Judgment ( 1. ) NONE appeared for petitioner as also for respondents. I have perused the record of the case. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for admission of company petition filed under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act. ( 2. ) IT is the case of the petitioner that they had given a loan in the form of deposit to the respondent company amounting to Rs. 2,50,000. It is complained that respondent failed to repay, and when actually repaid, by cheques to the petitioner, the cheques got bounced. It is on this basis, the petitioner says that respondent company is deemed unable to pay the debts within the meaning of Section 433 (e), ibid. , and as a consequence liable to be wound up. ( 3. ) IT is not in dispute as is clear from the previous order sheet of the court that most of the amount the respondent has repaid on different dates. The respondents representatives appeared in this court and gave undertaking. If at all, what remains or must have remained for its repayment is only a small portion of the total dues alleged to be due. It is also clear when one reads the return filed by the company. ( 4. ) IN my opinion, it is not in the interest of either to wind up a running company for not paying a small fraction of the debt though alive. This court has to take into account all facts, circumstances and the conduct of the parties, and in particular, that of respondent company in liquidating their debt of petitioner. It is not a civil proceeding where one can convert the same like a civil suit for recovery of (some) amount. In other words, in these proceedings, this court has not to decide the quantum of debt or its extent or its genuineness. Being a Company Court, I am required to see in its totality whether a case for winding up a company (respondent) is made out ; and if so, whether this court should proceed to admit the petition and wind up a company. As taken note of supra, when the respondent company has already repaid most of the amount to petitioner, this court would not like to proceed with the company petition ahead for the reason that going ahead means proceeding for winding up. As taken note of supra, when the respondent company has already repaid most of the amount to petitioner, this court would not like to proceed with the company petition ahead for the reason that going ahead means proceeding for winding up. When the company has made payment, then, no question arises for its liquidation. ( 5. ) 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 is it bound to allow winding up even if a case to that effect on 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 running 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. 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 oilier remedy. ( 6. ) IT is thus neither a case for winding up, nor a case where the company has become defunct commercially or/and financially. ( 7. ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, I find no case to proceed ahead any more or taking into account the admitted facts, payment made, the petition has no merit. It fails and is dismissed. ( 8. ) NO cost.