JUDGMENT R.L.Khurana, J. : The present petition has been filed by Messrs Mazboot Packers and Engineers Company, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner- company under Section 433, 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act) for the winding up of the respondent-Company Messrs Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produced, Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. 2. The averments made in the petitioner briefly stated, are these. The petitioner-company in response to the notice inviting tenders issued by the respondent-company entered into an agreement for the supply of 4, 60,000 Telescopic Cartons to the respondent-company. The delivery was to be made during the period 20th of June to 30th September, 1990 as per the schedule fixed in the agreement. The entire supply was to be completed before 20.9.1990. At the time of the agreement a sum of Rs. 1, 46,700/- was deposited by the petitioner company with the respondent-company as security. 3. There was a stipulation in the agreement that inspection of the Cartons, before supply, would be made by a team appointed by the Managing Director of the respondent-Company at the costs of the petitioner-company. The team so nominated by the respondent-company after inspection of the cartons at Yamuna nagar, approved the same and thereafter a delivery order was placed with the petitioner-company. The cartons were supplied by dispatching them through transport vehicles on 9.10.1990. The respondent-company refused to accept such supply on the ground of non-availability of storage space. Thereafter inspite of having been repeatedly approached in this regard, the respondent-company failed to take the delivery of the cartons nor any fresh schedule for the delivery was sent. Ultimately, the petitioner- company sent a notice as contemplated under Section 434 of the Act calling the respondent -company to refund the amount of security of Rs. 1,46,700/-. The respondent company, has failed to refund the amount of such security. The petitioner-company is entitled to recover the said amount of security alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum. According to the petitioner-company calculating the interest at the said rate up to 31.5.1997, a total sum of Rs. 3,93,160/- towards the principal amount of security and interest is due from the respondent company. 4. The petitioner-company is entitled to recover the said amount of security alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum. According to the petitioner-company calculating the interest at the said rate up to 31.5.1997, a total sum of Rs. 3,93,160/- towards the principal amount of security and interest is due from the respondent company. 4. The petitioner-company is seeking the winding up of the respondent-company has averred that the respondent-company is commercially insolvent and unable to discharge its debts and to pay the dues of the petitioner-company is wholly unsound. The accumulated losses up to 31.3.1989 as per the audited accounts of the respondent-company is Rs. 14,52,80,536.00 Such accumulated losses upto the end of financial year 1989-90 are to the tune of Rs. 15,63,54,000.00 It has further been averred that as against the fixed and current assets to the tune of Rs. 1,776.37 lacs, the respondent- company has a liability, in the form of borrowings and third parties liabilities, to the extent of Rs. 2,580 lacs. 5. The respondent-company resisted the petition for winding up. It was pleaded that since the petitioner-company failed to supply the cartons in terms of the conditions contained in the supply order, the amount of security deposited stands forfeited by the respondent-company, and as such, the petitioner-company was not entitled to the refund of the said security amount 6. It was also pleaded that the respondent -company has a sound financial position, since being a government company is being fully financed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to meet its all financial obligations and that it is in a position to discharge all its financial obligations in accordance with law. 7. It is well settled that a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of a debt which is bonafide disputed by the company. A petition filed ostensibly for winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed and under circumstances may be. stigmatized as a scandalous abuse of the process of the Court. (See : Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P)Ltd. v. A.C.K. Urishnaswami & Anr. (1995) 35 Company Cases 456). 8. A petition filed ostensibly for winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed and under circumstances may be. stigmatized as a scandalous abuse of the process of the Court. (See : Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P)Ltd. v. A.C.K. Urishnaswami & Anr. (1995) 35 Company Cases 456). 8. The High Court of Karnataka in T.Sirnivasa v. Flemming (India) Apotheke Private Ltd. (1990) 68 Company Cases 506), has held that it is not for the Court hearing a petition for winding up under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, to assess evidence and refuse a decree or to draw up a decree in favour of the petitioner and then to proceed to wind up the company. In the summary procedure which the company Court most follow, if the court is satisfied, prima facie, that the defence raised in the circumstances of the case of bonafide and is likely to succeed a Civil Court, that would constitute sufficient reasons for the court to reject the petition, relegating the parties to the Civil Court. 9. The dispute between the parties in the present case revolves around a disputed question as to whether the amount of security deposited by the petitioner-company with the respondent-company could be and has been validly forfeited by the respondent-company. Such a dispute cannot be possibly decided in the present summary proceedings. The same can be appropriately decided in a properly framed suit. The defence raised by the respondent-company on the face of it appears to be bonafide and such defence is likely to succeed, Therefore, it is not a fit case for the exercise of powers of winding up in under Section 433 of the Act. 10. There is yet another aspect of the case. Admittedly, the amount of security is shown to have "been deposited By The petitioner-company in October 1990. As per the averment made in para -16 of the petition, notice calling for the refund of the amount of security was issued on 29.9.1991. The present petition has been made on 3.11.1997, that is, after the expiry of a period of more than six years from the date of refusal by the respondent-company to refund the amount of security. The claim of die petitioner-company, therefore, on the facet fit had become barred by tinier as en the date of the presentation of the present petition. The claim of die petitioner-company, therefore, on the facet fit had become barred by tinier as en the date of the presentation of the present petition. Therefore, there-was no legally recoverable debt within the meaning of Section 433 of the Act. Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of three years for tie recovery of movable property deposited or pawned for a depository or Pawnee. There is no denying that the term movable property used in Article 70 includes money. Even on this score, the defence raised on behalf of the respondent-company is bonafide and the petitioner -company cannot take resort to the prevision of Section 433 of the Act Resultantly, the present petition. is dismissed. Petition dismissed.