ORDER The Court: There are two applications-one for winding up of the company and the other for stay of the winding up application on the basis of an arbitration clause. 2. The statutory notice was served for principal sum of Rs. 43,328/.; also claiming interest thereon at the rate of 21 % per annum. The said principal sum was the balance of Rs. 50,000-00 which was deposited by the petitioning creditor for, covering transactions regarding taking and supply of oxygen cylinders. 3. In my opinion, there can be no doubt that the principal sum is indisputable due from the company to the petitioning creditor. The company has not expressed its willingness to pay even the principal sum to obtain further stay of the present winding-up application. 4. The company has not replied to the statutory notice either. The company offered to pay Rs. 43,328.-00 by instalments which the petitioning creditor did not accept. 5. There is an arbitration clause in the contract in question which, in my opinion, is sufficiently wide to cover all disputes under the contract including a dispute regarding the refund of security deposit. 6. I have held in my own judgment in S.I. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. Port Authority Co. Ltd., delivered on 16th September 1993 that a stay application under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable in relation to a winding up application. 7. Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioning creditor argued that the discretion to stay or not to stay a proceeding under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act has not been (as indeed it could not be) touched by my above judgment. Mr. Sinha has thus proceeded to argue that it will be unfair, unjust and a travesty of justice to send parties to arbitration on a mere nicety of a point of law where the claim is both liquidated and admitted. 8. In my opinion, Mr. Sinha is right. The discretion of a court to stay a proceeding must be used in the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case. A predetermined formula cannot be laid down in matters of use of judicial discretion. The conduct of the parties, the surrounding circumstances of the case, the motive apparently behind the stay application all these have to be looked into along with all other relevant factors. A predetermined formula cannot be laid down in matters of use of judicial discretion. The conduct of the parties, the surrounding circumstances of the case, the motive apparently behind the stay application all these have to be looked into along with all other relevant factors. In the present case, in my opinion, it would be unjust to force the petitioning creditor to go to an arbitrator, file claims before him, go on with the arbitral process which is known to have become notoriously long on many an occasion (though not all), then obtain an award and then a decree, and then use the decree by way of a winding-up application. 9. On a clear money claim like the present these steps are not necessary to be taken. 10. Therefore, although technically there is an arbitral dispute arising on a mere non-payment the Court's discretion should not be used in favour o€ a debtor who does not pay, merely because his offer for instalments has not been accepted by the petitioning creditor. 11. I make it clear that if the company were willing to take up a stand of payment with regard to the principal sum, I would have no hesitation in relegating the petitioning creditor to a suit for interest if any to be claimed by them on this amount. 12. The application for stay initiated by the company by Jugdes Summons dated 3rd May 1993, is dismissed. The winding up application will be admitted. There will be advertisements once in the Aajkal and once in the Statesman. Publication in the Calcutta Gazette is dispensed with. Publication will not be made within a period of five weeks from the date hereof. The returnable date will be nine weeks hence or the next working day thereafter. 13. Both the applications are thus disposed of. 14. All parties and others concerned to act on a signed xeroxed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.