Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a company petition filed by petitioner under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, seeking winding up of the respondent-company essentially on the ground covered under Section 433 (e) of Companies Act. ( 2. ) THE respondent is a company having its manufacturing Unit at Dewas. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of suiting and shirtings. In the course of its manufacturing activities, the respondent-company claimed to have purchased certain yarn from the petitioner who is engaged in the business of manufacture of yarn needed for the manufacture of suiting/shirting, pursuant to contracts entered into between the parties on 18-4-1984 to 26-3-1985, valuing Rs. 6,11,715. 65 paise. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent was to make the payment against Hundies which they failed to retire. It is this action of the respondents which gave rise to serve a demand notice for paying a sum of Rs. 6,11,715. 65 paise by the petitioner to respondent. It is complained that respondent failed to make the payment and hence, this company petition for winding up of the respondent-company on the ground of inability to pay the debt within the meaning of Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act read with Section 434 ibid. ( 3. ) THE respondent has denied their liability to pay the money demanded by the petitioner by seeking winding up of the company. According to them, it is not a case where they are unable to pay the money or that they ever neglected to pay the money/price of the goods alleged to be supplied to them by the petitioner. It is alleged inter alia that transaction in question took place somewhere in 1985 April. It is pointed out that company was made to believe that the supplies of the synthetic yarns was according to contracted quality, standard, length, breadth, warp and weft. It was on this basis, the respondent made a part payment of Rs. 17 lakhs. It is alleged that later on, it was discovered that the goods (yarn) which were supplied by the petitioner did not confirm to the standard, they were of inferior quality, resulting in losses to respondent. It was on this basis, the respondent made a part payment of Rs. 17 lakhs. It is alleged that later on, it was discovered that the goods (yarn) which were supplied by the petitioner did not confirm to the standard, they were of inferior quality, resulting in losses to respondent. The respondent has then relied upon the letter correspondence which was exchanged between the parties on this issue and alleged that on account of the losses which the respondent has suffered, to the tune of Rs. 8 lakhs, a case for counter claim is well founded. It is further alleged that parties have lodged criminal cases, complaints against each other for misrepresentation, fraud etc. The respondent has thus, in substance denied the liability and has also denied that they have become insolvent or that they are unable to pay the alleged debt which according to them do not even fall within the meaning of the word "debt". It is further alleged that they having raised a bona fide dispute in relation to one isolated commercial transaction, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing suit rather than to seek winding up of a running company. ( 4. ) HEARD Shri S. R. Kochatta, learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case. I find no merit in the petition and hence, it deserves to be dismissed. ( 6. ) A petition for winding up is not a remedy which can be resorted to as of right. In other words, it is always regarded as a discretionary remedy. The Company Court is not bound to entertain the petition for winding up once filed, nor it is bound to allow winding up even if a case on that effect to facts is made out, it being a settled principle of law relating to winding up that winding up is in the nature of death of a Company and puts an end to all its activity for all time to come in future, the Court is under legal obligation to see that no funning company be pushed into a winding up for one or two defaults. In other words, the efforts must be to save the company from being wound up, if the case to that effect is made out on facts. In other words, the efforts must be to save the company from being wound up, if the case to that effect is made out on facts. It is for this purpose and keeping in view this objective, the Legislature has enacted Sub-section (2) of Section 443 which empowers the Company Court to exercise powers while hearing a petition for winding up. Sub-section (2) does empower the Company Court to refuse to make an order of winding up, if it is of an opinion that some other remedy is available to the petitioners and that they are acting unreasonably in seeking to have the company wound up instead of pursuing that other remedy. ( 7. ) IN normal circumstances, the remedy of petitioner for recovery of Rs. 6,11,715. 65 paise lies in filing civil suit under the general law on establishing his claim. It is essentially an isolated commercial transaction for supply of certain goods to the respondent-company in its day-to-day working and running of company where in some dispute has arisen. When the company has bona fide defence to raise as to why they declined to pay part of the money to petitioner and the same having been disclosed in the return, this Court would not entertain the petition for winding up of a running company. Indeed, this is a fit case where this Court relying upon Section 443 (2) ibid decline to entertain the petition and leave the petitioner to recover his dues by resorting to any other remedy as he may have in law, rather than to pursue a winding up of a running company. This Court cannot convert the proceedings of winding up in the proceedings alike the civil suit to decide, whether respondent-company is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,11,715. 65 and/or if so on what basis. Such issues arc not required to be gone into in winding up proceedings but are necessarily required to be gone into in civil suits. Merely because the respondent happens to be a company within the meaning of Companies Act by itself does not give any right to any person dealing with the company to apply for its winding up on the ground of non-payment of their certain dues. The object and scope of winding up of a company under the Companies Act is entirely different. The object and scope of winding up of a company under the Companies Act is entirely different. It cannot be seen and confined to the claim of petitioner only but has to be seen, judged and tested in its entirety such as nature of claim laid by the petitioner, the defence taken by the company in relation to claim, in question, the financial position of a company, its viability, commercial sustainability in the market, whether the debt is admitted by the respondent-company or not etc. It is always regarded as a petition not at the instance of one creditor but is regarded as petition in its representative capacity once admitted. It is essentially for these reasons, a rule of caution is provided by judicial pronouncement not to entertain the petitioners for winding up unless a very strong prima facie case is made out on facts else, it affects the very existence of company in commercial market. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that a case for winding up on the facts pleaded is made out. I do not agree to what is urged. I have gone through the facts carefully, relied on by the learned counsel and find no merit in it. Once, I come to a conclusion that on the facts pleaded by the petitioner in the petition for seeking winding up of company, the respondent-company has come out with a bona fide and plausible defence, the issue must end here so far as entertaining of winding up petition is concerned. It will be too disastrous for any running company to suffer an order of winding up for non-payment of Rs. 6,11,715. 65 and that too when it has certain reasons not to pay and secondly the alleged debt is not a debt admitted by the respondent. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find this petition to have any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.