https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113962 A winding up petition was held not maintainable where the underlying monetary claim was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds. The respondent denied liability for the second construction bill, asserted prior payment, and relied on correspondence showing an existing dispute. The court applied the principle that winding up is a discretionary remedy and cannot be used to enforce payment of an uncertain debt. The petitioner had already invoked arbitration under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so arbitral proceedings had commenced under section 21. Because the liability itself remained unresolved and was already before arbitration, the claim could not be treated as a determined debt for winding up purposes. en-us Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113962 A winding up petition was held not maintainable where the underlying monetary claim was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds. The respondent denied liability for the second construction bill, asserted prior payment, and relied on correspondence showing an existing dispute. The court applied the principle that winding up is a discretionary remedy and cannot be used to enforce payment of an uncertain debt. The petitioner had already invoked arbitration under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so arbitral proceedings had commenced under section 21. Because the liability itself remained unresolved and was already before arbitration, the claim could not be treated as a determined debt for winding up purposes. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113962