JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. These company appeals, presented under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, are heard as common matters and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The factual position lies in a narrow compass. (a) Company Appeal No. 3 of 1990: The respondent Jayant Vitamins is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant carries on business in the name and style of Shree Catalyst at Ratlam. The appellant has to recover a sum of Rs. 33,26,657.71 from the respondent on account of balance price of goods supplied to the company. The company did not make the payment despite the demand and statutory notice, on August 9, 1988. The company was thus taken to be unable to pay its debt to the appellant. The appellant, therefore, filed the application before the learned company judge under Section 436 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, which was registered as Company Petition No. 6 of 1989, for winding up of the company. The respondent contested the question and stated that there was a bona fide dispute and as such the company was not liable to pay the amount. After hearing both the sides, the learned company judge declined to admit the petition for winding up and dismissed the same at motion stage after show-cause notice by common order dated September 14, 1990. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act. The respondent has filed I. A. No. 5012 of 1996 to place on record the 24th yearly report for the year 1995-96, to show that the company was solvent enough and as such there was no case to demonstrate the inability to pay the debts. The application is opposed by the appellant. (b) Company Appeal No. 7 of 1990 : The respondent Jayant Vitamins is a company registered under the Companies Act. It carries on the business of manufacture of all kinds of drugs, vitamins, etc. The appellant had been associated with the company as its accredited transporter since December, 1984. A sum of Rs. 11,63,234.87 is due against the company as on May 31, 1988. The company did not make the payment despite demand and statutory notice. It carries on the business of manufacture of all kinds of drugs, vitamins, etc. The appellant had been associated with the company as its accredited transporter since December, 1984. A sum of Rs. 11,63,234.87 is due against the company as on May 31, 1988. The company did not make the payment despite demand and statutory notice. The appellant, therefore, filed the company petition, registered as No. 7 of 1989, under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking an order of winding up of this company. A show-cause notice was issued. After hearing both the sides, the learned company judge declined admission and dismissed the company petition by common order dated September 14, 1990. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this company appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act. The respondent has filed I. A. No. 5013 of 1996 to place on record certain documents to show that the company is not unable to pay its debt. We have heard S. C. Bagadiya, learned senior counsel with Shri Pankaj Bagadiya, for the appellant in Company Appeal No. 3 of 1990 and S. S. Samvatsar, learned counsel for the appellant in Company Appeal No. 7 of 1990. We have also heard P. B. S. Nayer, learned counsel for the respondents in both these appeals. None appeared for the intervenors in Company Appeal No. 3 of 1990. First of all Shri Nayer, on the basis of a letter addressed to the chairman of the company, pointed out that the matter is likely to be withdrawn by the appellants on the ground of composition of the dispute. The counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that they have no such instructions from the appellants so far. We, therefore, proceed to hear the matter on the merits. 3. In both these company appeals, the respondent-company has filed the applications, as noted above, to show the financial position. Admittedly these documents were not before the learned company judge. 4. Now is the stage to notice the legal position. At the admission stage, it is not necessary for the appellants to let in all evidence in support of the claim Ram Bahadur Thakur and Co. v. Sabu Jain Ltd. [1979] Tax LR (NOC) 144 (Delhi); [1981] 51 Comp Cas 301. 4. Now is the stage to notice the legal position. At the admission stage, it is not necessary for the appellants to let in all evidence in support of the claim Ram Bahadur Thakur and Co. v. Sabu Jain Ltd. [1979] Tax LR (NOC) 144 (Delhi); [1981] 51 Comp Cas 301. In default of payment of price of goods, it would appear that there was no abuse of process of court and the petition was fit for admission T. S. Foundry Equipment Ltd. v. Gopi Ram God [1981] Tax LR 92 (NOC) (Cal). A prima facie case is enough for admission and it would be premature to examine the merits and demerits [1981] 6 Com NR 176 (Raj). Neglect to pay attracts the deeming provision of Section 434 of the Act and manifests inability Calcutta Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Mathuradas Sampat [1971] 41 Comp Cas 1063 ; AIR 1371 Cal 78. 5. Cautious cognizance of subsequent events is permissible in law. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1409 , 1410, it is held that : "For making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed." 6. In view of the aforesaid applications, the counsel for both the sides consented that the common order to the extent of Company Petitions Nos. 6 of 1989 and 7 of 1989 be ordered to be demolished and the matter be remitted back to the company court for fresh hearing on the question of admission of these company petitions in the light of the documents sought to be introduced in these company appeals. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it becomes unnecessary to examine the merits of the matter. On consent, we dispose of these company appeals in terms indicated below : (a) The order impugned governing the disposal of Company Petitions Nos. 6 of 1989 and 7 of 1989 is hereby dislodged to that extent with the order of remittal. (b) I. A. Nos. 5012 of 1996 and 5013 of 1996 are allowed. The documents are taken on record. The appellants shall have freedom to file documents in rebuttal. 6 of 1989 and 7 of 1989 is hereby dislodged to that extent with the order of remittal. (b) I. A. Nos. 5012 of 1996 and 5013 of 1996 are allowed. The documents are taken on record. The appellants shall have freedom to file documents in rebuttal. Both these applications along with documents shall be forwarded to the company court along with the record. (c) Company Petitions Nos. 6 of 1989 and 7 of 1989 are revived under their respective original numbers for fresh consideration of the question of admission. The learned company judge shall consider the aforesaid documents as also other documents, if filed in rebuttal, and shall hear both the sides on the question of admission and shall pass orders afresh in these two company petitions. 8. These appeals are, thus, disposed of in terms of the directions, as noted above. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the company court on January 10, 1997, to take further orders in the matter. The intervenors, who have not appeared in this court, may also appear before the company court in Company Petition No. 6 of 1989 on this date. 9. We make no orders as to costs. Records be returned along with the aforesaid applications and documents annexed thereto. 10. Retain this order in the record of Company Appeal No. 3 of 1990 and place its copy in the record of Company Appeal No. 7 of 1990 for ready reference.