S.K.KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS Company Petition, presented on 29th of November, 2002 is under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956'). Prayer has been made therein for winding up of M/s. Matharu Chemical Industries Ltd., Proprietor M/s. Matharu Steel Private Limited, Jhalawar Road Near Airport, Kota, the respondent company since it is unable to pay its debt to the petitioner. In Para No. 5 of the petition it is stated that the respondent company has purchased the soda ash from the petitioner from time to time and have been making the part payment. The respondent company after admitting its liability to pay the debts, had sent its duly signed balance sheet to the petitioner. This balance sheet is on record as Annexure -1, which is as under : K.V. Associates Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Statement of account for Matharu Chemicals Industries from 1 -4 -2001 to 14 -12 -2001. Date Description Debit Credit Balance 1 -4 -2001 Toopening balance 356525.92 356525.92 DB 4 -5 -2001 By cash reed. 15000.00 341525.92 DB 6 -8 -2001 By DD No.698314 Matharu 100000.00 241525.92 DB 19 -9 -2001 By DD No.69755 Matharu 100000.00 141525.92 DB 30 -10 -2001 By Chq. No. DD 54140024.10 25000.00 116525.92 DB Total 356525.92 240000.00 Closing Balance 116525.92
(3.) AS on 1st April, 2001 the debit opening balance of the respondent company was Rs. 356525.92. I find from this document that from time to time payments have been made by the respondent company to the petitioner i.e. on 4th of May, 2001 Rs. 15,000, on 6th of August, 2001 Rs. 1,00,000, on 19 -9 -2001 Rs. 1,00,000 and on 30 -10 -2001 Rs. 25,000, respectively. From the balance sheet (Annexure 1) it is clear that the respondent company is making the payment and undisputedly it is a running concern. In my opinion, it is not a case where this winding up petition is to be entertained. The last payment has been made on 30th of October, 2001. The fact that after 30th of October, 2001 payments have not been made by the respondent company, there appears to be some good and sound reason or a bona fide dispute. In such matters, otherwise also, it is not in the larger interest of the companies to entertain a winding up petition. The petitioner and the respondent company are having long business dealings and if some amount remained unpaid or outstanding for which an effective remedy is available of filing of the summary suit under Order 37 of the C.P.C., but there the court fees is to be paid. In the facts of this case filing of this winding up petition is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to recover this amount from the respondent -company at the threat of winding up thereof. This way the petitioner without paying the court fees will recover the money, which cannot be permitted,;