https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459166 Delhi HC admitted a winding up petition under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of Companies Act, 1956 against respondent company for inability to pay debts. Court found respondent's defense was sham rather than bonafide dispute. Respondent had acknowledged debt through emails citing lack of funds and requesting patience, with no contemporaneous dispute raised. Suspicious letters produced years later in 2014 for dues from 2011 lacked proper authentication. Respondent's failure to respond to statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a) and absence of timely dispute indication demonstrated lack of bonafides. Court distinguished cases involving genuine disputed facts and directed publication of petition advertisement. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2024 19:05:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459166 Delhi HC admitted a winding up petition under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of Companies Act, 1956 against respondent company for inability to pay debts. Court found respondent's defense was sham rather than bonafide dispute. Respondent had acknowledged debt through emails citing lack of funds and requesting patience, with no contemporaneous dispute raised. Suspicious letters produced years later in 2014 for dues from 2011 lacked proper authentication. Respondent's failure to respond to statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a) and absence of timely dispute indication demonstrated lack of bonafides. Court distinguished cases involving genuine disputed facts and directed publication of petition advertisement. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459166