JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application under Section 433(e), 433(f), Section 434. Section 439(1)(c) and Section 450 of the Companies Act. 1956 has been preferred by petitioner, Alok Coal Agencies Limited (for short Company), a Company limited by shares under the Companies Act, 1956, wherein prayer has been made to wind up the O.P. No. 1, M/s. Indian Colour Sheets Limited (for short M/s. ICSL), to appoint official liquidator to take charge of all assets, properties and all other movable and immovable assets etc. of the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL and to pay the dues of the Petitioner-Company by sell or otherwise of the property and assets of the said O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL. 2. Initially, M/s. Indian Colour Sheets Limited was only impleaded as O.P.party to the application. Subsequently, a petition for intervention was filed on be half of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short BSIDC) to implead it as O.P. No. 2. 3. According to petitioner-company, the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL approached the petitioner-company for friendly accommodation and the petitioner-company advanced friendly loan to the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL amounting to Rs. 10,48.285.62 paise (Rupees ten lac forty eight thousand two hundred eighty five and sixty two paise only), as detailed in Schedule-A to the application. The petitioner-company claimed that inspite of repeated requests and demand notice dated 22nd June, 1998 (Annexure-1) followed by lawyers notice dated 12th July, 1998 (Annexure-2), the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL failed and neglected to pay the said amount of Rs. 10,48,285.62 paise. Further case of petitioner-company is that the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL vide its reply dated 28th July, 1998 (Annexure-3) informed that it was unable to pay the dues of the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company further learnt that the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL has no means and is unable to pay the said dues of the petitioner-company and as such the O.P. No. 1 M/s. ICSL has become commercially insolvent. The petitioner-company claimed to be entitled for interest @ 24% per annum as the O.P. No. 1 wrongly and illegally withheld the legitimate dues of the petitioner- company and made -the following claim : "SCHEDULE-A __________________________________________________________________ Sl. No. Financial year Amount __________________________________________________________________ Rs. 1. 1991 - 1992 6.38.223.36 2. 1992 - 1993 2,38.987.52 3. 1993 - 1994 96,022.33 4. 1994 - 1995 (-) 22.577.07 5. 1995 - 1996 47,629.48 6. No. Financial year Amount __________________________________________________________________ Rs. 1. 1991 - 1992 6.38.223.36 2. 1992 - 1993 2,38.987.52 3. 1993 - 1994 96,022.33 4. 1994 - 1995 (-) 22.577.07 5. 1995 - 1996 47,629.48 6. 1996 - 1997 50,000.00 __________________________________________________________________ Sub Total 10,48,285.62 Interest @ 24% upto 31.3.1998 14,38,113.00 Interest @ 24% from 1.4.1998 to 30.11.1999 4.19,314.00 __________________________________________________________________ Total 29,05,712.62 __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (Rupees Twenty nine lac five thousand seven hundred twelve and sixty two paise only)" 4. A purported counter affidavit was filed on behalf of O.R No. 1. M/s. ICSL accepting the claim with plea that due to financial crisis, the O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL could not pay the dues of the petitioner-company as was informed by its letter dated 28th July. 1998. Further plea has been taken that the O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL never refused to pay the dues of the petitioner-company and requested to wait for sometime. The O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL is a joint venture Company of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (O.R No. 2) and M/s. Hi Tech Alloys Pvt. Ltd. This has been pleaded in the purported counter affidavit filed on behalf of O.R No. 1 as also in the petition for intervention filed by O.R No. 2, BSIDC. The investment of O.R No. 2, BSIDC is about 26% of the total project cost of O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL which is about Rs. 2.20 crore. Other shares held by M/s. Hi Tech Alloys Pvt. Ltd. is 25%, CMI, Belgium Cockrail of USA 20% and public 29%. 5. The O.R No. 2. BSIDC opposed the prayer and refuted the averment of petitioner-company that it had given friendly loan to O.R No. 1 M/s. ICSL amounting to Rs. 10,48,285.62 paise. According to it, the claim is totally false, based on fabricated document and not acknowledged by O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL. 6. Counsel for the O.R No. 2. BSIDC requested the Court to ignore the so- called affidavit filed on behalf of O.RNo. 1. M/s, ICSL having filed by an unauthorised person. One Sri Lal Bihari Singh, who claims to be an employee of M/s. ICSL. has filed affidavit on behalf of O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL without any power of attorney. The Vakalatnama has also not been signed by any of the Director of O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL. M/s, ICSL having filed by an unauthorised person. One Sri Lal Bihari Singh, who claims to be an employee of M/s. ICSL. has filed affidavit on behalf of O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL without any power of attorney. The Vakalatnama has also not been signed by any of the Director of O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL. At the verge of the completion of the argument, one affidavit was filed by one Ramabatar Kedia without leave of the Court but the Court refused to take notice of such affidavit by order dated 10th September. 2002 having filed without any leave at the time of conclusion of hearing. 7. The main question is whether the petitioner-company given any loan to O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL which it accepted and such loan can be recovered by filing this petition. In absence of any evidence to suggest that the petitioner-company actually given any such friendly loan to O.R No. I, M/s. ICSL , this Court vide order dated 11th June, 2002 allowed the petitioner-company to produce the relevant evidence in support of its claim, such as cheques, Bank Draft or any other instrument through which loan amount was paid and accepted by O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL. Inspite of time allowed twice to the petitioner-company, they failed to produce any such evidence in its support. 8. Counsel, who was appearing on behalf of Sri Lal Bihari Singh, an employee of O.RNo. 1. M/s. ICSL produced purported books of accounts. Therein, about Rs. 4,50,000/- was shown to have been received by O.R No. 1, M/s. ICSL from the petitioner-company at page 6. In the same page 6 of the books of accounts, the amount was again shown to have been debited in favour of petitioner-company meaning thereby the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- received from the petitioner- company in 1991 has been refunded. When the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the counsel, who claims to be appearing on behalf of O.R No. 1 M/s. ICSL could not explain the matter. One person, who claims to be the accountant of the company, appeared on 27th August, 2002, also could not explain how the claim could have been made on the basis of credited amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- when such amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- shown to have been debited in the account of petitioner-company. One person, who claims to be the accountant of the company, appeared on 27th August, 2002, also could not explain how the claim could have been made on the basis of credited amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- when such amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- shown to have been debited in the account of petitioner-company. There are other facts which also raised doubt in respect to genuineness of claim. In the account book, petty amount shown to have been given as loan by petitioner-company to O.P No. 1, M/s. ICSL. For example, a sum of Rs. 7/- was shown to have been given as loan to O.P. No, 1, M/s. ICSL on 20th April, 1993, a sum of 10/-shown to have been given as loan to O.P No. 1. M/s. ICSL on 28th April, 1993. 9. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel on behalf of O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL tried to explain the matter. According to him the loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-shown to have been repaid/debited on mistaken notion though such amount was actually debited in the account of M/s. Hi Tech Alloys Pvt. Ltd. but such submission cannot be accepted in absence of relevant evidence in support of such oral statement. One can also doubt the authenticity of the ledger book produced before this Court, many of the entries at page 1 and 6 having made in same ink and pen. 10. In the facts and circumstances, there being no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner-company given friendly loan of Rs. 10.48,285.62 paise to O.P.No. 1. M/s. ICSL, nor there being any evidence of acknowledgment of receipt of such loan amount this petition for winding up at the instance of petitioner-company is not maintainable. The prayer is, accordingly, rejected. 11. The company petition is dismissed .