Where respondent-company had disputed neither debt owed to petitioner-bank nor fact that it had been unable to discharge its debt, winding up petition against it was to be admitted

CL: Where respondent-company had disputed neither debt owed to petitioner-bank nor fact that it had been unable to discharge its debt, winding up petition against it was to be admitted
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 481 (Delhi)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Small Industries Development Bank of India
v.
Nirmaan Bharati Samajik And Arthik Vikas Sangathan
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
CO. PETITION NO. 107 OF 2011
CA NO. 363 OF 2011
AUGUST  25, 2014
Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013/ Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up - Petitioner bank had granted financial assistance to respondent-company by virtue of loan agreements - Respondent failed to pay instalments of principal sum and interest and, therefore, petitioner filed winding up petition against respondent - Respondent raised a defence that petitioner bank was liable to support it - Whether since respondent company had disputed neither debt owed to petitioner bank nor fact that it had been unable to discharge its debt, winding up petition was to be admitted - Held, yes - Whether as regards liability of petitioner to extend a rehabilitation package to respondent-company, petitioner bank could not be compelled to provide further assistance contrary to its commercial wisdom - Held, yes [Paras 22 & 25]