JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : This is an application under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the opp.party - company and appointing the Official Liquidator as the Liquidator. 2. On receipt of the notice of this case, the opp.party - company filed an objection to the petition for winding up, sup¬ported by affidavit, along with Misc. Case No.69 of 2001, wherein the opp. party - company has prayed to consider the question of limitation at the time of admission of the petition as a prelimi¬nary issue and to dismiss the petition on that ground, since the claim lodged by the petitioner is barred by time. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the opp.party - company since April, 1991 took raw materials like groundnut oil cake, groundnut, Deoiled rice bran etc. in huge quantity on credit, from the petitioner’s firm for preparation/manufacture of cattle and poultry feed in its factory. It is the further case of the petitioner that by 31.3.1994, an amount of Rs. 5,21,142.23 was outstanding against the opp. party - company towards payment, for consideration of such raw materials supplied by the petition¬er and on repeated requests the opp. party - company did not clear up the heavy arrear amount. It is further stated that on 31.3.1994 the Managing Director of the opp. party - company came to the petitioner’s firm and presented 15 nos. of pre-dated cheques drawn on Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Branch which were within its validity period, for a total sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- and assured the petitioner that as soon as the cheques would be presented, it will be cleared. On good faith, the petitioner ini¬tially presented only six cheques out of those 15 cheques total¬ing to a sum of Rs.54,400/- in its bank account at Andhra Bank. But all the six cheques were dis-honoured and returned back to the petitioner. It is stated that in order to avoid prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the opp. party - company after handing over the cheques instructed its banker to stop payments of those cheques. It also appears from the petition that on ac¬count of dis-honour of the cheques, the petitioner has filed a complaint case being I.C.C. Case No.91 of 1994 in which cogni¬zance has been taken. party - company after handing over the cheques instructed its banker to stop payments of those cheques. It also appears from the petition that on ac¬count of dis-honour of the cheques, the petitioner has filed a complaint case being I.C.C. Case No.91 of 1994 in which cogni¬zance has been taken. The said order of cognizance was challenged by the op.party - company before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.38 of 1995 which was ultimately dismissed by this Court by order dated 23.8.1996. The petitioner claims to have ultimate¬ly issued a notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 which has been served on the Opp.party - Company. Therefore, on the ground that the admitted debt has not been cleared up by the opp.party - company, the petitioner seeks an order for winding up of the opp.party - company. 4. In the objection filed by the opp. party - company, it has filed its audited balance-sheet for the financial year ending 31.3.1997 to show that it has no dues/outstanding to be paid to the petitioner. With regard to the cheques issued in favour of the petitioner, the opp. party - company has relied upon the statement of P.W.1 examined on behalf of the petitioner in the complaint case being I.C.C. No. 91 of 1994 filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the said P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the petitioner in the case. While being cross-examined, he has stated that the petitioner has re¬ceived the money under the cheques disputed in the said case by way of cash in lieu of cheques, along with the money for the other cheques, which were given by the opp.party - company as security for purchasing of raw materials on credit. The opp.party - company, therefore, has pleaded that even though all money was paid to the petitioner with a mala fide intention to maline the good-will of the opp.party-company and with an intention to make illegal gain, on demand of the opp.party-company, the petitioner refused to return the said cheques in question and presented some of the cheques for encashment, for which finding no other alternative, the opp.party - company instructed his banker to stop payment of the said cheques. 5. 5. In view of such pleadings of the parties, as stated above, it is clear that the opp. party-company has raised a bona fide dispute to the claim made by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the opp.party - company has further stated that except giving details of the cheques, in the peti¬tion, no particulars of any liability has been pleaded by the petitioner and the opp.party - company having stated in its objection as well as in its reply to the notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 that it has no liability, whatsoever, for making any payment to the petitioner, the petition is miscon¬ceived and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the opp.party - company relied upon a catena of decisions in support of his contention that once there is a bona fide dispute to the debt, the Company Court should not pass an order of winding up. In my view, the same being still a settled principle of law, it would be academic to refer to the decision on that question. 8. As I find the claim of the petitioner has been disputed bona fide by the opp.party - company, I am of the view that no winding up order can be passed against the opp.party - company and accordingly, this Company Act Petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.