JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The petitioner-firm is a registered partnership firm. It had filed an application under section 433(e) read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”). It seeks winding up of M/s. Euro Cotspin Limited (hereinafter described as “the respondent-company”) for its inability to repay its debts. It had been stated by the petitioner that it had been supplying paper cones for a considerable period to the respondent-company and a running account for the supply made was maintained. The items supplied were stated to be taxable under the Sales Tax Act. The respondent-company was also sending their statement of account for reconciliation of accounts throughout the periods 1996-97 and 1997-98. On March 31, 1998, statement duly signed by the respondent-company was received showing that a sum of Rs. 7,68,100 was payable to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner’s claim was that Rs. 8,95,553 was due. The respondent-company had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000 on April 13, 1998, which was dishonoured. The present petition had been filed for winding up the respondent-company.
2. It has been asserted that on April 30, 1998, further material was supplied worth Rs. 3,13,560. Upon final reconciliation of the accounts, a sum of Rs. 10,48,408 on account of principal amount and Rs. 5,56,398 on account of interest was due from the respondent-company.
3. In the reply filed, it had been asserted that the material supplied was of poor quality and the respondent-company had informed the petitioner of this fact, vide the letters dated April 21, 1998, May 4, 1998 and May 9, 1998. The copies of the said letters are annexures R-1 to R-3. It was further pleaded that by payment of Rs. 1,00,000, the entire account was settled and another sum of Rs. 48,120 was paid in cash towards the full and final settlement of the account.
4. This court on March 11, 1999, had admitted the petition and it was further observed as under :
“The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the respondent-company has no justifiable or bona fide dispute to the claim in question raised by the petitioner-company against it. In any case a sum of Rs. 7,68,100 after deducting the paid amount would be due with interest. No offer has been made on behalf of the respondent-company in court even to repay the said amount.”
On July 30, 1999, a cheque for Rs. 6,54,100 was handed over to the petitioner’s counsel in the court. Learned counsel for the respondent-company stated that the balance amount i.e., of interest, to be calculated at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum shall be given to the petitioner on the next date of hearing. On August 12, 1999, a cheque for Rs. 1,50,668 was further handed over to the petitioner’s counsel which was accepted by the petitioner’s counsel without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. On that date, the petitioner’s counsel stated that Rs. 10,830 had been spent on publication charges. Publication charges were also paid on September 16, 1999.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that interest is still due and should be paid.
6. The short question seeking consideration is as to whether in the facts of the present case an order for winding up of the respondent-company is to be passed or not.
7. As noted above, the company petition had been admitted by this court on March 11, 1999 holding that in any case an amount of Rs. 7,68,100 was due. Regarding the other disputes, no other opinion had been expressed. The said amount had been paid with some interest. In fact, the total amount paid is more than Rs. 8 lakhs after the order of admission of the company petition. Even publication charges have since been paid. Keeping in view these facts, it is obvious that it is not a fit case for further direction to wind up the respondent-company. It cannot be held that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debt or it would be just and equitable that the respondent-company should be wound up. These events show that the ingredients of section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, are not satisfied. The petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse under the common law for recovery of any other dues regarding which no opinion is expressed.
8. Accordingly, the company petition is dismissed.