Mr. J. K. Mehra, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the parties. This is a petition forwinding up of the respondent company which is based on alleged contract forsupply of 5 lift flush doors to the respondent company for a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00. The case of the petitioner is that the price was agreed to by therespondent on their quotation, a copy whereof is Annexure X-I to therejoinder. It is also contended that a cheque for Rs. 5000. 00 was also givenby the respondent on 17. 7. 89. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation for the reasons "payment stopped". That means at the very outset thecheque given towards advance payment was dishonoured. No action appearsto have been initiated by the petitioner against the company for such dishonour of the cheque. On the contrary it is contended that the raw materialfor making the said five doors and frames was purchased and the said doorswere made and delivered. However, there is no delivery challan or any otherdocumentary evidence of the delivery of the said wooden frames and the flushdoors to enable the Court to ascertain as to who took the delivery of the saidgoods. ( 2 ) THE petitioner on their failure to obtain payment served therespondent with a notice dated 17/10/1989. The said notice appearsto be not in tune with the allegations in the petition. While in para 6 of thepetition it is alleged that the petitioner had supplied the goods in July 1989 tothe respondent company on payment of Rs. 30,000. 00 being the price of thefive flush doors, whereas the notice which was issued in October long after thedate of delivery states "it may be added even the order placed by you havefailed to lift the goods as per agreement inspite of repeated requests made byclient. The goods worth more than Rs. 30,000. 00 are still lying idle at yourrisks and costs. " ( 3 ) FROM the reading of the two documents it appears that the allegations ill para 6 of the petition are in correct. The goods worth more than Rs. 30,000. 00 are still lying idle at yourrisks and costs. " ( 3 ) FROM the reading of the two documents it appears that the allegations ill para 6 of the petition are in correct. Furthermore, on the questionof supply of the said doors the contractor who had supplied the lifts i. e. M/s. Beacon Kone had vide their letter dated 10/10/1990 clearly stated that"we write to confirm that all the five wooden frames and flush doors installedin the above mentioned lift were supplied by us against your order placed onus as per our quotations dated 30. 10. 97". This was the letter written bybeacon Kone to Shri R. C. Sharma of respondent company. The same suppliers of the lifts were approached by the petitioner on 16/04/1991 withthe plea that both the petitioner as well as M/s. Beacon Kone Ltd. may proceedagainst the respondent company to recover their dues. This letter appears tosuggest supply of doors and that even the supplier of the lifts had not beenpaid by the respondent company. The petitioner has also filed a letter dated11. 2. 91 written by the said supplier of the lift to the respondent companywherein they seem to have taken a contrary stand to what was stated in theirletter dated 10/10/1990 referred to hereinabove. In this they havereferred to some arrangement or agreement which had been reached pursuantto the respondent s letter dated 4. 2. 91. Although the said letter is not filed,i had made Mr. Tandon to read from his own file the said letter which nowhere admits the existence of any concluded contract for the supply of the saiddoors. The respondent was directed to file a copy of this letter on record ofthis file. It may be noted that both the said letters dated 4. 2. 91 as well as thereply of M/s. Beacon Kone Ltd dated 11. 2. 91 are contradictory to each other. The petitioner has also expressed his readiness and willingness to take awaythe doors and frames supplied by him. It may be noted that both the said letters dated 4. 2. 91 as well as thereply of M/s. Beacon Kone Ltd dated 11. 2. 91 are contradictory to each other. The petitioner has also expressed his readiness and willingness to take awaythe doors and frames supplied by him. ( 4 ) THE case of the respondent is that there was no concluded contractbetween the respondent and the petitioner and in fact immediately after thereceipt of the quotation and giving of the cheque to the petitioner the Respondent informed the petitioner that they were not willing to go along with thiscontract and therefore they had stopped the payment on the very next day. They also have stated and replied to him and questioned as to how the doorsand door frames found entry to place where the lifts were being installed. Mr. Tandon states that delivery might have been taken by the company supplyingthe lifts, but the respondent never took the delivery. However, I do notfeel the need to comment upon this aspect but a perusal of these documentsfiled and the inconsistent pleas pointed out in the notice and allegations in thepetition would clearly establish that the claim of the petitioner is a disputedone. In terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court inthe case of M. Gordhan Dass v. M. W. Industries Ltd. reported as AIR 1971sc 2600, I think it is not a fit case to be entertained for the winding up of thecompany and the dispute between the parties should be resolved by the forumof Civil Court because I do not find that the defence or dispute that the claimof the petitioner is sham and lacking in bonafides. The result is that thepetition fails and is dismissed in the above circumstances. This, however, iswithout prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court forproper adjudication of his claim. The parties are left to bear their own costsin this petition.