JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The petitioner has sought winding up of the respondent-Company on the ground that it is unable to pay the admitted debts. 2. The respondent is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act) as a Public Limited Company, engaged in the manufacturing of sewing machines. 3. Earlier on 5.9.2003, the petition was ordered to be admitted when none appeared for the respondent. On an application for recall of the order of admission, this Court ordered stay of the order of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Since the earlier order was exparte, I have heard learned counsel for the parties as to whether the order of admission is liable to be recalled. 4. The respondent purchases "pig iron" on 30 days credit basis. The respondent was transacting with the petitioner since April, 1997. All the co- signments were being despatched alongwith the invoice-cum-challan bills in conformity and in compliance with the purchase orders, issued by the respondent. The respondent was accepting the consignments of pig iron without any demur. Keeping in view demands made by the respondent from time to time, a sum of Rs. 24,08,509/-, is the amount outstanding due and payable by the respondent towards supply of "pig iron" along with interest on the delayed payment. It is further pointed that notices were sent on 30.6.2001 and 29.1.2002 on behalf of the petitioner through its Advocates but no reply was received. Still later, statutory notice as contemplated under Section 434 of the Act, was issued on 19.9.2002 for not making payment towards the supply of pig iron. The respondent has not responded to the said notice as well. Since the respondent failed to settle the account of the petitioner to its satisfaction, the petitioner sought the winding up of the respondent company. 5. The stand of the respondent is that it is a member of Industrial Organisation Association of Batala Small Industries. The said association negotiates price of bulk orders with a pig iron suppliers and after collecting requirements of its constituent members, would pass on the ordered requirements of the members to pig iron suppliers at the negotiated price. It is pointed out that the respondent was the largest manufacturer of sewing machines. After placing orders for the bulk quantity at the negotiated price of Rs. It is pointed out that the respondent was the largest manufacturer of sewing machines. After placing orders for the bulk quantity at the negotiated price of Rs. 8,200/- per metric ton, the respondent worked out cost of sewing machines and announced uniform selling price of its sewing machines throughout India. The cost of raw material at a point of time constituted and formed the very basis for the business activity of the respondent in respect of specific ordered quantity. 6. Reference is made to an order to 150 trucks of pig iron (approximately 2700 metric ton) out of which respondent received only 36 trucks of quantity (630 MT). Since the rates of pig iron went up by Rs. 700/- per metric ton, the petitioner stopped supplying the raw material at the negotiated price with the result that the business of the respondent came to be faced with immediate closure. Still further reference is made to a receipt of Rs. 8 lacs by way of a demand draft by the petitioner for the supply of pig iron and letter dated 8.9.1997, whereby the respondent brought the matter to the notice of the President of the Association. 7. It is further mentioned that on 6.5.1997, the respondent placed an order to 3000 metric ton pig iron at the negotiated price of Rs. 8,250/- per metric ton inclusive of excise, CST and the freight was to be paid by the respondent. 5/6 Trucks were supplied on daily basis. Against the ordered quantity, the respondent received 224.130 metric ton but the balance was not supplied. Reference is made to the assurance given by Shri Sandeep Kaul, Local Manager and Shri H.L. Jaiswal, General Manager of the petitioner to adjust and reimburse for the losses incurred by the respondent and to make up the short supply and future supply gradually. Reference is also made to adjustment made by the petitioner @ Rs. 93.50 per metric ton. Reference is made to payment of Rs. 16,15,546/- vide letter dated 6.7.1997 after making adjustment on account of rate difference @ Rs. 99.50 per metric ton as well. It is the case of the respondent that the respondent continued to pursue, the matter on settlement of the reimbursement of the rate difference for the short supply of 2775.870 metric ton relating to order dated 6.5.1997, but on 8.9.1997, it was communicated that the amount of Rs. 99.50 per metric ton as well. It is the case of the respondent that the respondent continued to pursue, the matter on settlement of the reimbursement of the rate difference for the short supply of 2775.870 metric ton relating to order dated 6.5.1997, but on 8.9.1997, it was communicated that the amount of Rs. 20,74,962.82p is required to be reimbursed by the petitioner to the respondent. It is pointed out that inspite of undertaking to issue credit note for the sum of Rs. 20,74,962.82p the credit notes were not sent and as a gesture of goodwill and cooperation; the respondent continued to deal with the petitioner. The respondent could not afford the closure of its unit for want of raw material. Reference is made to various demands made by the respondent thereafter till May 2000. It was the stand of the respondent that the written notices were sent and the same had neither been pursued nor acted upon. The statutory notice was denied to be received by any authorized person or that it ever came to the notice of the Managing Director. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and am of the opinion that the defence of the respondent lacks bona fide. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the goods were supplied from the year 1997 till the year 2000. The rates per metric ton varied from Rs. 6,261/- to Rs. 7,405/- per metric ton, apart from excise duty ranging from 15 to 16 per cent. It is pointed out that except two consignments in the month of May, 2000 of less than 20 tons and another two consignments dated 2.6.2000 of 15 metric ton, the rate of other quantity is less than Rs. 8,000/- per metric ton. In fact, while taking up a stand that the rate settled was Rs. 8,200/- per metric ton, the respondent has not mentioned the date on which such negotiated price was arrived at and the duration for which such price was accrued upon. There is nothing on record to suggest that the rates claimed by the petitioner were more than Rs. 8,200/- per metric ton at any point of time except to the extent of four consignments mentioned above. There is nothing on record to suggest that the rates claimed by the petitioner were more than Rs. 8,200/- per metric ton at any point of time except to the extent of four consignments mentioned above. In fact, the entire controversy sought to be raised by the respondent revolves around purchase order dated 6.5.1997 (Annexure R.2) for the purchases of 3000, metric tons of the pig iron. Though reference is made to the demand of Rs. 5,000/- per metric ton in respect of the said purchase order, but the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 16,15,546/- along with the said letter. On 8.9.1997 (Annexure R.6), the respondent claimed an amount of Rs. 20,74,962.82p for adjustment in the future supply as far as possible. Inspite of the fact that such letter was written, the respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 3 lacs vide demand draft on 18.3.1998 (Annexure R.7), while reiterating the demand of Rs. 20,74,962.82p. If the amount of over Rs. 20 lacs was payable as per the stand of the respondent, then it goes beyond comprehension as to why the amount of Rs. 3 lacs was paid. In Annexure R.8 demand of Rs. 20 lacs is reiterated but vide Annexure R. 10, the payment made is of over Rs. 9 lacs vide three different cheques, two of them being : 14.1.1999 for the sum of Rs. 3 13,690/- and 18.1.1999 for the sum of Rs. 3,31,260/- Vide Annexure R.11 dated 19.12.1998 three post dated cheques dated 5.2.1999, 21.2.1999 and 24.2.1999 have been issued again for a total sum of over Rs. 450,000/-. Vide Annexure R.12 the petitioner has sought the return of the four cheques issued in the year 1999. The perusal of the, documents produced, leaves no manner of doubt that certain letters particularly Annexures R.6, R.7 and R.8 are, the letters introduced by the respondent Company for the purpose of creating a defence of the present petition. If over Rs. 20 lacs were payable by the petitioner, it goes beyond comprehension that the respondent will continue to make the payment to the petitioner. In addition thereto, the Company has not given any reply, to the two notices served by the petitioner on 30.6.2001 and 29.1.2002. If over Rs. 20 lacs were payable by the petitioner, it goes beyond comprehension that the respondent will continue to make the payment to the petitioner. In addition thereto, the Company has not given any reply, to the two notices served by the petitioner on 30.6.2001 and 29.1.2002. Even if the said notices were not statutory, a demand was being raised, by the petitioner and it was expected of the Company to take the stand which is sought to be taken by the respondent before this Court. It only shows that the stand taken by the respondent in the written statement is an afterthought and has been introduced only for the purpose of raising a plea. The respondent has sought to create a smokescreen of the defence without any basis. Still further the statutory notice has been addressed at the registered office of the Company. There is a presumption of the delivery of the said notice. No reply to such statutory notice has been given. The averments made in the written statement are evasive. The respondent Company has not come out with clean and categorical stand. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is unable to pay its admitted liabilities. 10. In view thereof, I do not find any substance in the plea raised by the respondents for recall of the order of admission. 11. The factum of admission be re-published in the newspaper. The Indian Express & Punjabi Tribune and Punjab Government Official Gazette. 12. List on 7.9.200 for further proceedings. Petition allowed.