https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193582 The court admitted the winding-up petition under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the respondent failed to pay its admitted debts. The petitioner, who completed the work as per contract, claimed an unpaid retention amount. The court dismissed the respondent's allegations of defects in the work due to lack of evidence. It held that a pending recovery suit does not bar a winding-up petition. As the respondent failed to prove its ability to pay the debt, the court directed payment within one month with interest, allowing the petition and reserving further directions for a later date. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:59:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193582 The court admitted the winding-up petition under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the respondent failed to pay its admitted debts. The petitioner, who completed the work as per contract, claimed an unpaid retention amount. The court dismissed the respondent's allegations of defects in the work due to lack of evidence. It held that a pending recovery suit does not bar a winding-up petition. As the respondent failed to prove its ability to pay the debt, the court directed payment within one month with interest, allowing the petition and reserving further directions for a later date. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193582