JUDGMENT 1. - All these company petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved is common. 2. The dispute is with regard to the principal sum outstanding against Desert Inn Pvt. Ltd. which has not been paid to Swati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Sushil Kumar and Company. In respect of S.K. Jain, N.K. Goenka and Sumati Cement Pvt. Ltd., the claim of interest only is made. The said claim is based on a letter which has been written by Shri K.S. Duggar dated March 31, 1994. This letter is signed by Shri K.S. Duggar who is stated to be the managing director on March 31, 1994, of Desert Inn Ltd, In this letter it has been confirmed that the loan is payable at 21 per cent. interest per annum and the balances were confirmed. The respondents have disputed any such contract entered into for payment of interest. A notice was issued by the petitioner creditors and the liability of interest was completely denied. So far as the principal sum payable to Swati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and N.K. Goenka is concerned, it was admitted and it was said that the company is ready to make the payment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the reply filed and other documents stating that there is contradiction in the reply on behalf of the company and that they should not be allowed to be benefited for the money they had retained and should be subjected to payment of interest. It was the duty of the company to make the payment when the notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, was issued. By simply saying that the company is ready, it does not fulfil the requirement of the Companies Act, 1956. It was the duty of the company to remit the amount within 21 days and failure of the company results in winding up proceedings which is a mandatory provision. 4. The argument of learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. On behalf of the company Mr. Agrawal has stated that so far as the principal amount, payable to Swati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and N.K. Goenka is concerned, the payment would be made by November 13, 1996, by demand draft. The account payee demand draft would be delivered to Mr. Kuhad. 5. I have considered over the matter. On behalf of the company Mr. Agrawal has stated that so far as the principal amount, payable to Swati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and N.K. Goenka is concerned, the payment would be made by November 13, 1996, by demand draft. The account payee demand draft would be delivered to Mr. Kuhad. 5. I have considered over the matter. So far as the payment of the principal sum is concerned, the prayer of Mr. Agrawal is reasonable. The payment may be made by demand draft as stated by Mr. Agrawal by November 13, 1996. Regarding the claim for interest, I consider that the liability itself is disputed and there appears to be a bona fide dispute. I would not like to say more as it is open to the petitioner to file a civil suit even with regard to the liability of the interest, if any. In the proceedings for winding up if the amount is disputed one and has not been paid then the direction for winding up of the company cannot be given. In these circumstances, if the payment as agreed by Mr. Agrawal is made by November 13, 1996, it would not be considered that the company has neglected the payment so that the order for winding up be passed. The payment be made by November 13, 1996. If the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be free to move even this court for necessary orders. 6. All the above company petitions are disposed of with the above directions. *******