M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under S, 433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, is made by the Southern Industrial Polymers (Private) Ltd, having its registered office at Madras. ( 2 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent-Amar Formulators and electronics (Pvt) Ltd. Bangalore incorporated and registered under the companies Act having ite registered office at Bangalore, had certain transactions with the petitioner-Company and in respect of those transactions the respondent Company is due and payable to the petitioner a sum of Bs. 2,69,308=38 ps. as on 31. 3. 1981. However, on the date of the petition the claim' has been raised to Rs. 2,96,736=62 ps. on 10. 9. 1981. The petitioner presented the petition on 15. 10. 1981. Notice was ordered to the respondent and respondent filed its objections through counsel. In the ' statement of objections it is stated that at a meeting held on 10. 11. 1981 after the presentation of the above petition in this court at the head office of the petitioner's company at Madras, it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 3,16,072-37ps. should be paid by the respondent to the petilioner company by instalments as mentioned in the joint memo of agreement entered into between the parties. Tn terms of the joint memo the petitioner had also agreed to withdraw the petition. In other words, the claim of the petitioner is admitted by the respondent company to the extent indicated in paragraph-7 of the objections statement. However, apparently the memorandum of agreement was not acted upon strictly in terms thereof. It was only on 12. 4. 82 that the respondent company paid Bs. 40,000 in this Court. Thereafter, on 2. 6. 1982 it has paid Rs. 15,390=64ps. and on 18. 6. 1982 a sum of Bs. 17,064-75ps. has been paid by cheque. With the last payment mentioned it is submitted that the entire, claim of the Company had been satisfied except the interest,claimed at 20% though interest has been worked out at 12% and paid. The learned Counsel for the petition ner does not dispute the submission on behalf of the respondent Company. But all outstanding claims except the amount arising out of the difference in the rate of interest calculated. is outstanding. The learned Counsel for the petition ner does not dispute the submission on behalf of the respondent Company. But all outstanding claims except the amount arising out of the difference in the rate of interest calculated. is outstanding. In my view the scope of inquiry under S. 433 cannot be extended to Enforcement of the memorandum of agreement entered into during the pendency of the proceedings. The payment made by the respondent- company is clearly indicative that the respondent-Company is commercially solvent. Therefore exercise of jurisdiction under S. 433 of the act, admitting the petition merely because the rate of interest agreed to between the parties in regard to the transactions is disputed would be unjust. For the reasons stated above, this petition is rejected without being admitted but liberty is reserved to the petitioner company to establish its claim for the difference of the agreed rate of interest in a Civil Court and recover the same if it succeeds. No costs. --- *** --- .