ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The facts of this case are a little peculiar. However, the Court after hearing counsel for the petitioning creditor and also counsel for the company passes the following order: The petitioner creditor was an employee of Karam Chand Thaper and Bros. Co. Ltd. The service of the petitioning creditor has been dismissed by the company without any enquiry. This is the case of the petitioning creditor which is disputed by the company. Over the said dismissal of the service of the petitioning creditor a reference is pending before the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. In the course of the said reference the Tribunal has passed an order dated March 27, 1996, directing payment of interim relief to the extent of Rs. 87,701.25 up to June, 1996. It is common ground that the said order upon the company directing payment of interim relief was not carried out by the company. In order to enforce the said order the present winding up petition has been filed by the said employee. In the mean time, the company filed an application for review of the said order passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly the said review petition filed by the company was dismissed by the Tribunal. Against the said order of dismissal of the review petition the company filed a writ petition numbered as 6246 (W) of 1999.
(2.) A learned judge of this Court by a reasoned order dated September 19, 2000, dismissed the said writ petition. This Court is given to understand that against the said order passed by the learned writ Court an appeal is pending but the appeal Court has not granted any stay of the order passed by the learned writ Court. Prior to the conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings this company petition being C. P. No. 7 of 1997 came up before the learned company judge. The company informed the company judge of its review application pending before the Tribunal and the company had also given an undertaking before the learned company judge to open a fixed deposit account of Rs. 90,000 in the name of the company and also given an undertaking to renew the said fixed deposit account from time to time until further orders of this Court. On such representation being made before the learned company judge, the learned company judge directed the company to deposit the receipt of the said fixed deposit account with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court and on such receipt being deposited with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, the winding-up petition being C. P. No. 7 of 1997 was directed to remain permanently stayed.
(3.) Today Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioning creditor submits that since the review petition has been dismissed and also the writ petition challenging the said review i petition has also been dismissed, the company should be directed to pay the said amount which was directed to be paid by way of interim relief to the petitioning creditor. Learned counsel Mr. Basak, appearing for the company submits that the instant company petition is wholly misconceived having been initiated for the purpose of enforcing a money claim. In support of the said contention, learned counsel relied on a decision in the case of Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami 1965 35 Comp Cases 456 (SC). Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a passage at page 463 of the said decision where the learned judges of the Supreme Court observe that the company petition is not a legitimate means for enforcing the payment of a debt which is bona fide disputed by the company. If a company petition is presented for a winding up order to exercise pressure on the company the same should be dismissed as a scandalous abuse of the process of the Court.;