https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285184 An admitted debt in a winding up petition could not be displaced by a counterclaim for damages based on the alleged failure to sell pledged shares earlier, because Section 176 of the Contract Act leaves the pawnee with discretion to sell and does not impose a duty to do so at the pawnor's insistence. The respondent's claim therefore did not amount to an actionable breach or a substantial cross-claim capable of defeating admission. A defence to winding up must be bona fide, substantive, likely to succeed in law, and supported by prima facie proof; on these facts, the asserted set-off and circular-based grievance did not meet that standard, so the petition was admitted and directed to be advertised. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jan 2020 14:38:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285184 An admitted debt in a winding up petition could not be displaced by a counterclaim for damages based on the alleged failure to sell pledged shares earlier, because Section 176 of the Contract Act leaves the pawnee with discretion to sell and does not impose a duty to do so at the pawnor's insistence. The respondent's claim therefore did not amount to an actionable breach or a substantial cross-claim capable of defeating admission. A defence to winding up must be bona fide, substantive, likely to succeed in law, and supported by prima facie proof; on these facts, the asserted set-off and circular-based grievance did not meet that standard, so the petition was admitted and directed to be advertised. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285184