JUDGMENT P. K. Palli, J.(Oral) :- Both these petitions are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment as the parties in both these petitions are the same. The petitions filed in both the cases are under the same provisions of law. Relief claimed is also identical 2. In both tie petitions, it is stated that the respondent Company was established for manufacture of electronic equipments including inter alia required in telecommunications and other connected items as set forth in the Memorandum of Association of the Company. 3. The petitioner stated that it is engaged in the services of providing designing, release of advertisement and other connected activities. The petitioner in each case had been engaged by the respondent for professional services in respect of the preparation of designs regarding Eider Mobile Wireless Radio Phones and Hoardings. 4. In Comp any petition No. 12 the services of the petition were hired for the purposes given in the letter dated 18th August 1995 Annexure P-l. 5. As requested by the respondent and agreed by the petitioner designs were prepared and submitted vide receipt Annexure P2. In para 8 are given the details of the bills supplied by the petitioner. These bills are said to have been duly received by the respondent and acknowledgement have been placed as a Annexures P-3 to. P-9. 6. Two more bills were further submitted and duly received by the respondent vide copies Annexure P-10 and P-11 respectively. It is further stated in the petition that despite several requests, the respondent did net clear the bills. Las; reminder is said to have been given on 11th June, 1996 and is Annexure –11. The petitioner has thus chimed an amount of Rs.55.200/-. To this amount is added Rs. 26,600/- as interest and another sum of Rs. 15.000/-as costs. A total debt is said to be Rs. 94,800/- 7. In reply, it is said by way of preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable as no debt is due to be paid by the respondent. The petitioner through Mr. Arun Aggarwal has provided professional services including media services to the respondent through its two Organizations, which are being run and managed by him with the same office address i.e. Hans Communication, Hans Publicity (P) Ltd.. All bills and other dues on behalf of these Units were assigned through Mr. The petitioner through Mr. Arun Aggarwal has provided professional services including media services to the respondent through its two Organizations, which are being run and managed by him with the same office address i.e. Hans Communication, Hans Publicity (P) Ltd.. All bills and other dues on behalf of these Units were assigned through Mr. Arun Aggarwal who was also operating another firm M/s Hans Advertisers from a different address. The two petitions have come to be filed by him. The conduct of both these Organizations is said to be not satisfactory and not upto the normal standard. It is also stated that approvals were not obtained nor the rates charged in the bills were ever approved lest agreed by the respondent. The bills are said to be exaggerated. The petitioner is said to have pressurised through the Newspaper lobby and finally a sum of Rs. 80,000/- is said to be released on behalf of all Eider Group Companies in full and final settlement of all claims. Receipt Ex. R1 in this respect has been placed en record as the amount has been encashed by the petitioner qua debt said to be due. 8. The second objection is that the bills do not pertain to the answering respondent and thus no debt is due under these bills. 9. Paras No. l to 5 of the petition have been admitted on merits. In para 6 it is said that the respondent had placed the order for designing and preparing hoardings at various places after approval of sites and payment against it was to be released after inspection and verification. It is added that work and conduct was not satisfactory. The respondent further states that paintings and hoardings were carried out without getting the approval in respect of design and colours. The bills relied upon by the petitioner are said to be false. In the other paras, it has been .said by the respondent that full and final settlement has already taken place vide Annexure R-l. The company is a multi crore public limited company of India with Operations having a turn over of Rs. 34.80 crores during the year 1996-97. Balance sheet has been placed as Annexure R-2. Company is said to be fully solvent and as there is a genuine dispute between the parties, the same cannot be resolved through the present petition. 10. 34.80 crores during the year 1996-97. Balance sheet has been placed as Annexure R-2. Company is said to be fully solvent and as there is a genuine dispute between the parties, the same cannot be resolved through the present petition. 10. In rejoinder, the averments contained in the petition are reiterated while the averments contained in the reply are denied. The petitioner has further placed copies of the bills from Annexures P-15 to P-19. Approval in respect of design in annexed as Annexure P-20 and the prayer made is that the petition be allowed. 11. In Company Petition No.13, it is said that the petitioner is accordance with the instructions of the respodents company prepared and fixed the hoardings and the painting was carried out as per demand. The respondent at a later stage desired the colour to be changed and hoarding to be repainted with blue background. Letter in this respect is P-l. In accordance with the instructions contained in P-l, die necessary job was carried out by re-painting and installation of hoardings as per desire of the respondent and information in this respect was supplied vide Annexure P-2. Copy of the bill and its acknowledgement have been placed as Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. 12. Certain clarification were sought by the respondent vide Annexure P5 and its reply is Annexure P6 and annexure P-7. It is said that no further clarification was sought by the company and on the contrary further quotations for installations of more hoardings were made vide Annexure P-8. The petitioner is said to have continued with the request for payment of the bills vide Annexure P-9 which was duly acknowledged by the respondent. Annexure P-10 to Annexure JP-12 are the letters seeking clearance of the bills. 13. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 30,900/- as the principal sum, Rs. 14,832/- are added towards interest and Rs. 12,500/- towards notice. Thus making a total figure of Rs. 58,232/- and statutory notice was sent on S.7.1997 copy Annexure P-13 and acknowledgement receipt is Annexure P-14. 14. In the reply, preliminary objections raised in reply to Company petition No. 12 are the same. On merits, it is said that the order was placed for designing, painting, erections and installing hoardings as per approval of the respondent on the firm M/s Hans. 14. In the reply, preliminary objections raised in reply to Company petition No. 12 are the same. On merits, it is said that the order was placed for designing, painting, erections and installing hoardings as per approval of the respondent on the firm M/s Hans. Advertising Chandigarh and not to the petitioner M/s Hans Publicity (Pvt.) Ltd. It is said that the petitioner had not given satisfactory and clear reply on the questions of rates and charges as per Annexure P6 and the respondent company against requested for more information on installations of hoardings for purposes of inspection and requested for forma quotations for installation of hoardings in respect of size etc. 15. The required information according to the respondent was never supplied and there was no question to inspect or verify the truth of statement of the petitioner in respect of the installation of the hoardings. 16. It is also said that no order was placed by the respondent to the petitioner company i.e. M/s Hans Publicity Pvt. Ltd. No rates were approved and therefore no legitimate bills could be raised for that purpose. There is thus no debt which can be said to be due to the petitioner. Lastly, it is said that the Company being a multi crores Public Ltd. Company is in perfectly sound position financially. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Ramakant Shanna states that all the bills were duly received by the respondent. The work had been carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the respondent and the payment which is alleged to have been made under duress was not in respect of the work in question but it pertained to other bills and the petitioner was well within its rights to resort to the press media for realization of the amount and these bills pertained to ether works. In further support of his contention, reliance is being placed on para 2 of the rejoinder where all list of the sister concerns of the respondent is given and it is said that these companies are being managed and controlled by Smt. Ram Sinha, her husband Dr.A.K. Sinha and their son Sh. Sanjay Sinha. The- work of designing mentioned in paras No. 6 and 7 of the petition relates to the respondent Company and the work was carried out for it on the instructions conveyed through the Director Mr. Sanjay Sinh. 18. Sanjay Sinha. The- work of designing mentioned in paras No. 6 and 7 of the petition relates to the respondent Company and the work was carried out for it on the instructions conveyed through the Director Mr. Sanjay Sinh. 18. The petitioner has certainly no concern with the internal accounting adjustment of Eider Group of Company. The work related to the respondent Company was undertaken at the written request. My attention has also been drawn to the receipt placed on record from the side of the respondent Annexure R 1 and according to the learned counsel the case of the petitioner stands fully proved from the reading of the contents of the receipt itself. This payment was received towards full and final satisfaction in respect of bills Nos. 17, 41,49, 50 and 51 and other dues and outstanding payments of media bill. It is sought to be urged that these bills do not pertain to the media bills and therefore the receipt of Rs. 80,000/- has nothing to do with the dispute in question. My attention has also been brought to Annexure P-3 to P-12 in respect of number of bills presently in question. 19. Mr. Sharma further contends that respondent is not correct in saying that the work was not finally approved since Annexure P-20 fully establishes that the respondent Company gave a final nod to the approval on 22nd of August on the letter head of the respondent 20. With regard to company petition No. 13 it is said that the work was entirely different and it pertained to outdoor media hoardings. The Company is said to be incorporation in to the Companies Act whereas the Company in petition No.12 is sole proprietorship. 21. It is said that the hoardings were painted and installed and were repainted with colours that were sought to be changed and Annexure P-1 be looked into for that purpose. This was duly acknowledged by the respondent vide Annexure P-3 and P-4 are the bills, Annexure P4 is the clarification sought and Annexures P-6 and P-7 are the reply to the clarification and thereafter the petitioner has been asking for the payment of the bills vide Annexure P-9 to P-12. It is also being argued that while these bills were pending payment, the respondent asked for further quotations for the execution of certain other work which is Annexure P-8. It is also being argued that while these bills were pending payment, the respondent asked for further quotations for the execution of certain other work which is Annexure P-8. P-13 and 14 is the statutory notice and the acknowledgment. In reply it is being said that Rs. 80,000/- were paid towards the final settlement of the claim. The Company being solvent could not be wound up and the debt is being denied arid disputed. The prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed. 22. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the records, I find that firstly the respondent never raised any objection with respect to colouring, designing and installation and whenever any change was desired it was consequently carried out by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the respondent. 23. It is too late in the day to contend that the rates were not approved and the work done was never approved. On the face of Annexure P20, it cannot be said that the work was not approved by the respondent: The argument that the Company is different also does not carry any weight. The petitioner has given the. list of sister concerns of the respondent, it being their internal management, the petitioner has not to suffer on that account. 24. Annexure R-1 cannot be accepted as full and final payment towards the satisfaction of the entire claim raised by the petitioner in the two petitions under discussion. A reading of the receipt by itself makes out that it does not relate to the works in question carried out by the petitioner in the two petitions. 25. I am also rot in agreement with learned counsel for the respondent that there is a genuine dispute raised by the respondent and the petitioner cannot be allowed. At no stage the respondent ever gave a reply to the petitioner that the bills submitted are exaggerated or the payment could not be made as full and final satisfaction as had already been arrived at. It may be noticed that in the bills submitted by the petitioner, there is a clause that if the bills are not paid within 15 days it would bear interest at the rate of 24% p.a. It is further incorporated that objection to the bill be raised within 15 days. It may be noticed that in the bills submitted by the petitioner, there is a clause that if the bills are not paid within 15 days it would bear interest at the rate of 24% p.a. It is further incorporated that objection to the bill be raised within 15 days. Annexure P.3 at page 9 in Compaq Petition No. 13 can be looked into with advantages in this respect. 26. From the reading of the record, I find that there is an ascertained amount of debt due from the respondent company to the petitioning creditor. The petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case and the debt is not time barred. So far as the sound financial position of the Company is concerned, it is not known that the company may be having liabilities more than its assets and may not be in the capacity to meet the demands from its creditors. 27. There can be no dispute with the proposition that a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of a debt which is bona fide disputed by the Company. A petition ostensibly presented for winding up, if it aims to exercise pressure will certainly have to be dismissed. The provisions under the Act cannot be permitted to be used as scandlous abuse of the process of the Court. 28. From the reading of the record it can safely be held that the respondent Company never disputed the debt in order to hide its liability to pay the debts. 29. In view of what has been said above, it follows that the respondent Company is not in a position to pay its debts and both the petitions deserve to be admitted. In the interest of justice, however, it is deemed proper to direct the respondent to settle the claim with the petitioner. The principal amount is directed to be paid alongwith upto date interest and costs on or before 10th of November, 1998, failing which the both the petitioner are ordered to be advertised in the daily Tribunal as well as in Government Gazette of Himachal Pradesh. The case be put up thereafter for further proceedings.