The petitioner firm has made this application for winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts and that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up. 2. Facts,-The petitioner firm carries on business, amongst others, supply of woolen blankets, cloths, umbrellas, apron etc (which I shall refer to as "goods"). Pursuant to orders given by the respondent company and/or its Managers at Jorhat office, the petitioner firm sold goods on credit to the company on the condition that the payment would be made within 30 to 60 days, and that in default of payment the firm would be entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the bill amount. The petitioner firm raised six (6) bills bearing Nos 33 to -:8 amounting to Rs 3, 10, 815/-for supply of goods on different dates. Out of Rs 3, 10, 815/-, the respondent company made a part payment of Rs 25.000/- only. The firm sent reminders requesting the respondent company for payment of the balance amount, i.e. Rs.2,85, 815/-with interest but the respondent company failed to make payment. The petitioner firm sent a notice by registered post on 24. 12. 87 to the respondent company for payment of the balance, but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner firm again issued two ^2) legal notices through its counsel on 20. 3. 89 and 18. 7. 89 demanding the payment. But the respondent company neglected to pay the amount. Hence this petition. 3. The respondent company has not filed counter-affidavit. However, in the course of the hearing of the petition, Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent company, produced a letter which indicates that a cheque dated 27. 7. 90 for Rs 96,885/-was sent by the respondent company to the petitioner firm in full satisfaction of the bill No 37. The learned counsel for the petitioner firm denies the receipt of such a cheque. That apart, the letter relates to one of the six (6) alleged bills and it has not supported by an affidavit. Therefore, I decline to consider it. 4. As already stated, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent company. In the absence of the counter-affidavit, it shall be presumed that the allegations made in the petition for winding up are admitted. Therefore, I decline to consider it. 4. As already stated, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent company. In the absence of the counter-affidavit, it shall be presumed that the allegations made in the petition for winding up are admitted. In the petition, it is stated that the respondent company had failed to pay, or was unable to pay, its debts. That apart, the petitioner has served on the respondent company demand notice requiring the respondent company to pay the sum so due and the respondent company has three (3) weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is concluded that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts. As regards the just and equitable, no material has been set out in the petition or affidavit, and as such, it is not considered In other words, a ground under section 433 (e) for winding up has been made out. 5. The next question which arises for consideration is whether winding up order should be made in the present case. Clause (1) of section 443 provides : "On hearing a winding up petition, the Court may- (a) dismiss it, with or without costs; or (b) adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally ; or (c) make any interim order that it thinks fit: (d) make an order for winding up the company with or without costs, or any other order that it thinks fit s". 6. Clause (I) of section 443 lays down the various orders which can be passed by the Court on hearing of a winding up petition. On reading of clause (1) of section 443 together with section 433, it indicates whether or not an winding up order is to be made is within the discretion of the Court. Therefore, the Court is not bound to make an order of winding up under section 443 although a ground for winding up under section 433 (a) to (e) is made out. Therefore, the Court is not bound to make an order of winding up under section 443 although a ground for winding up under section 433 (a) to (e) is made out. In the present case, I am of the opinion that it will be just and fair to give a chance to the respondent company, which has an authorised share capital of Rs 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores), for maintaining commercial morality, to settle with the petitioner firm, that is to say - to pay what the company owes to the petitioner firm, within three (3) months from today, if the respondent company is so inclined. I do so accordingly. The winding up petition would remain unclosed. The matter to appear in the cause list on 5. 9. 91 for further order.