The petition was dismissed: the sanctioned s.176 scheme bound the petitioner and limited its entitlement to the deposit refund under the scheme; the statutory demand was fatally defective because it included interest barred by Limitation Act s.6(3); the debt was bona fide disputed and the petition was oppressive and an abuse of process, therefore the statutory prerequisites for winding‑up under s.218 were not satisfied.
The court refused to accede to the winding‑up petition and allowed the respondent's application because (1) the petitioners' creditor status was disputed and the quantum of any claim had not crystallised, (2) no valid statutory demand compliant with s.218(2)(a) was exhibited or proved served at the registered office, (3) insolvency pleaded in affidavit but not in the petition could not be relied upon as it was a departure from pleadings, and (4) there was a reasonable prospect of revival by TPPT so winding‑up was not just and equitable; accordingly the respondent's prayers to strike out the p…