https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221763 Winding-up jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956 is not available as a substitute for debt recovery where the existence of an admitted debt is genuinely disputed. Disputes about completeness of supplies, shipping documents, required accessories, and product quality meant the alleged liability could not be resolved summarily in winding-up proceedings. On the material presented, the respondent's defence could not be treated at that stage as sham, moonshine, or dishonest, and the liability remained a matter for evidence in the pending civil suit. The petition was dismissed because inability to pay debts and the basis for winding up were not established. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221763 Winding-up jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956 is not available as a substitute for debt recovery where the existence of an admitted debt is genuinely disputed. Disputes about completeness of supplies, shipping documents, required accessories, and product quality meant the alleged liability could not be resolved summarily in winding-up proceedings. On the material presented, the respondent's defence could not be treated at that stage as sham, moonshine, or dishonest, and the liability remained a matter for evidence in the pending civil suit. The petition was dismissed because inability to pay debts and the basis for winding up were not established. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221763