JUDGMENT R.S. Dhavan, J. - This a misconceived petition under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. The petitioner is a scheduled bank : the Bank of Rajasthan. It seeks the winding-up of its client and customer-company, Messrs Jai Mata Plywood Co. (P) Limited, having its registered office at Ghaziabad, in Uttar Pradesh. The reason, a cash credit account of the company with the bank, aforesaid, has been overshot. Thus, the bank desires the winding-up of the company. 3. The bank has appended the exercise of documentation by which the cash credit account was open by the company. The documentation which a bank and a client normally exchange between themselves is a bilateral agreement on the basis of which a cash credit account rests. The account was opened initially in 1985 seeking a cash credit limit of Rs. 14 lacs. The company operated the account with the bank. This is evidenced by correspondence and a cash credit statement, a copy of which is Annexure 14. The cash credit limit was backed by a hypothecation facility, a preliminary security by hypothecation of stocks, an equitable mortgage of immoveable properties, a second charge of collateral security being a tripartite agreement with the permission of the U P Financial Corporation and a personal guarantee of the directors. 4. These facts on record of the notice dated 27.3.90, Annexure 14, which the bank gave to the company. In this notice, the bank threatened the company that it will file a suit against the latter for recovery of the moneys or file a winding-up proceeding. A copy of the notice was sent to the U P Financial Corporation who held the first charge on the assets of the company. The charge by mortgage was registered with the Registrar of Companies, reference Annexure 12. 5. The company replied to the bank's notice. Its reply is dated 10.5.89. This is Annexure 16. The totality of the company's reply places on record that it acknowledges that there is a loan which is alive and open. The company continues to pay interest and maintains its relation with the bank. 5. The company replied to the bank's notice. Its reply is dated 10.5.89. This is Annexure 16. The totality of the company's reply places on record that it acknowledges that there is a loan which is alive and open. The company continues to pay interest and maintains its relation with the bank. In its reply, the company indicated to the bank that the latter had made wrong calculations on the company's financial viability, and further, the bank was responsible for being slack in collecting the outstation payments of the company as the bank had no branches at the place where the outstation cheques were to be collected ; that the bank had wrongly not cleared the cheque of the company payable to the U P State Electricity Board in November, 1987 when the cash credit limit had exceeded only by Rs. 2500.00 that the bank had not considered the request for sanctioning the cash credit limit to a ceiling upto Rs. 40 lass inclusive of a sub-limit ; that the bank had certified the company's financial status and credit. worthiness when the latter was making tenders with the U P Avas and Vikas Parishad, Lucknow; that the company was paying its loan instalments and interest with the U P Financial Corporation ; that the bank had not responded to certain correspondence of the company ; that the company was regularly paying the bank interest and insuring its goods and it also deposited a claim received from a fire insurance policy for over Rs. 4 Lacs to reduce the loan ; that the company was sending its audited balance sheet for 1989-90 ; and that company sought an increase of it cash credit limit. Thus, the company submitted in its reply that it acknowledges the loan, but has difficulty in discharging it due to the factors enumerated above. Also on record is the correspondence of the company with the bank drawing its attention on how the loan would become less should it get certain rebate for the inferior raw material, which it received for manufacture.The company also lodged a protest with the bank that the letters which it had written to other banks not to give indulgence to the company had injured the company's reputation and goodwill. This is mentioned in the company's letter of 2.7.87, Annexure-10. 6. This is mentioned in the company's letter of 2.7.87, Annexure-10. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner bank insists that a notice has to be issued on this petition at the admission stage and in reference to this, places reliance on a case of the Bombay High Court in re Bharat Overseas Bank Limited v. Shree Arcee Steel Private Limited, (1985) 3 Comp LJ 153 (Bom) : (1985) 58 Comp Cas 174 (Bom). 7. In the case before the Bombay High Court the learned Company Judge had dismissed the winding-up petition on the ground that a secured creditor was not entitled to maintain a company petition. On this, the Hon'ble Bench before which an appeal had been filed observed : "We have only the bald order recorded in the minutes and we have been told, and we are giving this judgment on that footing, that dismissal by the learned Company Judge was on the company's submission that the petitioners being secured creditors were not entitled to maintain a petition for winding-up". 8. Such is not the view of this Court and the case aforesaid is distinguishable. 9. Any creditor, secured or unsecured may maintain a petition for winding-up. But there must be an identifiable and admitted debt. In the present case, in paragraph 14 of the company petition, it is mentioned that the dues of the company inclusive of interest on 23.5.89 were Rs. 13,85,794.96. The bank itself places on record in paragraph 19 that on 21.11.89 a sum of Rs. 4,08,122.00 was credited to the account against which the loan stood. The notices which were exchanged between the bank and the company, there is nothing available on record that the security against which the loan was taken is inadequate. On the other hand, the company reminds the bank that it accepts that the loan is pending and desires an increase on the cash credit limit. The bank must either make a statement that the security is inadequate or it does not intend to enforce it. The company petition is devoid of further and better particular Rs. The bank itself has not placed the details that the state of its loan is such that the company has exceeded the security or mortgage which it has furnished and that the company does not respond by covering it by further and additional security in case the cash credit limit has been exceeded. 10. The bank itself has not placed the details that the state of its loan is such that the company has exceeded the security or mortgage which it has furnished and that the company does not respond by covering it by further and additional security in case the cash credit limit has been exceeded. 10. A secured creditor is not barred from filing c winding-up petition. A secured creditor is outside winding-up proceedings if he intends to enforce the security, he only needs leave of the Court to do so. This, clearly is the position as the Supreme Court has held in the matter of M.K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras, AIR 1955 SC 604 . Enforcing the security without the leave of the Court will render the execution sale void. Further, the Supreme Court observed : "Section 229 recognises the position of the secured creditor generally as outside the winding-up, but enables him in the event of his desiring to take the benefit of the winding- up proceedings to prove his debt, to value the same and share in the distribution, pro rata of the assets of the company just in the same way as he would be able to do in the case of insolvency under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act or the Provincial Insolvency Act." 11. The reference is to the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The general principles are not different under the Companies Act, 1956. The bank is a secured creditor, but there is no statement in the company petition that the execution or attachment in its favour has been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part within the meaning of section 434(1)(b) of the Act. 12. This modality for the secured creditor to declare his intentions are prescribed by law. Whereas section 434(1)(b) permits him to maintain a winding-up petition without losing his status as a secured creditor, he must act on a distress, attachment or a decree. He may also come not as a secured creditor, but prove his debt, and yet he may change his mind and enforce his security, in which case he will have to pay for the expenses for the preservation of his security. This aspect is borne by the second proviso and the Explanation following it, in section 529. 13. He may also come not as a secured creditor, but prove his debt, and yet he may change his mind and enforce his security, in which case he will have to pay for the expenses for the preservation of his security. This aspect is borne by the second proviso and the Explanation following it, in section 529. 13. The bank as a secured creditor, should it desire to maintain a winding-up petition, has to elect whether it abdicates its right to enforce the security or will it enforce the security to the extent that it covers the loan and what remains unprotected by a mortgage, it will maintain a winding-up petition, on the debt. Either of the courses are open to the bank, but, nothing has been declared to the Court in the company petition and in the absence of this specific election of the bank, the present company petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. 14. If every time a cash credit account is exceeded by a company, then every bank or public finance institution which has given credit will come running to file a winding-up petition. This would be a bad precedent and would create a panic in the world of business and create insecurity in trade and industry. 15. There is no restraint on the secured creditor in filing a winding-up petition. But in such circumstance, a secured creditor will have to make a statement whether he forgoes his right to enforce the security and joins as an ordinary creditor. As stated earlier, he may enforce his security or mortgage and maintain, or join in, winding-up proceedings to the 'extent that the debt may not be covered by a security. In either of the two cases, he will rank pari passu with other creditors when maintaining a winding-up proceeding but not as a secured creditor, as the security has been abandoned from seeking a distress or attachment according to law. But a secured creditor may put a distress on the company's assets by enforcing his security and filing the distress or attachment before the Company Court and take his ranking as a secured creditor. In the present case, the Bank of Rajasthan Limited has not made its intention clear on what exactly it desires. 16. But a secured creditor may put a distress on the company's assets by enforcing his security and filing the distress or attachment before the Company Court and take his ranking as a secured creditor. In the present case, the Bank of Rajasthan Limited has not made its intention clear on what exactly it desires. 16. Thus, these are the parameters within which a secured creditor may come to this Court if he desires to maintain a winding-up proceeding. This company petition is, thus, dismissed. 17. Petition dismissed.