ALTAMAS KABIR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been taken up for hearing on the basis of the stay application, in terms of the direction contained in our order of 13th January, 2003. By our said order, leave was also given to the respondent to file cross-objection, which has duly been filed and has also been taken up for consideration along with the appeal. ( 2 ) THE appeal and the cross-objection are directed against a portion of the order dated 19th April, 2002 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 643 of 2000 filed by the appellant herein. ( 3 ) BY its winding up petition the appellant alleged that a principal sum of Rs. 7,57,764. 00 was due and payable by the company to the petitioner/appellant on account of goods sold and delivered by the petitioner to the company. Certain other dues on account of interest was also claimed by the petitioning creditor. ( 4 ) AS recorded by the learned Company Judge, the only defence to the claim of the petitioning creditor is that such claim is barred by limitation. Disputes were raised on behalf of the appellant company regarding the appropriation of various amounts in respect of the outstanding dues and it was sought to be contended that dealings and transactions between the parties upto the end of the financial year 1995-96 had been confirmed by the parties, as will also be evident from pages 35 and 36 of the application for stay. It was contended that the other dues beyond the said period not having been settled or confirmed and no payments having been made thereafter, not even by a cheque dated 16th September, 1998, for the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, the entire claim of the petitioning creditor was barred by limitation since the petition for winding up was filed on 21st December, 2000. ( 5 ) HAVING considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Company Judge observed that the question regarding limitation was required to be tested on evidence and gone into in a properly constituted suit, but that such question would not cover the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs being the sum of the cheque dated 16th September, 1998 which was dishonoured upon presentation for payment on 27th November, 1998. 3 lakhs being the sum of the cheque dated 16th September, 1998 which was dishonoured upon presentation for payment on 27th November, 1998. The learned Company Judge rejected the submissions made on behalf of the company that the entire sum found to be due and payable, including the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, forming the amount of the cheque in question, having been disputed, the petitioning creditor should have been relegated to the suit in respect of the entire amount. The learned Company Judge, in fact, recorded that he had no doubt in his mind that the entire sum of Rs. 7,57,764. 00 was payable by the company to the petitioning creditor and that but for the fact that the plea of limitation had been taken the learned Judge did not wish to hold at that stage that the entire sum was recoverable by the petitioning creditor. However, the learned Company Judge was of the view that there could be no dispute with regard to the debt represented by the dishonoured cheque. The learned Company Judge thereupon held that the company had failed and neglected to pay the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and on that basis admitted the winding up petition. In so far as the balance claim was concerned, the petitioning creditor was relegated to a suit. ( 6 ) APPEARING in support of the appeal, Mr. Ajoy Chatterjee submitted that the learned Company Judge had proceeded on the basis that the period of limitation stood extended by the cheque dated 16th September, 1998, although on behalf of the company it was contended that the said cheque was not genuine and that the same had not been issued by the company. In fact, it has been sought to be contended that from a glance of the cheque it would be seen that the date of the cheque had originally been written as 16th September, 1996, but that the figure "6" at the end of the figure "1998" was changed from 6' to 8' only with the intention of saving limitation. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that without considering the above the learned Company Judge proceeded on the basis that the cheque had been issued by the company and bears the signature of the authorised signatory which amounts to admission of the debt. ( 7 ) MR. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that without considering the above the learned Company Judge proceeded on the basis that the cheque had been issued by the company and bears the signature of the authorised signatory which amounts to admission of the debt. ( 7 ) MR. Chatterjee also pointed out that a separate proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been taken by the petitioning creditor before the criminal court in respect of the said cheque since it had been dishonoured upon presentation for payment and that in the said proceedings an application had been made on behalf of the company alleging that the date of the cheque had been interpolated and that it was necessary to have the same examined by a hand-writing expert. It was pointed out by Mr. Chatterjee that such prayer was duly allowed but the report of the Forensic Department was awaited. ( 8 ) MR. Chatterjee submitted that in view of the disputed nature of the cheque itself, the learned Company Judge ought not to have admitted the winding up petition on the basis of the said cheque and should have also either relegated the petitioning creditor to a suit in respect of the cheque amount or dismissed the winding up petition completely. ( 9 ) IN support of his submissions Mr. Chatterjee firstly relied on a Single Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ceramic Indian v. Haryana Steel and Alloy Ltd. , reported in 1983 Company Cases page 737, wherein the well-settled principle that when there are disputed questions of fact winding up should not be ordered, has been reiterated. Other decisions on the same lines were also cited by Mr. Chatterjee, which merely reiterate the ratio indicated above. ( 10 ) MR. Chatterjee submitted that the order of the learned Company Judge on account of admitting the winding up petition on the basis of the disputed cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs was erroneous and the direction for payment of the said amount was liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) OPPOSING the appeal, Mr. Mukherjee, contended that as far as the disputed cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs was erroneous and the direction for payment of the said amount was liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) OPPOSING the appeal, Mr. Mukherjee, contended that as far as the disputed cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs was concerned the same had little bearing on the facts of the case and the entire matter relating to the said cheque had been blown out of proportion on behalf of the appellant since the existence of a jural relationship between the parties was evident from the materials on record. ( 12 ) MR. Mukherjee, urged that although the running and continuous accounts between the parties had been settled upto 31st March, 1996, various transactions between the parties had taken place even thereafter as will appear from the party Ledger maintained by the petitioning creditor in respect of the appellant company. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that not only had the company issued the disputed cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs, but it had also issued other cheques which had been credited to the company's account after 31st March, 1998. ( 13 ) MR. Mukherjee also referred to certain Sales Tax declaration forms which related to transactions upto the month of February, 1997, and since the winding up petition was filed in December, 2000, the same is not really of much relevance in the facts of the case except to show that a jural relationship existed between the parties at the relevant time. ( 14 ) MR. Mukherjee submitted that the fact that the cheque in question had been dishonoured by the bank was of little or no consequence having particular regard to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ( 15 ) IN support of the said submission Mr. Mukherjee referred to a Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Hindustan Apparel Industries v. Fair Deal Corporation, reported in Vol. 105 Company Cases page 959, which supports his contention. ( 16 ) MR. Mukherjee submitted that the portion of the order impugned in the appeal relegating the parties to suit in respect of the amount not covered by the disputed cheque, was erroneous and the cross-objection filed on behalf of the petitioning creditor was liable to be allowed on such score. ( 17 ) MR. ( 16 ) MR. Mukherjee submitted that the portion of the order impugned in the appeal relegating the parties to suit in respect of the amount not covered by the disputed cheque, was erroneous and the cross-objection filed on behalf of the petitioning creditor was liable to be allowed on such score. ( 17 ) MR. Mukherjee submitted that once the existence of a jural relationship had been established upto and within the period of limitation, nothing further was required to be considered or gone into as far as the point of limitation taken on behalf of the company was concerned. The very fact that payments had been made after 31st March, 1998, was enough to prove the existence of such jural relationship since the winding up petition had been filed in December, 2000. ( 18 ) MR. Mukherjee submitted that, in fact, the learned Company Judge ought to have admitted the winding up petition for the entire claim of the petitioning creditor and should not have relegated the parties to suit in respect of a portion thereof. ( 19 ) THE only point which emerges for consideration from the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties in this appeal is whether a jural relationship existed between the parties within the period of limitation at the point of time when the winding up petition was filed. If we accept Mr. Mukherjee's submissions on the basis of the Party Ledger maintained by the petitioning creditor, it must be held that the winding up petition had been filed well within the period of limitation. If we hold otherwise as we are inclined to do, the directions given by the learned Company Judge relegating the parties to suit cannot be called into question in respect of the amount not covered by the cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs. In this regard, we are of the view that the contents of the Party Ledger will have to be proved before any reliance can be placed thereon. ( 20 ) AS far as the disputed cheque and the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is concerned, the same, in our view, will also depend on the question as to which date on the cheque was genuine, viz. , -16th September, 1998 as claimed by the petitioning creditor, or 16th September, 1996, as claimed by the company. ( 20 ) AS far as the disputed cheque and the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is concerned, the same, in our view, will also depend on the question as to which date on the cheque was genuine, viz. , -16th September, 1998 as claimed by the petitioning creditor, or 16th September, 1996, as claimed by the company. ( 21 ) ADMITTEDLY, the said question is of importance in the criminal proceedings pending before the 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate, and, although, the outcome of the criminal case can have no bearing as such on this case, the finding with regard to the date of the cheque will certainly be relevant. In other words, if the date is found to be 16/9/1996, then the claim with regard to the amount of the disputed cheque will also stand barred by limitation. If not, the order of the learned Company Judge will be valid and operative. ( 22 ) IN such circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioning creditor should be relegated to suit not only in respect of the amount other than the amount of the disputed cheque, but in respect of the amount of the cheque also. The outcome of the claim in the suit will depend on the finding regarding the genuineness of the cheque in the criminal proceedings. If the finding goes in favour of the petitioning creditor, he will be entitled to the amount of the cheque and upon proof of the continuance of the jural relationship, he will also be entitled to the remaining balance of the claim which has been found by the learned Company Judge to be due and payable by the company to the petitioning creditor. ( 23 ) THE order of the learned Company Judge is modified accordingly and the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the cross-objection is dismissed. ( 24 ) THE appellant would be entitled to withdraw the sum kept in deposit with the Registrar, Original Side, in terms of the order dated 23rd May, 2002, together with interest accrued thereupon. The appeal, cross-objection and also the application for stay, are all disposed of by this order. There will, however, be no order as to costs.