https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236323 The Delhi High Court held that a winding-up petition could be admitted where the debt was admitted, the company failed to show a bona fide or substantial defence, and its conduct showed unwillingness to pay the liability. The respondent's balance-sheet admission, failure to honour repeated settlement opportunities, and rejection of unilateral payment appropriation showed that the debt was not genuinely disputed. The Court further held that a creditor could not be compelled to accept a reduced one-time settlement amount or a particular mode of appropriation. The petition was admitted, a provisional liquidator was appointed, and the order was kept in abeyance for six weeks to permit payment. en-us Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236323 The Delhi High Court held that a winding-up petition could be admitted where the debt was admitted, the company failed to show a bona fide or substantial defence, and its conduct showed unwillingness to pay the liability. The respondent's balance-sheet admission, failure to honour repeated settlement opportunities, and rejection of unilateral payment appropriation showed that the debt was not genuinely disputed. The Court further held that a creditor could not be compelled to accept a reduced one-time settlement amount or a particular mode of appropriation. The petition was admitted, a provisional liquidator was appointed, and the order was kept in abeyance for six weeks to permit payment. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236323