https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275813 A winding up petition under the Companies Act turned on whether the respondent had failed to pay an admitted debt and whether client code error or exchange settlement created a bona fide dispute. The court found that the petitioner had shown payment of the purchase price, that the exchange records did not match the contract note timing, and that the repeated client code error explanation was implausible because the mismatches involved multiple trades with materially different codes. The plea that the disputed amount had already been received through the exchange was also unsupported. The debt was treated as prima facie due and payable, and conditional relief followed on deposit of the claimed amount. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:32:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275813 A winding up petition under the Companies Act turned on whether the respondent had failed to pay an admitted debt and whether client code error or exchange settlement created a bona fide dispute. The court found that the petitioner had shown payment of the purchase price, that the exchange records did not match the contract note timing, and that the repeated client code error explanation was implausible because the mismatches involved multiple trades with materially different codes. The plea that the disputed amount had already been received through the exchange was also unsupported. The debt was treated as prima facie due and payable, and conditional relief followed on deposit of the claimed amount. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275813