https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248709 Winding up for inability to pay debts was refused because the alleged liability was bona fide disputed, the admitted amount had already been deposited, and the wider claim for interest remained contested with counterclaims pending. The statutory presumption of inability to pay under Section 434(1)(a) did not arise on those facts. Winding up for non-commencement of business or loss of substratum was also declined because mere non-commencement is insufficient; the court must consider whether there is a good reason for delay and a reasonable prospect of revival. As revival could not be ruled out, the petition failed and the company was allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248709 Winding up for inability to pay debts was refused because the alleged liability was bona fide disputed, the admitted amount had already been deposited, and the wider claim for interest remained contested with counterclaims pending. The statutory presumption of inability to pay under Section 434(1)(a) did not arise on those facts. Winding up for non-commencement of business or loss of substratum was also declined because mere non-commencement is insufficient; the court must consider whether there is a good reason for delay and a reasonable prospect of revival. As revival could not be ruled out, the petition failed and the company was allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248709