JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Company Petition, presented on 29th of November, 2002 is under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956'). Prayer has been made therein for winding up of M/s. Matharu Chemical Industries Ltd., Proprietor M/s. Matharu Steel Private Limited, Jhalawar Road Near Airport, Kota, the respondent company since it is unable to pay its debt to the petitioner. 3. In Para No. 5 of the petition it is stated that the respondent company has purchased the soda ash from the petitioner from time to time and have been making the part payment. The respondent company after admitting its liability to pay the debts, had sent its duly signed balance sheet to the petitioner. This balance sheet is on record as Annexure-1, which is as under : Date Description Debit Credit Balance 1-4-2001 To opening balance 356525.92 356525.92 DB 4-5-2001 By cash recd. 15000.00 341525.92 DB 6-8-2001 By DD No.698314 Matharu 100000.00 241525.92 DB 19-9-2001 By DD No.69755 Matharu 100000.00 141525.92 DB 30-10-2001 By Chq. No. DD 54140024.10 25000.00 116525.92 DB Total 356525.92 240000.00 Closing Balance 116525.92 K.V. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH Statement of account for Matharu Chemicals Industries From 1-4-2001 to 14-12-2001. 4. As on 1st April, 2001 the debit opening balance of the respondent company was Rs. 356525.92. I find from this document that from time to time payments have been made by the respondent company to the petitioner i.e. on 4th of May, 2001 Rs. 15,000, on 6th of August, 2001 Rs. 1,00,000, on 19-9-2001 Rs. 1,00,000 and on 30-10-2001 Rs. 25,000, respectively. From the balance sheet (Annexure 1) it is clear that the respondent company is making the payment and undisputedly it is a running concern. In my opinion, it is not a case where this winding up petition is to be entertained. The last payment has been made on 30th of October, 2001. The fact that after 30th of October, 2001 payments have not been made by the respondent company, there appears to be some good and sound reason or a bona fide dispute. In such matters, otherwise also, it is not in the larger interest of the companies to entertain a winding up petition. The fact that after 30th of October, 2001 payments have not been made by the respondent company, there appears to be some good and sound reason or a bona fide dispute. In such matters, otherwise also, it is not in the larger interest of the companies to entertain a winding up petition. The petitioner and the respondent company are having long business dealings and if some amount remained unpaid or outstanding for which an effective remedy is available of filing of the summary suit under Order 37 of the C.P.C., but there the court fees is to be paid. In the facts of this case filing of this winding up petition is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to recover this amount from the respondent-company at the threat of winding up thereof. This way the petitioner without paying the court fees will recover the money, which cannot be permitted, 5. Leaving apart that this winding up petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to produce on the record any proof that the alleged legal notice sent under Section 434 of the Act, 1956 has been received by the respondent company. Section 433 of the Act, 1956 provides the circumstances in which a Company may be wound up by the court. A company may be wound up by the court if the company is unable to pay its debts. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that this winding up petition is filed on the ground that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts i.e. Clause (e) of Section 433 of the Act, 1956. Section 434 of the Act, 1956 provides that a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts if a creditor, by assignment or otherwise, to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding Rs. 500 then due, has served on the company, by causing it to be delivered at its registered office, by registered post or otherwise, a demand under his hand requiring the company to pay the sum so due and the company has for three weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum or to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor. 6. 6. In para No. 8 of the petition, the petitioner stated as under : "8, That the petitioner sent a statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act to the respondents on 26-6-2002, the copy of notice is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2. Along with notice also the statement of account was sent to the respondents, but he has not responded and the amount of the petitioner company has not been paid so far." 7. Annexure-2 is the copy of the notice which is alleged to have been sent to the respondent company under Section 434 of the Act, 1956. It stated to have been sent by registered post AD. The petitioner has not produced any evidence that the notice was sent to the respondent by registered post AD. Where the notice is sent by the registered post AD, the documentary evidence would have been available with the petitioner i.e., the postal receipt as well as the acknowledgement receipt. Both these documents have not been produced. Thus for non-production of these two documents, it can reasonably be inferred that this notice was not sent by registered post AD and secondly it was not served upon the respondent company. The petition is lacking in its basic requirement of the maintainability under Clause (e) of Section 433 of the Act, 1956. Sine qua non for the maintainability of the winding up petition on the ground provides under Clause (e) of Section 433 of the Act, 1956 is the service of the statutory notice under Section 434 of the Act, 1956 upon the respondent company. This has not been proved to the satisfaction of the court and thus this is another ground on which this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In para No. 8 of the petition it is not stated by the petitioner that this notice has been sent by the registered post AD, leaving apart that the documentary evidence has not been produced. The only averment made that the petitioner has sent a statutory notice but that is not sufficient to relieve the petitioner of its burden to prove that the notice has been sent by the registered post AD and duly received by the respondent company. 9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this petition fails and the same is dismissed summarily. *******