Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this company petition shall also govern disposal of other connected company petition being Company Petition No. 1 of 1989. ( 2. ) IT is a company petition filed by what the petitioner calls themselves to be one of the creditor of the respondent-company. It is a petition essentially filed under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking winding up of respondent company--known as Hope Textiles Limited, Indore. It is essentially founded on the allegations that petitioner had supplied certain material (cotton) to the respondent company valuing Rs. 10,72,153. 10 paise between the period 24. 1. 1981 to 15. 11. 1981. It is averred that respondent company made part payment, but did not pay full, thereby leaving an outstanding of Rs. 2,02,573. 71 paise. It is averred that it is for recovery of this outstanding balance, the petitioner sent legal notice demanding the sum and since the respondent-company failed to pay the sum despite notice sent under Section 434, ibid. , this petition is filed seeking to wind up the company on the ground of its inability to pay the debt due within the meaning of Section 433 (e) of the Act. ( 3. ) IN substance, the reply of respondent company is based on the plea that the company is in the process of being declared as a sick company under the provisions of SICA. It is further contended that the scheme of rehabilitation is under way and, in that process, the case of these petitioners along with other creditors whether secured or/and unsecured will be taken care of in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is on this basis, the respondent company has contended that no case for winding, up of company is made out, or in any event, no orders for winding up need be passed when one competent statutory authority under the SICA has found contrary to it. ( 4. ) HEARD Shri Amit Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel, with Shri D. K. Chhabra, for the respondent. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in this petition, and in particular, in view of the defence taken by the respondent company. ( 6. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in this petition, and in particular, in view of the defence taken by the respondent company. ( 6. ) IN my considered opinion, when the BIFR which is a statutory body exercising its power under the provisions of SICA, have come to a conclusion that the respondent is a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (o) of the Act and is thus, capable of being revived by formulating a rehabilitation scheme, then in such an event, there does not arise any need to enter into a question whether a case under Section 433 (e) of the Act is made out or not. It is neither necessary, nor called for in the facts of the case. Needless to observe, whatever outstanding according to the petitioner remains qua respondent, that will be taken care of by the concerned authorities while enacting a scheme of rehabilitation, if law permits. ( 7. ) I, thus, do not find any substance in this petition. It fails, and is dismissed.