Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this company petition shall govern disposal of other two connected company petitions being Company Petition No. 17 of 2000 and Company Petition No. 15 of 2001, as all these company petitions are filed against one company and, secondly, it is for seeking winding up of respondent company (hereinafter referred to as company ). ( 2. ) THIS petition is filed under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act seeking winding up of company on the allegations that it (company) has failed to pay the money. In other words, the winding up of company is sought on the ground that company is deemed unable to repay the debt of petitioner as per Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act. The petitioner has then in petition set out the details of the amount paid to company which according to petitioner remains outstanding giving them the cause of action to serve a statutory notice to the company under Section 434 of the Act and then filing this company petition under Section 433 (e) of the Act seeking its winding up. ( 3. ) IT is not in dispute as is clear from the record that the company has on its part applied to BIFR under the provisions of SICA for being declared as a sick industrial company. It is also not in dispute that the reference case being case No. 37 of 2001 has been registered by the BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ). It is also brought to my notice that on 5. 4. 2002, the BIFR has directed conducting of SIA (special investigating audit) in relation to the accounts of the company to enable them to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the requirements of Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the SICA. In other words, depending upon the eventual outcome of the SIA, report of O. A. [operating agency] and all other relevant factors were brought on record, the BIFR will be able to pass appropriate orders as to whether, company in question should be declared as a sick industrial company for being wound up, or it be rehabilitated by framing any scheme as envisaged under the SICA. It is also directed in the order dated 5. 4. It is also directed in the order dated 5. 4. 2002 that petitioner-- bank should extend all possible help to SIA to enable them to conduct proper audit in relation to their accounts. In sum and substance, the issue involved in this petition is materially and substantially subject matter of the proceedings before BIFR which is clear from the facts stated, supra, and the order dated 5. 4. 2002 passed by BIFR. ( 4. ) IN a situation emerging from the record and which is taken note of, supra, this petition need not be entertained, nor is considered proper and necessary for being entertained for deciding whether the company in question is liable to be wound up or not. There cannot be and/or should not be parallel proceedings in relation to or against one company in two different forums. The question, whether a case for winding up of a company is made out or not; secondly, whether a case for revival of the company is made out or not is already sub judice before the BIFR and is under investigation. In case, if it is held by BIFR that a case for winding up is made out, then in such eventuality, a reference to that effect for passing final winding up order will have to be made to this Court. Similarly, if an order for revival of the company is eventually passed by BIFR by framing a scheme under the Act, then, in such event, this Court may not be able to pass a winding up order. In either case, therefore, the proceedings before the BIFR will have to be given precedence. At the same time, so far as the petitioner is concerned, their rights are not and cannot be put in jeopardy, because while holding an inquiry into the accounts of the company, a direction is already given to investigate the accounts of the petitioner, and like them, of several others. ( 5. ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground much less good and sufficient ground to entertain the company petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. However, while dismissing the petition, it is directed to BIFR to ensure that claims of the petitioners of these company petitions will be duly taken care of while determining the liability issue qua assets of the company, and then appropriate orders shall be passed expeditiously. It is accordingly, dismissed. However, while dismissing the petition, it is directed to BIFR to ensure that claims of the petitioners of these company petitions will be duly taken care of while determining the liability issue qua assets of the company, and then appropriate orders shall be passed expeditiously. A copy of this order shall be sent to BIFR for their information and record.