S.K.KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the entire record of the petition. The petitioner by this petition under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956') is praying for winding up of the M/s. Rainbow Breweries Limited, a Company registered under the Act, 1956 and having its registered office and works at RIICO Industrial Area, Shiwar, District Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent -company'). The winding -up of the respondent -company is prayed for on the ground of its inability to pay its debts.
(2.) THE petitioner, in pursuance of the purchase orders dated 10 -1 -2002 and 1 -2 -2002 supplied to the respondent -company the Barley Malt (Brewery Grade) to the tune of 12 M.T. and 30 M.T., respectively. The petitioner submitted that the respondent -company has not paid the cost of the said Barley Malt (Brewery Grade) supplied to it in pursuance of the orders submitted to the petitioner -firm from time -to -time. The total amount of Rs. 3,13,533.71 is allegedly due of the petitioner against the respondent -company. The interest has also been claimed at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and thus the total claimed by the petitioner is of Rs. 5,71,622 as on 31st of December, 2004. The petitioner sent the notice to the respondent -company under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Act, 1956. It was received by the respondent -company. The respondent -company replied to this notice and the reference may have to Annexure -14 at page No. 40 of the petition. The respondent -company has disputed the claim of the petitioner. From the document Annexure -14 I find that the defence of the respondent -company is that the matter has been settled by Mr. A.C. Agarwal and Rahul Agarwal on behalf of Shri Rahul Malt Private Limited, long time back at Jaipur office, and subsequently the new supplies were made by the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not a bona fide dispute. I do not find any substance and merits in this contention. The respondent -company has come up with the defence that the matter has been settled; the names have also been given of the persons who settled the matter; the place where the settlement has been taken place is also mentioned in the document Annexure -14. It is a question of fact which can be gone into and adjudicated upon after full -fledged trial. It is really shocking and surprising still the learned Counsel for the petitioner is insisting that whatever the petitioner stated is taken to be gospel truth and whatever stated by the respondent is a false stand. It is matter where appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file the civil suit. It appears to be an attempt on the part of the petitioner to get its alleged debt recovered from the respondent -company under the threat of the winding -up thereof. This is not the purpose and object of the winding -up jurisdiction of the company Court. That apart, here the respondent -company at the first available opportunity has raised his defence and prima facie it does not appear to be a dishonest one. The petitioner appears to have filed this petition so as to not pay the court fees and without full -fledged trial thereof, in a summary proceedings, i.e., winding -up petition, this matter is adjudicated upon and decided.;