JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Sections 433, 434, 438 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 is for winding up of non-petitioner Company, M/s. Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd., B-1, Road No. 1, V.K.I. Area, Jaipur-13. 2. The petitioner Company is a SSI Unit registered with Industries Department worked on the basis of conversion of Plastic Grannules into Plastic film/liner and bags of non-petitioner from time to time. 3. The non-petitioner sent the plastic Grannules through Excise challans to the petitioner whose details of charge are as under: Excise Challan No. Dated Quantity 26 7.10.96 4 Metric Ton 27 7.10.96 1 Metric Ton 28 14.10.96 1 Metric Ton 29 14.10.96 1.440 Metric Ton 30 16.10.96 4.785 Metric Ton 33 19.10.96 2.5 Metric Ton 34 19.10.96 0.665 Metric Ton 35 19.10.96 0.500 Metric Ton 4. On the job basis, the plastic grannules were converted into Plastic Films/liner and bags by the petitioner Company and it was returned back to the non-petitioner Company under the challans, the details of which are as follows: Challan No. Date Bill No. Quantity of finished returned Quantity Scrap 23 9.10.96 5 0.6460 M/Ton - 24 10.10.96 5 1.1723" - 25 1.10.96 5 1.0000" - 26 12.10.96 5 1.0367" 0.0850 M/T. 27 13.10.96 5 0.9800" 0.200 M/T. 28 14.10.96 5 0.9227" - 29 15.10.96 5 0.5530" 0.20" 30 15.10.96 5 0.7600" - 31 16.10.96 5 0.3140" - 32 17.10.96 6 0.9620" - 33 18.10.96 6 0.7410" - 34 19.10.96 6 0.9120" - 35 20.10.96 6 0.7140" - 36 2.10.96 6 0.7130" - 37 23.10.96 6 1.0680" - 38 6.11.96 6 0.8860" - 39 8.11.96 6 0.2320" - 40 24.11.96 7 0.5680" - 41 25.11.96 7 0.4786" - 42 26.11.96 7 0.2890" 0.0250" 43 26.11.96 7 0.3290" - 44 30.11.96 7 0.3060" 0.0300" 45 30.11.96 7 0.670 M/T. - 15,2126 Metric Ton 0.2444 Metric Ton 5. The details of the amount due whose bills have been raised by the petitioner against the non-petitioner Company are given in para No. 7 of the petition which are as under: Date Bill No. Amount. 16.10.96 5 40,675.00 09.11.96 6 35,811.00 30.11.96 7 12,391.25 Total due amount: Rs. 88,877.75 6. On the aforesaid alleged due amount the petitioner is also claimed interest @22% per annum. A notice under Section 434 of the Company Act, 1956 was sent which is dated 4th September, 1999, Annexure-36 to the petition. 7. 16.10.96 5 40,675.00 09.11.96 6 35,811.00 30.11.96 7 12,391.25 Total due amount: Rs. 88,877.75 6. On the aforesaid alleged due amount the petitioner is also claimed interest @22% per annum. A notice under Section 434 of the Company Act, 1956 was sent which is dated 4th September, 1999, Annexure-36 to the petition. 7. Reply to the petition is submitted by the non-petitioner Company and the claim of the petitioner disputed. Certain preliminary objections about maintainability of the petition have also been raised. One of the preliminary objections raised by the non-petitioner Company is that the winding up petition is not maintainable as the dispute raised is of civil nature. It has next been stated that there are no debts due nor is any liability outstanding against the non-petitioner in favour of the petitioner. Another preliminary objection raised is that the winding up petition is not only misconceived but has been filed with an oblique motive of pressurising the non-petitioner for the payment of the amount which is not due. On merits, in para No. 6 of the reply, the non-petitioner Company came up with a case that the petitioner has not mentioned full and correct facts and it is guilty of concealing the material facts. The petitioner has not mentioned the quantity of material which has not been returned to the non-petitioner Company. It is further submitted that the petitioner has kept with it 433 Kgs. of plastic Grannules of the non-petitioner. Further the petitioner has not mentioned quantity of rejected material which is lying at the cost and risk of it's own. The cost of un-returned Plastic Grannules is Rs. 23,815/- and that of rejected material comes to Rs. 63,580/-, as such, a sum of Rs. 87,395/- is due of the non-petitioner. In para No. 7 of the reply to petition the non-petitioner Company has reiterated that a sum of Rs. 87,395/- of the non-petitioner Company is due against the petitioner. Further a dispute has been raised that Rs. 5,750/- is not an agreed rate of work. 8. Rejoinder to the reply has been filed by the petitioner. In para No. 4 there of it is admitted that 0.4330 Metric Tons Grannules scrap is due towards the petitioner of the non-petitioner. In pars No. 5 of the rejoinder, it is admitted that 433 Kgs of Plastic Grannules are lying with the petitioner at the non-petitioner's risk. 9. 8. Rejoinder to the reply has been filed by the petitioner. In para No. 4 there of it is admitted that 0.4330 Metric Tons Grannules scrap is due towards the petitioner of the non-petitioner. In pars No. 5 of the rejoinder, it is admitted that 433 Kgs of Plastic Grannules are lying with the petitioner at the non-petitioner's risk. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition, reply filed thereto by the non-petitioner Company and rejoinder to reply filed by the petitioner. The documents enclosed to the petition, reply and rejoinder have also been perused. 10. The notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 sent by the petitioner to the non-petitioner Company is there on the record as Annexure-36 at page No. 43 of the petition, Having gone through it, I find that the petitioner has no where stated therein that Grannules scrap is lying with it of the non-petitioner Company. In rejoinder to the reply, the petitioner has admitted that 0.4330 Metric Tons scrap of the non-petitioner Company is lying with the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner admitted that 433 Kgs. plastic Grannules are lying with it of the non-petitioner Company. These are important and relevant material facts which have not been disclosed by the petitioner in the petition. It is is a clear case where the petitioner has concealed material and relevant facts. The conduct of a litigant and more particularly of, the petitioner in a winding up petition Is very important and relevant. He has to disclose all relevant and important material facts in the petition. Where he conceals and suppress the material facts from the Court, disentitles himself of his right of hearing and decision of the matter on merits. In the reply to the petition, the non-petitioner Company has given out the cost of the scrap and Grannules in para No. 6 thereof. The respondent has too denied this value, but it is not given out its own value of the same. It cannot be taken that the scrap and grannules have no value and cost. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was always ready and willing to give scrap and Grannules to the non-petitioner. It is not mentioned by the petitioner in the notice issued to the non-petitioner Company. What it is contended is only an after thought. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was always ready and willing to give scrap and Grannules to the non-petitioner. It is not mentioned by the petitioner in the notice issued to the non-petitioner Company. What it is contended is only an after thought. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that there is a bonafide dispute and plausible claim of the non- petitioner of scrap and grannules against the petitioner and this remedy sought by the petitioner is not available to him. The winding up petition is not a mode of the recovery of the amount for which a bonafide dispute or plausible claim is raised by the non-petitioner company against the petitioner. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the petitioner has no case and this petition is clearly an attempt to abuse the process of the Court. 12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this winding up petition fails and same is dismissed with cost to the non-petitioner Company which is quantified as Rs. 2000/-.Petition Dismissed. *******