A. K. SIKRI, J ( 1 ) THE case set up in this petition is that the petitioner company carries on, inter alia, the business of manufacture of hydraulic pumps, cylinders and other allied items etc. The respondent company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of automotive and construction equipment. The parties have been doing the business with each other for a long time and as per orders placed,, the petitioner has been supplying the materials i. e. hydraulic cylinders to the respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner has been raising various bills and invoices. However, the respondent always delayed the payment and was regular defaulter in payment. Still because of cordial relationship between the parties the petitioner over-looked the delay and kept reminding the respondent to make payment. After much delay the respondent made payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide Cheque no. 723753 dated 24. 2. 2000 drawn on punjab National Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi. This cheque was, however, returned with the remarks "full cover not received". The petitioner made repeated requests thereafter and was even given an assurance but payment of outstanding amount was not paid ultimately. Legal notice dated 5. 7. 2001 was sent demanding payment of rs. 11,47,498/- along with interest @ 24% p. a. This notice was duly served but the respondent did not clear the outstanding. It is also averred that respondent has admitted the liability. Therefore, this petition is filed seeking winding up of the respondent company on the ground that it is unable to pay the aforesaid debts. ( 2 ) IN the reply filed by the respondent it is stated that there is no outstanding and as per petitioner s own letter dated 3. 3. 2000 while sending confirmation as on 31. 12. 1999 it was stated that there was nil balance according to petitioner s books of accounts. A copy of this letter is annexed as Annexure r-1. Preliminary objection is also made to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the amount of rs. 11,47,498/- is due as no details are given. According to the respondent there is no such debt due. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the counsel and going through the record, I am of the view that the preliminary submission of the respondent deserved to be sustained. 11,47,498/- is due as no details are given. According to the respondent there is no such debt due. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the counsel and going through the record, I am of the view that the preliminary submission of the respondent deserved to be sustained. It may be mentioned at the outset that in spite of repeated opportunities given to the petitioner, rejoinder-affidavit has not been filed. Last opportunity of four weeks was given for this purpose on March 4,2004 and the case was adjourned to 28. 7. 2004. On that date also rejoinder-affidavit was not filed and the petitioner prayed for further time. Although there was no satisfactory explanation, still one more opportunity was given subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost. On 25. 10. 2004 statement was made that rejoinder was filed but, it was not on record. The counsel was asked to contact the Registry and get the same placed on record and it was categorically stated that no further adjournment shall be given and the matter was adjourned for today. Still no such rejoinder has come on record. Even cost imposed is not paid. Therefore, in the absence of rejoinder on record, I have to proceed on , the basis that the averments made in the reply are not traversed by the petitioner. ( 4 ) RELEVANT portion of letter dated 3. 3. 2000 of the petitioner addressed to the respondent reads as under: " Sub: Confirmation of Balance as on 1999/12/31. In connection with the audit of our Accounts, we would request you to confirm direct to our auditors M/s,n. M. Raiji Co. Chartered accountants, 4401, High Point, Palace road, Bangalore-560 001, the balance of Rs. 0. 00 as on 1999/12/31 according to our books is correct. " ( 5 ) THUS as per petitioner s own showing as on 31. 12. 1999 no outstanding was due. How petitioner became entitled to Rs. 11,47,498/- is not stated in the petition. The petition lacks material particulars. In para-15, it is only stated that this amount was due for which legal notice was sent. No copy of the accounts is filed. Copies of invoices/bills are also not filed. Petition is beautifully vague and lacks material particulars. ( 6 ) IT may be added that insofar as Cheque dated 24. 2. 2000 of Rs. In para-15, it is only stated that this amount was due for which legal notice was sent. No copy of the accounts is filed. Copies of invoices/bills are also not filed. Petition is beautifully vague and lacks material particulars. ( 6 ) IT may be added that insofar as Cheque dated 24. 2. 2000 of Rs. 1,00,000/- sent by the respondent to the petitioner is concerned, the respondent has stated that it was not given towards part payment as alleged by the petitioner but was in fact as advance payment. After making advance payment, disputes arose between the parties with respect to the price of the goods. The petitioner demanded price higher than originally quoted and, therefore, no further dealing could take place between the parties. As there was no liability and respondent was not bound to honour the cheque, payment was not made. Significantly, no suit for recovery of dues or proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument act were initiated by the petitioner. Even notice/ intimation for dishonour of this cheque was not given. I, therefore, find that petition is not bona fide and the petitioner has not been able to prove any debt due by the respondent to it. No acknowledgment /admission of the purported debt is produced although alleged in the petition. This petition is accordingly dismissed.