Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a company petition filed by petitioner under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, seeking winding up of the respondent company by name Global Polymers and Impex Ltd. hereinafter referred to as "company" essentially on the ground covered under Section 433 (e) of Companies Act. ( 2. ) THE Company is having its place of business and registered office at Indore. It is infer alia engaged in the business of importers, exporters, manufacturer, wholesalers, dealers and commission agents in various kinds of animal feed, poultry feed, etc. as set out in Memorandum of Association. ( 3. ) IT is the say of the petitioner that in its business activity, the petitioner supplied and delivered to the company certain veterinary equipments on 31. 3. 1998, 18. 4. 1998 and 8. 9. 1998 valuing about Rs. 5,69,480. 00. It is this amount, which the petitioner complains the company has neglected to pay to petitioner despite receipt of goods from the petitioner. It is complained that petitioner made demand, sent reminders to the respondent but all has gone in vain and hence, notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act was served on the respondent stating therein to make the payment of Rs. 5,69,480. 00. Since, the respondent failed to make the payment despite receipt of the notice and hence, a case of deemed unable to pay debt was made out entitling the petitioner to file a Company Petition under Section 433 (e) of the Act seeking winding up of the Company. The case of respondent in the return is of denial. Though it was admitted that they received the equipments, it is alleged that equipments were not found to be of mark. It is complained that when the machines were put to use, it was noticed that they were not working properly and were having problems. The respondent also disclosed the nature of problems noticed by them while using the machines. It is alleged that these issues were brought to the notice of the petitioner by the respondents but no steps were taken by the petitioner to solve the problems noticed. The respondents have then filed the letter correspondence exchanged between the parties on this issue. ( 4. ) HEARD Mr. D. S. Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 5. The respondents have then filed the letter correspondence exchanged between the parties on this issue. ( 4. ) HEARD Mr. D. S. Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the petition and hence, it deserves to be dismissed. ( 6. ) 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. 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 433 which empowers the Company Court to exercise power 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. ( 7. ) IN normal circumstances, the remedy of petitioner for recovery of Rs. 5,69,480. 00 paise 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 where in some dispute has arisen. ( 7. ) IN normal circumstances, the remedy of petitioner for recovery of Rs. 5,69,480. 00 paise 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 where in some dispute has arisen. When the company has bonafide defence to raise as to why they declined to pay part of the money to petitioner and the same having been disclosed in the return, this Court would not entertain the petition for winding up of a running company. 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. 5,69,480. 00 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. 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 sustain ability in the market, whether the debt is admitted by the respondent company or not, 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 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 or else, it affects the very existence of company in commercial market. ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that a case for winding up on the facts pleaded is made out. I do not agree to what is urged. I have gone through the facts carefully, relied on by the learned Counsel and find no merit in it. Once, I come to a conclusion that on the facts pleaded by the petitioner in the petition for seeking winding up of company, the respondent company has come out with a bonafide and plausible defence, the issue must end here so far as entertaining of winding up petition is concerned. It will be too disastrous for any running company to suffer an order of winding up for non-payment of Rs. 5,69,480. 00 and that too when it has certain reasons not to pay, and secondly the alleged debt is not a debt admitted by the respondent. ( 9. ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find this petition to have any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.