( 1 ) THIS is a petition, presented by M/s. Globe detective Agency Private Limited a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') under Section 433 (e) and (f) praying this hon'ble Court to wind up Respondent-1 Sri subbiah Machine Tools Private Limited, also a company incorporated under the Act. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are its Directors. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is that by letter dated 17. 9. 1981 Petitioner- Company came to be appointed for making arrangements for security Guards at the Factory premises of the 1st respondent-Company. The security arrangements came into effect from 23. 1. 1981 and the security arrangements made would cost monthly payment of Rs. 2,950/- to the respondent-Company. The Security unit provided by the petitioner's Company consisted of 5 Security Guards, one Reliever and one Head guard, total being 7 persons in all. After this arrangement, there appears to have been some differences between the petitioner-Company and respondent-Company and respondent- company despite the security arrangements entered into has suffered thefts in the Factory premises of the respondent Company allegedly due to the negligence of the Guards. In that behalf, there has been some correspondence between the petitioner-Company and the respondent-Company to which I will advert to later in the course of this order. ( 2 ) THE services of the petitioner's Company for security arrangements came to be terminated with effect from 10. 7. 11982 as per the letter of the respondent-Company dated 5. 7. 1982. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company presented a bill for Rs. 4,450. 60 towards arrears of security charges agreed to be paid at the rate earlier mentioned together with the balances of earlier bills and other claims as set out in their bill. The Respondents by their letters, true copies of which are annexed to the petition, respondent-Company denied its liability. Thereafter, a statutory notice was issued by the petitioner-Company as per Annexure-F to the petition through its Counsel. In that notice, a sum of Rs. 4,450. 60 together with the notice charges were demanded to be paid. Respondent Company has got as reply issued to the statutory notice through its Counsel and that reply bears the date 4th October 1982. In the reply it is contended that the Guards employed by the Petitioner-Company were from the very begining negligent of their duties and on 21. 10. 60 together with the notice charges were demanded to be paid. Respondent Company has got as reply issued to the statutory notice through its Counsel and that reply bears the date 4th October 1982. In the reply it is contended that the Guards employed by the Petitioner-Company were from the very begining negligent of their duties and on 21. 10. 1981 a visit made by a Superior Official of the petitioner-Company evidenced that negligence and he had administered a warning to the guards to be more vigilent. It is further stated in the reply that the security guards employed by the petitioner-Company took away the key bunch of the Factory premises resulting in loss of machine hours in one shift on 24. 2. 1982. The respondent-Company was compelled to break open the locks at the factory premises and replace fresh locks on the same. This was also brought to the notice of the petitioner-Company. The respondent-Company has claimed Rs. 1,500/- as the loss in machine hours and other losses connected therewith. Again on 4. 7. 1982 its electric heater fabricated by the Respondent-Company was stolen and a Time piece also had been stolen. In regard to this, the petitioner-Company accepted liability and when payment was made the respondent-Company made payments deducting those claims. Thereafter, on account of the abrupt ending of the agreement of Security arrangements (whoever might have caused the termination of the agreement) respondent-Company has claimed that it had to provide itself with an alternative security arrangement as an emergency measure which cost the respondent-Company a sum of rs. 5,450/-, almost double the amount agreed to be paid on a monthly basis to the petitioner Company. In that behalf, reply notice shows that the counter claim made by the respondent Company would render the petitioner-Company liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,500/- as evidenced by the statements contained in para-9 of the reply notice at Annexure-G. In that circumstances, it denied any further liability on the part of the respondent-Company. That reply notice of the respondent-Company has been issued with the rejoinder dated 7. 12. 1982 by the Counsel for the petitioner which also forms part of Annexure-G. ( 3 ) IN other words, certain allegations and counter allegations are made as well as claims and counter claims involving disputed questions of facts. That reply notice of the respondent-Company has been issued with the rejoinder dated 7. 12. 1982 by the Counsel for the petitioner which also forms part of Annexure-G. ( 3 ) IN other words, certain allegations and counter allegations are made as well as claims and counter claims involving disputed questions of facts. The substance of the defence is that the respondent-Company is under no obligation to pay the amounts claimed by the petitioner-Company on account of the loss suffered by it due to the negligence of the Guards furnished by the petitioner-Company. The debt is not admitted. In that position this Court exercising its special jurisdiction under the Act will not normally entertain the petition leaving the parties to settle the disputes in an appropriate civil Court having jurisdiction. This Court under Section 433 of the Act acquires jurisdiction only when a debt is admitted though the quantum of the debt may be in dispute. If the defence put forward by the respondent Company in respect of which the winding up order is sought, this Court has to examine whether that defence is taken bona fide and it is legally tenable. Having already adverted to the facts in this behalf I need not repeat them. I am convinced, the respondent-Company has an arguable case in regard to its defence. Whether ultimately, on facts proved or not proved, it succeeds is not a matter which this Court should decide. ( 4 ) EXTRACT of the balance sheet is produced, I am unable to see that the respondent-Company is in such a bad position that this Court can infer that it is incapable of paying its dues in the sum of Rs. 4,450/ -. That also pursuades me to incline in favour of not entertaining this petition. That further supports my conclusion that the defence raised by the respondent-Company is not only tenable but bona fide. In that circumstances, the Company Court will not interfere and decide the dispute in the summary proceedings under Section 433 (e ). ( 5 ) MR. Khanna appearing for the petitioner company drew my attention to the case of M/s. MADHUSADAN GORDHANDAS AND company vs. MADHU WOOLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE limited (A. I. R. 1971 SC page 2,600 ). In that circumstances, the Company Court will not interfere and decide the dispute in the summary proceedings under Section 433 (e ). ( 5 ) MR. Khanna appearing for the petitioner company drew my attention to the case of M/s. MADHUSADAN GORDHANDAS AND company vs. MADHU WOOLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE limited (A. I. R. 1971 SC page 2,600 ). Nothing in that decision supports the arguments advanced for the petitioner company, that on the documents furnished with the petitioner this Court should decide that a debt exists. On the other hand, the ratio decidendi of that case is that where the debt is disputed the Company court should not proceed further unless it comes to the conclusion that the dispute in regard to the debt is not based on either tenable defence or not a bona fide denial of the debt. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, this is a fit case in which the petitioner-Company should enforce its claim against the respondent-Company in an appropriate proceeding in a Cvil court and recover its debts as may be decreed in its favour. ( 7 ) THE Company petition is, therefore, rejected. --- *** --- .