K. A. PUJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner viz. Plachem Industries has filed this petition under Sections - 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent Company on the ground that the respondent - Company has failed to make the payment of Rs. 4,93,000/- to the petitioner. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Company required loan on short term basis for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs and hence the request was made to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly advanced a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in the form of three cheques on 7. 11. 1994, 12. 11. 1994 and 19. 11. 1994 for an amount of Rs. 3 lacs, Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 1 lac respectively. The respondent Company, towards part payment of the said liability has issued cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 5. 12. 1994 and the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- alongwith the interest has not been paid by the respondent - Company to the petitioner despite repeated requests, the respondent Company has failed to make said payment either under one or another pretext. Since the petitioner was persistently demanding the amount, the respondent Company issued two cheques No. 355540 and 355541 dated 7. 2. 1995 and 8. 2. 1995 for Rs. 1 lac each towards further part payment of the outstanding amount. The said cheques were however dishonoured, the petitioner therefore issued statutory notice on 1. 8. 1997 making the demand of Rs. 4,93,000/- as being outstanding amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards principal and Rs. 2,43,000/- towards interest. Neither any reply was given by the respondent - Company nor any payment was made and hence the petitioner has no other alternative remedy but to file the present winding up petition before this Court. ( 3 ) THE respondent - Company filed its affidavit-in-reply on 22. 2. 1998 wherein the facts stated and averments made in the petition were denied. The respondent - Company raised the contention in the said affidavit-in-reply that the respondent - Company was dealing in the business of finance, sales promotion etc. The petitioner - Company was intending to have the business with the employer Company of the Managing Director of the respondent Company viz. The respondent - Company raised the contention in the said affidavit-in-reply that the respondent - Company was dealing in the business of finance, sales promotion etc. The petitioner - Company was intending to have the business with the employer Company of the Managing Director of the respondent Company viz. M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical and as per the practice of granting commission and brokerage in sales promotion the petitioner had assured the commission and brokerage to the respondent - Company. The respondent Company has assisted in procuring the total business of Rs. 40,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner against which the petitioner had paid only Rs. 5 lacs as commission and brokerage for the business of 5 years. It is further stated that the petitioner - Company after getting the order for 5 years was of short finance for carrying out the business commitments. The respondent - Company therefore assured finance to the petitioner subject to execution of necessary documents, guarantee, mortgage etc. The respondent - Company through its Managing Director assured the petitioner to render finance and post dated cheques were drawn up on assurance that the necessary documents would be carried out for securing finance. Since the necessary documents were not executed by the petitioner, the petitioner - Company was called upon to return the original post dated cheques and instead of returning the said cheques the petitioner had presented the said cheques in the Bank. It is further stated that since there existed a dispute arising out of non execution of security documents and arising out of recall of cheques by the drawer and withholding of cheques by payee with a dishonest intention the respondent - Company had instructed the paying bankers to dishonour the cheque. Based on this returning of cheque, the present winding up petition was filed, with an intention that the amount of commission and brokerage should not be paid by the petitioner to the respondent Company. ( 4 ) IT is further stated that in the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 the petitioner had sent bulk drugs worth Rs. 40 lacs to M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical and therefore, the commission in respect of said amount was required to be deposited in the respondent - Company and therefore, as per agreed terms the said amount of commission being Rs. 5 lacs was sent by cheque and credited in the account of respondent - Company. 40 lacs to M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical and therefore, the commission in respect of said amount was required to be deposited in the respondent - Company and therefore, as per agreed terms the said amount of commission being Rs. 5 lacs was sent by cheque and credited in the account of respondent - Company. It is, therefore, stated that the payment of Rs. 5 lacs was towards commission in respect of delivery of the pharmaceutical drugs which was as per agreement arrived at between the parties. It is further stated that after the said cheques were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent - Company the petitioner was in need of finance and therefore the respondent Company being a finance company and due to the relationship between the parties has given two cheques to the petitioner. It is, therefore, stated that both these transactions are absolutely different and they have no connection with each other. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondent - Company had issued cheques to the petitioner and lent Rs. 2. 50 lacs by issuing the cheques on 5. 12. 1994 towards part payment of agreed loan of Rs. 4. 50 lacs. However, for the remaining amount of the finance which the petitioner - Company wanted, Rs. 2 lacs were to be paid by the respondent - Company and therefore, two post dated cheques were issued on 7. 2. 1995 and 8. 2. 1995 for an amount of Rs. 1 lac each. It is, therefore, submitted that no amount is due and payable by the respondent Company to the petitioner and hence the petition is required to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE petitioner had filed affidavit-in-rejoinder on 3. 7. 1998. It was submitted in the said rejoinder that the respondent - Company has concocted a story and misused the dual capacity of Mr. Sanjay K. Dhumal as Purchase Manager of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , and as Director of the respondent Company. It is also stated that the amount of Rs. 5 lacs was advanced by the petitioner to the respondent - Company not at the instances of Mr. Sanjay K. Dhumal but at the instance of Mr. Kirit Jain, Managing Director and Chairman of M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical Ltd. , and Director of the respondent - Company. It is also stated that the amount of Rs. 5 lacs was advanced by the petitioner to the respondent - Company not at the instances of Mr. Sanjay K. Dhumal but at the instance of Mr. Kirit Jain, Managing Director and Chairman of M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical Ltd. , and Director of the respondent - Company. It is further submitted that the petitioner has sold bulk drugs and chemicals to the aforesaid two Companies, however there was no question of payment of any commission or brokerage. The defence raised by the respondent - Company clearly constitutes perjury and it is required to be dealt with strictly. It is further stated that there was no practice of paying any commission or brokerage by the petitioner to any person much less the aforesaid two Companies with regard to any transaction. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed Company Petition No. 289/1997 against the Esskay Pharmaceutical Ltd. , and nowhere it is stated that any commission or brokerage was payable by the petitioner to the said two Companies. The fact regarding the payment of any commission of brokerage was not reflected in any of the books of account or financial transaction. The petitioner was never in need of any finance and therefore, there is no question of making any request for short term finance of Rs. 4. 50 lacs by the petitioner. It is stated that this was another fabricated story made by the respondent Company. It is further stated that the cheques were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund and not on the ground of stop payment made by the respondent Company. ( 6 ) SINCE the false and frivolous dispute was alleged to have been raised by the respondent - Company in the affidavit of its Director, this Court has passed an order on 4. 9. 1998 taking on record a photostat copy of true copy of Directors report dated 31. 5. 1995 of the respondent Company, with its balance sheet as on 31. 3. 1995. Schedule-VII to the balance sheet clearly shows that the respondent - Company has acknowledged the dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2. 50 lacs as part of the current liability. However, the name of the petitioner Company does not appear in schedule-V where the names of the debtors of the respondent - Company are mentioned. 3. 1995. Schedule-VII to the balance sheet clearly shows that the respondent - Company has acknowledged the dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2. 50 lacs as part of the current liability. However, the name of the petitioner Company does not appear in schedule-V where the names of the debtors of the respondent - Company are mentioned. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the Court that the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Sanjay K. Dhumal, Director of the respondent Company contained statements which are false to the knowledge of the deponent. In view of the said submissions, the Court has directed the said Mr. Sanjay K. Dhumal, Director of the respondent Company to show cause on 18. 9. 1998 as to why this Court should not pass order for initiating proceeding against him for perjury. ( 7 ) NO order was passed for perjury on 18. 9. 1998. Thereafter, an order was passed by this Court on 14. 10. 1998 in this petition and Company Petition No. 289 of 1997 recording statement of Mr. N. K. Majmudar learned advocate for the respondent - Company, in the presence of and under the instructions of Director - Mr. Sanjay K. Dhumal, that an overall settlement has been arrived at in respect of the claims made in both these petitions whereby an overall sum of Rs. 16 lacs was to be paid to the petitioning creditor. Furthermore, it was also agreed and so stated that the interest at the rate of 21% per annum shall be payable on the aforesaid amount on the diminishing balance. It was also clarified that further and incidental terms of the settlement shall be worked out later. It was on the basis of the said statement made and accordingly recorded, that learned counsel for the petitioning creditor agreed to an adjournment to 4. 11. 1998. ( 8 ) INSTEAD of making any payment, the respondent Company through its Director Mr. Sanjay K. Dhumal has filed another affidavit on 27. 9. 1998, wherein the facts stated in the earlier affidavit were reiterated. It was further stated that the deponent has not made any incorrect statement before this Court and had not even intended to misguide the Court. It is further stated that the entries in the balance sheet were made as per the practice and procedure for maintaining the books of account. It was further stated that the deponent has not made any incorrect statement before this Court and had not even intended to misguide the Court. It is further stated that the entries in the balance sheet were made as per the practice and procedure for maintaining the books of account. There was no intention to make any incorrect statement. It was further stated that the allegations with regard to perjury are absolutely baseless and incorrect. The deponent has also tendered unconditional apology to this Court, if the Court has developed any feeling that he has made any incorrect statement before this Court, it was further stated that the deponent has never intended to make any incorrect statement. ( 9 ) THIS Court has admitted petition on 1. 4. 1999 and also passed an order regarding publication of notice of admission of the petition in "indian Express" and "jansatta-Loksatta" both of Baroda Edition after 19. 4. 1999. The Court has also observed in the said order that further hearing of notice of perjury would also take place on 3. 5. 1999 and it was clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue of perjury. The Court, thereafter, extended time for publication of advertisement upto 22. 7. 1999. However, it has not come on record that the publication of advertisement was effected as directed by this Court. The Court, thereafter, on 18. 4. 2001 dismissed the Company Petition after observing that though the matter was listed 59 times learned advocate for the petitioner was not present and hence the petition stood dismissed for default. ( 10 ) THE petitioner, thereafter, moved Misc. Civil Application No. 8/2003 before this Court for restoration of the Company Petition No. 336/1997. However, the said application was also rejected by an order dated 7. 2. 2003 on the ground that there was inordinate delay of more than 600 days and no sufficient reason was shown for condonation of such delay. ( 11 ) THE said order was challenged by the petitioner in OJ Appeal No. 7/2003 before this Court and the Division Bench vide its order dated 28. 2. 2003 has allowed the said Appeal and restored the Company Petition No. 336/1997 to the file so as to decide the same in accordance with law. ( 11 ) THE said order was challenged by the petitioner in OJ Appeal No. 7/2003 before this Court and the Division Bench vide its order dated 28. 2. 2003 has allowed the said Appeal and restored the Company Petition No. 336/1997 to the file so as to decide the same in accordance with law. ( 12 ) AFTER restoration of the above petition, it has been notified for further hearing on different occasions. The Court has passed an order on 4. 12. 2003 and observed that inspite of the fact that the Company Petition was admitted in the year 1999 and the Court had even issued perjury notice on 4. 9. 1998, the respondent Company has not made any payment of the petitioners dues nor was Mr. Sanjay Dhumal, deponent of the affidavit-in-reply present before the Court. The Court, therefore, issued a bailable warrant for the sum of Rs. 5,000/- for securing personal presence of Mr. Dhumal. After service of the said bailable warrant, Mr. Dhumal remained personally present before the Court on 24. 12. 2003. The Court, thereafter, passed further order on 3. 5. 2004 and observed that in light of the order dated 1. 4. 1999 whereby the petition has been admitted and the direction for publication of advertisement has been made, Mr. D. V. Parikh learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has stated that accordingly advertisement has already been published on 19. 7. 1999. Mr. Parikh has further undertaken to verify the record and to place the same on record, if necessary affidavit for the same has not been filed. ( 13 ) IN the above view of the matter, this petition is taken up for final hearing and also to decide the question regarding launching of criminal prosecution against Mr. Dhumal for the alleged offence of perjury. Mr. Parikh learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not much concerned about the winding up of the respondent Company though the dues of the petitioner have not been paid till this date. He, however, insisted that this Court should direct the Registrar to launch the criminal prosecution for committing an offence of perjury against Mr. Dhumal Director of the respondent - Company, as he has filed false affidavits before this Court and misled the Court by placing false facts. He has further submitted that Mr. He, however, insisted that this Court should direct the Registrar to launch the criminal prosecution for committing an offence of perjury against Mr. Dhumal Director of the respondent - Company, as he has filed false affidavits before this Court and misled the Court by placing false facts. He has further submitted that Mr. Dhumal was well aware about the fact that the respondent - Company had to pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner and still he has put up his defence in the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent - Company has to recover the like amount from the petitioner, as the petitioner has agreed to pay commission and brokerage on the contracts received from the sister concern, with the help of the respondent Company. He has further submitted that false facts were placed not only before this Court but also before the BIFR. Though Mr. Dhumal has made statement before this Court on 14. 10. 1998 with regard to settlement of the claim of the petitioner against the respondent - Company as well as its sister concerned M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical Ltd. , in Company Petition No. 289/1997 and Company Petition No. 336/1997, it was stated before BIFR by letter dated 23. 7. 2002 that Mr. Sanjay Dhumal was neither a Director on Board of M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical on 14. 10. 1998 nor he committed anything on behalf of M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical Ltd. He has further submitted that though Mr. Nitin Shah was the shareholder of M/s. Esskay Pharmaceutical, it was stated before the Department of Company Affairs vide letter dated 24. 9. 1998 that the complainant Mr. Nitin Shah was not a shareholder of the Company and hence the complaint filed by him was no longer valid. As a matter of fact said Mr. Nitin Shah was very much shareholder of the Company and holding 500 shares bearing Distinctive Nos. 3955501 to 3956000. Regarding false defence raised before this Court by Mr. Dhumal on behalf of the respondent - Company, Mr. Parikh has submitted that the Court has already recorded these facts in its order dated 4. 9. 1998 and on that basis perjury notice was issued on Mr. Sanjay Dhumal. He has therefore submitted that this is the fit and appropriate case for issuing the direction to the Registrar to file criminal complaint against Mr. Sanjay Dhumal for committing offence of perjury. ( 14 ) MR. 9. 1998 and on that basis perjury notice was issued on Mr. Sanjay Dhumal. He has therefore submitted that this is the fit and appropriate case for issuing the direction to the Registrar to file criminal complaint against Mr. Sanjay Dhumal for committing offence of perjury. ( 14 ) MR. PARIKH in support of his submission has relied on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 S. C. 1795, wherein it is observed that "any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency of impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statement and fabricating false evidence in a court of law". ( 15 ) MR. PARIKH has further relied on decision of Honble Supreme Court in the Re. Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. ( 15 ) MR. PARIKH has further relied on decision of Honble Supreme Court in the Re. Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate, reported in AIR 2001 S. C. 2204, wherein it is held that "it is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further observed that the respondent in that case being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191, IPC punishable under Section 193, IPC. With the object to eradicating the evil of perjury, the Court empowered the Registrar General of the Honble Supreme Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Mr. Parikh has, therefore, submitted that following the said decision of Honble Supreme Court, this Court should also direct the Registrar to file criminal complaint against Mr. Sanjay Dhumal for committing an offence of perjury before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction". ( 16 ) MR. N. K. MAJMUDAR learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Company has submitted that as far as Company Petition is concerned, the disputed question of facts are involved and the respondent - Company has filed its affidavit through its Director stating that there was no amount due and payable by the Company to the petitioner, on the contrary the Company has to recover the amount from the petitioner. He has further submitted that though the order of admission and advertisement was passed by this Court and though the petitioner has undertaken to place these facts on record, publication of advertisement, till this date nothing has been produced and hence it is clear that no advertisement has been published by the petitioner. The petition therefore deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of want of prosecution and in any case since disputed question of facts are involved the winding up petition would not survive. ( 17 ) AS far as perjury notice is concerned, Mr. Majmudar has submitted that Mr. Dhumal in his affidavit on 27. 9. The petition therefore deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of want of prosecution and in any case since disputed question of facts are involved the winding up petition would not survive. ( 17 ) AS far as perjury notice is concerned, Mr. Majmudar has submitted that Mr. Dhumal in his affidavit on 27. 9. 1998 made it very clear that the petitioner was required to release the amount of instalment with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,50,000 and since the petitioner did not make the payment of aforesaid amount with interest, as a last resort the respondent informed the petitioner not to deposit two cheques of Rs. 1 lac each. Mr. Majmudar has further submitted that due to the relationship between the petitioner and respondent and since the petitioner was in need of Rs. 4,50,000/-, without execution of proper documents, the said amount was sent. He has further submitted that the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was sent by an Account Payee cheque which itself suggests that the said amount was sent by the respondent to the petitioner towards the amount of loan which the petitioner had requested for. He has further submitted that since there was no document in support of the aforesaid amount of loan transaction, as per the advise of Companys auditor, the amount of Rs. 5 lacs which was received by the respondent - Company towards commission and brokerage and which was shown in Schedule VII to current liability, includes the advances also and therefore the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was sent by respondent to the petitioner towards the loan amount was adjusted in Schedule- VII of current liability and only with a view to maintain proper account from Rs. 5 lacs the said Rs. 2,50,000/- was deducted and therefore an entry of Rs. 2,50,000/- was posted in Schedule-VII of current liability. He has further submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- which is shown as current liability in Schedule-VII is not an amount which is alleged by the petitioner in Company Petition as well as in affidavit-in-rejoinder. However, the said amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was the remaining amount of total commission of Rs. 5 lacs which was to be adjusted in the current liability and advances in Schedule-VII after adjusting Rs. 2,50,000/ -. However, the said amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was the remaining amount of total commission of Rs. 5 lacs which was to be adjusted in the current liability and advances in Schedule-VII after adjusting Rs. 2,50,000/ -. With regard to the Schedule-V of the balance sheet, he has submitted that the said amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given by the respondent Company to the petitioner. However, no written documents were executed in this regard and therefore the auditor has correctly treated the said amount in the single account while preparing balance sheet and shown the annual balance of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the current liability. Further explaining the aforesaid accounting position Mr. Dhumal has stated in his affidavit that he has not made any incorrect statement before this Court and never even intended to misguide this Court. Even without admitting the alleged charge of perjury he has tendered his unconditional apology if the Court has developed the feeling that he has made any incorrect statement before this Court. ( 18 ) MR. MAJMUDAR has further submitted that Mr. Dhumal has filed further affidavit on 28. 10. 2004, wherein he has stated that he has resigned from the Company vide communication dated 29. 3. 2003. He has further submitted that while he was Director of the Company, the present Company Petition came to be filed and he had filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent Company and considering the averments made in the winding up petition as well as the stand taken by the respondent Company, this Court has issued notice for showing cause as to why the proceedings for commission of offence of perjury should not be initiated. He has further submitted that pursuant to the said notice he has filed detailed affidavit on 27. 9. 1998, wherein he has tendered unconditional apology. In this affidavit he has also again tendered unconditional apology and prayed to shower mercy on him without going into the merits of the matter. He has further submitted that even at the relevant time after discussing the said stand with other Directors, affidavit came to be drafted and he has sworn for and on behalf of the Company. He therefore requested to the Court to drop the proceedings for an offence of perjury. He has also reiterated that he has never made any incorrect statement intentionally before this Court. He therefore requested to the Court to drop the proceedings for an offence of perjury. He has also reiterated that he has never made any incorrect statement intentionally before this Court. He has submitted that considering the ingredients of the offence of perjury even otherwise, no such ingredients were said to have been found and therefore he has requested to drop the proceedings. He has further submitted that he has now already resigned and accepted the job in another Company and he has to discharge the liability of looking after his wife and two kids and also of looking after the aged parents. Considering the fact that no intentional misstatement was ever made by him, the Court should shower mercy on him and drop the proceedings. ( 19 ) CONSIDERING the contents of the aforesaid two affidavits, Mr. Majmudar has strongly urged that the notice issued by this Court for the alleged offence of perjury against Mr. Dhumal, the then Director of the Company should be discharged. ( 20 ) AFTER having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after having gone through their pleadings as contained in main Company Petition, affidavit-in-reply, further affidavit, affidavit-in-rejoinder and after having given serious thoughts to the petitioners request to prosecute the Director of the respondent - Company for the alleged offence of perjury for making false statement in the affidavit filed before this Court, in light of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove, the Court is of the view that neither any case for winding up of the respondent - Company is made out nor any case for filing criminal complaint against the Director of the respondent - Company for the alleged offence of perjury is made out. It is true that despite the defence raised by the respondent - Company against the petitioners claim, a statement was made before this Court that the matter has been amicably settled and hence even if the Court ignores the said defence for the purpose passing up winding up order against the respondent Company, the fact still remains that the respondent Company has not complied with the statutory condition. A statement was made before the Court that the petition was admitted and duly advertised on 19. 7. 1999. Mr. A statement was made before the Court that the petition was admitted and duly advertised on 19. 7. 1999. Mr. Parikh learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has undertaken before this Court to verify record and place the same in record if necessary affidavit for the same has not been filed. The Court has gone through the entire record and also verified from the office and yet neither any affidavit in support of the publication of advertisement is on record nor the relevant newspaper cutting containing said advertisement are placed on record. Even after the said order passed on 3. 5. 2004, nothing is placed on the record so as to convince the Court that the advertisement has already been published. In absence of any documentary evidence placed on record the Court is not in a position to accept the oral submission that the advertisement has been duly published on 19. 7. 1999. The Court, therefore, without adjudicating the issue as to whether defence raised by the respondent - Company is a genuine and bonafide dispute, the Court dismisses this petition only on the ground of non observance of statutory requirements. ( 21 ) THIS will now lead to another issue which is hotly contested before the Court and that is with regard to filing of criminal complaint against the Director of the respondent - Company for the alleged offence of perjury. Though Mr. Parikh has strongly submitted that the averments made in the two affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondent - Company through its Director Mr. Sanjay Dhumal on 22. 2. 1998 and 27. 9. 1998 are absolutely false and frivolous and the deponent Mr. Dhumal knew the same to be false and frivolous, the Court cannot come to the conclusion straightway without recording evidence in this regard and without undergoing necessary trial for that purpose, that the facts stated and averments made therein are false and they are made only with a view to mislead this Court and same amounts to perjury under the provision of Indian Penal Code. The respondent - Company has every right to raise its defence in winding up petition filed against the Company. The respondent Company is also well within its purview to raise all plausible contentions before the Court. The respondent - Company has every right to raise its defence in winding up petition filed against the Company. The respondent Company is also well within its purview to raise all plausible contentions before the Court. The Court has to see as to whether such defence raised or such contention canvassed are merely sham, bogus, moonshine or illusory or there is any scope for consideration of the Court to examine such defence and/or contention raised before it. It is altogether a different thing that the defence raised by the respondent - Company may not be found favour with the Court or the Court may not be inclined to accept such defence. But, this by itself would not give any rise to an offence of perjury. Whether an amount of Rs. 5 lacs was given by the petitioner to the respondent Company by way of loan or whether the said amount was given towards payment of commission or brokerage for getting orders from the sister concern or whether the cheques given by the respondent - Company to the petitioner are towards repayment of the loan given by the petitioner to the respondent - Company or the same were towards the fresh loan given by the respondent - Company to the petitioner or whether bouncing of cheques was the out come of insufficiency of fund in the bank account or it was because of the stop payment made by the respondent Company - are the issues for which detailed inquiry and investigation is required and necessary evidence are to be led. Accounting entries may throw some light on this issue but they are not conclusive proofs. This Court while exercising its original jurisdiction under the Companies Act does not undertake such exercise. It is left to the competent Civil Court before whom trial takes place and evidence are led. Only after complete appreciation of the documents and evidence, the Court may come to the definite conclusion. Till such exercise is undertaken it is not possible for the Court to arrive at the conclusion that an offence of perjury is committed merely on the basis of some averments made in the affidavit filed before this Court. Only after complete appreciation of the documents and evidence, the Court may come to the definite conclusion. Till such exercise is undertaken it is not possible for the Court to arrive at the conclusion that an offence of perjury is committed merely on the basis of some averments made in the affidavit filed before this Court. The Court, therefore, is of the view that there is nothing on record which suggests that the deponent knew that the facts stated and averments made in the affidavits are not true and correct or that they are false and frivolous. This motive can be attributed only after undergoing full-fledged trial. The discrepancies which are pointed out by the petitioner with regard to other proceedings before BIFR do not lead the petitioners case any further. First of all the present deponent has not filed the affidavit or produced the details before BIFR towards which the attention of this Court was drawn and even otherwise the Court cannot take cognizance of those materials which are produced before the other adjudicating authorities. The decisions of the Honble Supreme Court which are cited before the Court and are heavily relied upon, are also not of much assistance to the petitioner, as in those cases the Court has come to a definite conclusion that false statements were made to the knowledge of the deponent in the affidavit filed before the Court and on the basis of the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court, as in the present case the Court is unable to arrive at such a conclusion. ( 22 ) CONSIDERING the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the broad parameter which are laid down for the purpose of initiation of criminal prosecution for the alleged offence of perjury, the Court is of the view that no such case is made out before the Court and notice issued by this Court earlier for initiation of the criminal proceeding for the alleged offence of perjury is hereby discharged. ( 23 ) THIS petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. .