a winding-up petition based on dishonoured cheques issued towards that liability was treated as maintainable. The respondent-company's plea that the bills were accommodation bills, and that disputes with the drawer created a bona fide defence, did not bar admission because such disputes could not defeat the bank's claim against the acceptor. Earlier acknowledgments of liability and the failure to offer any deposit also supported the conclusion that the defence was frivolous and not bona fide, so the petition was admitted. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:22:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111228 After acceptance of a bill of exchange, the acceptor is primarily liable to the holder in due course, and a winding-up petition based on dishonoured cheques issued towards that liability was treated as maintainable. The respondent-company's plea that the bills were accommodation bills, and that disputes with the drawer created a bona fide defence, did not bar admission because such disputes could not defeat the bank's claim against the acceptor. Earlier acknowledgments of liability and the failure to offer any deposit also supported the conclusion that the defence was frivolous and not bona fide, so the petition was admitted. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111228