Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a company petition filed by what he calls himself as a creditor of respondent company seeking winding up of company essentially on the ground covered under Section 433 (e) of Companies Act. ( 2. ) THE respondent is a company havingits manufacturing Unit at Sendhwa. It is stated by the petitioner that in the course of companys manufacturing activity, the company is indebted to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. One lakh and odd. The petitioner then claimed to have raised the Bill, by raising a demand on the respondent. He alleged that towards this demand, the respondent company issued a cheque worth Rs. 1,00,000 being No. 257718, dated 16-6-2000 in favour of petitioner, but was returned by the Bank for which a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is pending against the respondent company before the court at Sendhwa. He then further alleged that respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 75,000 and balance of Rs. 1,22,561 with interest (Rs. 21,559) up to31-3-2001 totalling Rs. 1,44,320 not having been paid, as observed supra, the petitioner sent a demand notice to the respondent calling upon them to clear the outstanding balance of Rs. 1,44,320. Since, the respondent has failed to clear the outstanding despite notice sent, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the provisions of Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent-company. It is alleged that non-payment of total money dues amounting to Rs. 1,44,320 is a ground to wind up a company within the meaning of Section 433 (e) ibid as it is a clear case where one can conclude that respondent is deemed unable to pay the debt. ( 3. ) HEARD Shri Deepak Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the petition and hence, it deserves to be dismissed. ( 5. ) A petition for winding up is not a remedy which can be resorted to as of right. In other words, it is always regarded as a discretionary remedy. The Company Court is not bound to entertain the petition for winding up once filed, nor it is bound to allow winding up even if a case to that effect on facts is made out. In other words, it is always regarded as a discretionary remedy. The Company Court is not bound to entertain the petition for winding up once filed, nor it is bound to allow winding up even if a case to that effect on facts is made out. It being a settled principle of law relating to winding up that winding up is in the nature of death of a Company and puts an end to all its activity for all time to come in future, the Court is under legal obligation to see that no running company be pushed into a winding up for one or two defaults. In other words, the efforts must be to save the company from being wound up, if the case to that effect is made out on facts. It is for this purpose and keeping in view this objective, the Legislature has enacted Sub-section (2) of Section 443 which empowers the Company Court to exercise powers while hearing a petition for winding up. Sub-section (2) does empower the Company Court to refuse to make an order of winding up, if it is of an opinion that some other remedy is available to the petitioners and that they are acting unreasonably in seeking to have the company wound up instead of pursuing that other remedy. ( 6. ) IN normal circumstances, the remedy of petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,44,320 lies in filing civil suit under the general law on establishing his claim. It is essentially an isolated commercial transaction for supply of certain goods to the respondent company in its day to day working and running of company wherein some dispute has arisen. Indeed, this is a fit case where this Court relying upon Section 443 (2) ibid decline to entertain the petition and leave the petitioner to recover his dues by resorting to any other remedy as he may have in law, rather than to pursue a winding up of a running company. This Court cannot convert the proceedings of winding up in the proceedings alike the civil suit to decide, whether respondent company is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,44,320 and/or if so, on what basis. Such issues are not required to be gone into in winding up proceedings, but are necessarily required to be gone into in civil suits. This Court cannot convert the proceedings of winding up in the proceedings alike the civil suit to decide, whether respondent company is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,44,320 and/or if so, on what basis. Such issues are not required to be gone into in winding up proceedings, but are necessarily required to be gone into in civil suits. Merely because the respondent happens to be a company within the meaning of Companies Act by itself does not give any right to any person dealing with the company to apply for its winding up on the ground of non-payment of their certain dues. Equally untenable is the plea that some cases are pending under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent is no ground to entertain the petition for winding up. The respondent has every right to raise possible pleas based on facts and in law in those proceedings and then it is for the concern courts to pass appropriate orders depending upon the defence raised. The object and scope of winding up of a company under the Companies Act is entirely different. It cannot be seen and confined to the claim of petitioner only but has to be seen, judged and tested in its entirety such as nature of claim laid by the petitioner, the defence taken by the company in relation to claim, in question, the financial position of a company, its viability, commercial sustainability in the market etc. It is always regarded as a petition not at the instance of one creditor but is regarded as petition in its representative capacity once admitted, it is essentially for these reasons, a rule of caution is provided by judicial pronouncement not to entertain the petitioners for winding up unless a very strong prima facie case is made out on facts else, it affects the very existence of company in commercial market. ( 7. ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, I do nol find this petition to have any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.