ORDER 1. Both the Company Petitions are filed by the creditor of the respondent companies to wind up the respondent companies and to appoint the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as liquidator of the respondent companies to take charge and secure all the assets of the respondent companies and to pay costs. 2. As the petitioner in both the Company petitions and the issues involved are also one and the same, a common order is being passed to dispose of both the petitions. 3. C.P. No. 153 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner namely M/s. Eagle Speed Services (P.) Ltd. against the respondent company, by name, Sri Balaji Cylinders (P) Ltd. 4. The case of the petitioner in C.P. No. 153 of 2003 is that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of transporting goods to various places throughout the country and the respondent is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of LPG Cylinders and allied products. The respondent company was in need of the services of a transporter for transporting the cylinders from its factory to the premises of various oil companies. Therefore, the respondent approached the petitioner and an agreement was entered into between the parties for effecting such transportation. The petitioner agreed to offer a credit limit of Rs. 8 lakhs for a period of 30 days. It was also made clear to the respondent that once the credit limit has been reached, the petitioners were under no obligation to effect any further transportation, unless the earlier bills comprised in such credit limit was cleared. Further, as per the procedure agreed to between the parties, once cylinders were transported to various locations and received by the consignee, the respondent became liable to effect payment for such transaction. 5. Pursuant to the above stated agreement, the petitioner duly effected transportation to the satisfaction of the respondent and the petitioner issued various freight bills pursuant to the consignment effected for a total sum of Rs. 60,15,489/-. But, the respondent was irregular in effecting payments. But in good faith, the petitioner effected further transportation even though the credit limit of Rs. 8 lakhs was reached as per the request of the respondent company. 6. The respondent sent a letter, dated 4.9.2001, enclosing cheques for a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs, drawn in favour of the petitioner. 60,15,489/-. But, the respondent was irregular in effecting payments. But in good faith, the petitioner effected further transportation even though the credit limit of Rs. 8 lakhs was reached as per the request of the respondent company. 6. The respondent sent a letter, dated 4.9.2001, enclosing cheques for a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs, drawn in favour of the petitioner. But, the respondent requested the petitioner not to present the cheques but to return the same to them once payments were made by the respondent and they have also promised to clear the outstanding soon. On 2.11.2001, the respondent requested the petitioner to return these cheques since they have issued ‘stop payment instructions’ to the bank. Since no payment was made by the respondent, the petitioner presented the cheques for encashment. A cheque for Rs. 2.5 lakhs was cleared but the other cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs was dishonoured with instructions “stop payment”. Subsequently, all the attempts made by the petitioner to get the payments from the respondent were in vain. The petitioner sent a notice dated 30.1.2002, calling upon, the respondent to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 21,79,117,60. Though the notice was received by the respondent, no payment nor any response was received from the respondent. 7. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. 8. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Company Petition No. 153 of 2003 for winding up of the respondent company. 9. The respondent entered appearance through their counsel and filed a counter affidavit. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that there was a running account between the petitioner and the respondent and the balance sheet filed by the petitioner contains a lot of discrepancies. It is further stated in the counter that the respondent and its sister concern M/s. Srinvasa Cylinders (P) Ltd. (respondent in C.P. No.154 of 2003) engaged the petitioner to transport cylinders worth of Rs. 68,52,822.69 to the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Kashipur, in March 2001 and due to the negligence of the petitioner, some cylinders got damaged and because of that the IOC, Khasipur was holding the payment of Rs. 58,52,822.69 payable to the respondent company. 68,52,822.69 to the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Kashipur, in March 2001 and due to the negligence of the petitioner, some cylinders got damaged and because of that the IOC, Khasipur was holding the payment of Rs. 58,52,822.69 payable to the respondent company. Till now, the IOC has not paid the amount and the entire loss incurred by the respondent in the above transaction was only due to the deficiency in the services of the petitioner Company. 11. According to the respondent, the cheque mentioned by the petitioner was made only as a security with a specific instruction “not to present the cheque without the consent of the respondent.” 12. The petitioner filed a complaint before the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate Court in C.C. No. 5194 and 5195 of 2003 and the same is pending. It is further stated by the respondent that they are solvent and commercially viable and there is a bona fide dispute about its liability and therefore the company petition is not maintainable. 13. C.P. No. 154 of 2003 has been filed by the same petitioner in C.P. No. 153 of 2003, against M/s. Sree Srinivasa Cylinders (P) Ltd. which is a sister concern of the respondent in C.P. No. 153 of 2003. 14. The case of the petitioner in this C.P. No. 154 of 2003 is that they have a similar agreement with the respondent company and the petitioner issued various freight bills pursuant to the consignments effected for a total sum of Rs. 53,37,550/-. This respondent company is also not regular in making the payments. A letter dated 4.9.2001 was sent by the respondent, enclosing cheques for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs with a request not to present the cheques but to return the same to the respondent once the payments were made by them. On 2.11.2001, the respondent requested the petitioner to return the cheques as they issued “Stop payment” instructions to their bank. Since no payment was made by the respondent, the petitioner presented the cheques for encashment, but they were dishonoured. As on the date of filing of the petition, a sum of Rs. 12,21,878.58 was due and payable by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice dated 13.6.2002 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount. Though the respondent received the notice, no payment was made nor any response was received from the respondent. 15. As on the date of filing of the petition, a sum of Rs. 12,21,878.58 was due and payable by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice dated 13.6.2002 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount. Though the respondent received the notice, no payment was made nor any response was received from the respondent. 15. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent is unable to pay its debt within the meaning of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. Hence, this C.P. No. 154 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner, for winding up of the respondent company. 16. A counter affidavit was also filed by the respondent in C.P. No. 154 of 2003, wherein it is stated that there was a running account between the parties and the balance sheet filed by the petitioner contains a lot of discrepancies. Here also, the respondent made the very same allegation that the respondent and its sister concern M/s. Sree Balaji Cylinders (P) Ltd. (respondent in C.P. No. 153 of 2003) engaged the services of the petitioner to transport cylinders to I.O.C., Khasipur and due to the negligence of the petitioner some of the cylinders were damaged, resulting in I.O.C. Withholding the entire payment payable to the respondent. In this counter also, a reference was made to the pending complaint before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court and it is reiterated that there is a bona fide dispute with regard to the liability and therefore, the Company petition is not maintainable. 17. On 1.2.2008, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent companies in both the company petitions, stating that the petitioner is falsely claiming the alleged dues from the respondent companies. It is stated therein that the petitioner is relying on the letter dated 4.9.2001, sent by the respondents, to establish “accepted liability” amounting to a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. It is further stated that the failure of the respondent to pay the outstanding amount to the petitioner, is due to the dispute that arose between the respondents and the I.O.C., with regard to the damaged consignment delivered by the petitioner. It is further pointed out that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was already paid to the petitioner company by means of various payments in instalments between. 2004 and 2005 i.e., when the above Company petitions were filed. Hence, as the admitted liability of Rs. It is further pointed out that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was already paid to the petitioner company by means of various payments in instalments between. 2004 and 2005 i.e., when the above Company petitions were filed. Hence, as the admitted liability of Rs. 15 lakhs was already paid, the respondent sought for the dismissal of both the petitions. A statement was also enclosed along with the affidavit which shows that various payments have been affected by the respondents between 12.5.2004 and 29.11.2005. 18. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions and also the judgments referred to by them thereto. 19. First, let me consider the judgment relied on by both the learned counsel to cull out the legal principles involved therein. 20. In Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1971 SC 2600 : (1971) 3 SCC 632 relied on by the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “This Court in amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami and Another dealt with a petition to wind up the company on the ground that the company was indebted to the petitioner there for a sum of Rs. 1,750 being the net dividend amount payable on 25 equity shares which sum the company failed and neglected to pay inspite of notice of demand. There were other shareholders supporting the winding up on identical grounds. The company alleged that there was no debt due and that the company was in a sound financial position. The resolution of the company declaring a dividend made the payment of the dividend contingent on the receipt of the commission from two sugar mills. The commission was not received till the month of May 1960: The resolution was in the month of December, 1959. Under Section 207 of the Companies Act a company was required to pay a dividend which had been declared within three months from the date of the declaration. A company cannot declare a dividend payable beyond three months. This Court held that the non-payment of dividend was bona fide disputed by the company. It was not a dispute to hide its inability to pay the debts. Two rules are well settled. A company cannot declare a dividend payable beyond three months. This Court held that the non-payment of dividend was bona fide disputed by the company. It was not a dispute to hide its inability to pay the debts. Two rules are well settled. First if the debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the Court will not wind up the company. The Court has dismissed a petition for the company and the company contended that no price had been agreed upon and the sum demanded by the creditor was unreasonable (see London and Paris Banking Corporation). Again, a petition for winding up by a creditor who claimed payment of any agreed sum for work done for the company when the company contended that the work fed not been done properly was not allowed. Where the debt is undisputed the Court will not act upon a defence that, the company has the ability to pay the debt but the company chooses not to pay that particular debt. (See Re. A Company 94 S.J. 369). Where however there is no doubt that the company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to a winding up order but the exact amount of the debt entitling him to a winding up order but the exact amount of the debt is disputed the Court will make a winding up order without requiring the creditor to quantify (sic) the debt precisely (See Re. Tweeds Garages Ltd.).The principles on which the Court acts are first that the defence of the company is in good faith and one of substance, secondly, the defence is likely to succeed in point of law and thirdly the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends.” 21. In the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court will not wind up the company if the debt is bona fidely disputed and where, the debt is undisputed, the Court will not act upon a defence that the company has the ability to pay the debts, but the Company chooses not to pay that particular debt, but the defence of the company must be in good faith and one of substance. Further, the defence is likely to succeed in point of law and the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends. 22. In (1996) 86 Comp. Further, the defence is likely to succeed in point of law and the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends. 22. In (1996) 86 Comp. Case 610 (Del) , the Delhi High Court held that the mere omissions of the respondent company to comply with the statutory notices and in not sending any replies to the communications already given by the petitioner company would hot mean that the respondent company has admitted the liability. 23. In S.N. Steel Corporation v. Dany Dairy and Food Engineers Ltd. (1992) 73 Comp. Cases 357 the Allahabad High Court held that if the balance amount is seriously disputed and the payment has not been made by the company, then it will not be a case falling under Section 433(3) of the Companies Act. 24. In Percept Advertising and Another v. Secunderabad Health Care Ltd. (1996) 91 Comp. Cases 591 (A.P.), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the question of admitting the petition for winding up depends upon the facts of each case. If the respondent has paid its admitted liability and producing a balance sheet showing surplus in the profit and Loss Account, the company petition would not be admitted and the petitioner would approach only the appropriate forum to establish their claim. 25. In Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Micro Forge (India) Ltd. (2001) 104 Comp. Cases 533 , the Gujarat High Court held as under: “20. Certain important chronicles and contours to be kept in the mental radar, before reaching the conclusion in a winding up petition can be articulated as under: (1) The remedy under Section 433 in general and under Clause (e) in particular is not a matter of right; as such, and it is the discretion of the company Court. It does not confer any right on any person to seek order that the company should be wound up. It is a provision empowering the Court by a statutory provision to pass an order of winding up in an appropriate case. (2) Merely because any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 433 of the Companies Act exists, the Court is not bound to order winding up of the company. Nobody can aspire to wind up the company as a matter of course. (2) Merely because any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 433 of the Companies Act exists, the Court is not bound to order winding up of the company. Nobody can aspire to wind up the company as a matter of course. The Court has wide power and discretion, in this connection, inability to pay debts is required to be judged from various sets of facts and circumstances. It may also be stated that inability to pay debts in all cases, ipso facto, could not he construed as an appropriate case for winding up. (3) A debt is money which is payable or will be payable in future by reasons of a person’s obligation. The expression “debt” would refer to liability to pay and it rests on certain contingencies, conditions and casualities. Even if the debt is proved and even if the inability to pay the debt is also show, it is not a launching pad, in all cases, for a successful winding up order. Inability may arise for a variety of reasons and the Court is obliged to consider whether the inability is the outcome of any deliberate or designed action or mere temporary shock and effect: of economy and market. In a given case, it may happen that a party may become unable to pay its debts for a while, but that by itself is not a criterion for exercise of the power to wind up, ipso facto. (4) It is necessary for the company Court to consider the financial status, strength and substratum of the company, in the overall context. It is possible, at time, that there may be a cash crunch. It may be also, possible, at times, that there is temporary cash crisis despite high sales and heavy turnover and, therefore, in such a situation, mere disability or only on the ground of inability to pay would not constitute a ground empowering the Court to wind up the company. (5) If the company is an ongoing concern having regular business and employment of employee, the Court cannot remain oblivious to this aspect. The effect of winding up would be of putting an end to the business or an industry or an enterpreneurship and, in turn, resulting in loss of employment to several employees and loss of production and effect oh the larger interest of the society. The effect of winding up would be of putting an end to the business or an industry or an enterpreneurship and, in turn, resulting in loss of employment to several employees and loss of production and effect oh the larger interest of the society. (6) Even dividend declared by the company regularly and having profit in the light of the profit and loss account, though temporary, there may be inability to pay the debt or in the case of any eventuality, the company is unable to make the payment of dues and that by itself could not be construed as a ground to wind it up. (7) Winding up of a company, as such, is nothing but a commercial death or insolvency and, therefore, the company Court is obliged to take into consideration not only the temporary inability, or disability to make the payment of debts, but the entire status and position of the company in the market. (8) When grounds on which the winding up order can be denied, upon an evaluation of the facts of the case, after admission, exist from the record already placed before the Court, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to reject the petition instead of admitting it. This view is very much celebrated. (9) Inability to pay debts in terms of Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(a) demand of the debt would raise a presumption as to inability to pay its debts. But such a presumption is rebuttable. Such a presumption may be rebutted on existing material and what evidence is sufficient depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. (10) If the company has shown considerable growth in a reasonable span and is a growth oriented enterprise, even in a case of temporary inability would not be sufficient to drive it to winding up. (11) Though, ordinarily, an unpaid creditor may aspire for an order of winding up, the “ex debito justitiae” rule is not of inflexible mandate, but is as such a matter of discretion of the Court. (12) Section 433 is also indicative of the fact that even if one or mere grounds mentioned in Section 433 exist, it is not obligatory for the Court to make an order of winding up. The Court has discretionary power. (12) Section 433 is also indicative of the fact that even if one or mere grounds mentioned in Section 433 exist, it is not obligatory for the Court to make an order of winding up. The Court has discretionary power. The Court must in each case exercise its discretion in deciding whether in the circumstance of the case, it would be in the interest of justice to wind up the company. It is a well known rule of prudence that even in a case where indebtedness to the petitioning person is undisputed, the Court does not pass an order for winding up where it is satisfied that it would not be in the larger interest of justice to wind up the company. (13) It is also well settled that a winding up order shall not be made on a creditor’s petition, if it would not benefit him or the company’s creditors in general. (14) The Court is also obliged to consider that it would be in the interest of justice to give the company some time to come out of the momentary financial crisis or any other temporary difficulty as winding up is a measure of last resort. (15) Winding up course cannot be adopted as a recourse to recovery of the debt. (16) The Court must bear in mind one more celebrated principle and consider whether the company has reached a stage where it is obviously and plainly and commercially insolvent, that is to say, that its assets are such and its existing liabilities are such as to make the Court feel clearly satisfied that current assets would be insufficient to meet the current liabilities, along with other principles. (17) It is also necessary to consider whether the respondent-company has become defunct or has closed its business, for quite some time, whether it is commercially insolvent. For the purpose of finding commercial insolvency, a mere look into the financial data is relevant to examine about its soundness. In all matters relating to winding up, the Court may have regard to the wishes of the creditors and contributories and may, if necessary, ascertain their wishes appropriately. If the company is solvent, the wishes of the contributories would carry more weight as they are persons, mainly, interested in the assets. In all matters relating to winding up, the Court may have regard to the wishes of the creditors and contributories and may, if necessary, ascertain their wishes appropriately. If the company is solvent, the wishes of the contributories would carry more weight as they are persons, mainly, interested in the assets. (18) The element of public policy in regard to commercial morality has, likewise, to be taken into account before determining the winding up issue. The Court has also to consider the purpose and policy behind Sections 443 and 557 of the Companies Act, (19) Winding up is the last thing the Court would do and not the first thing to do having regard to its impact and consequences. Winding up of a company would ensure: (a) closing down of a company which is engaged in production or manufacture or which provide some services; (b) it would throw out of employment numerous persons and result in gross hardship to the members of families of the employees; (c) loss of revenue to the State by way of collection of taxes which otherwise should have been collected, on account of customs, excise duties, sales tax, income tax, etc.; (d) scarcity of goods and diminishing of employment opportunities. (20) A winding up petition has to be submitted in the prescribed form highlighting all the facts and emphasising the inability of the company to pay its debts. The form prescribed under the Companies (Court) Rules, clearly, indicates that the petitioner should, provide all the necessary material particulars. The petitioner is obliged to show that the financial status or the monetary substratum or the commercial viability of the company has gone so low and down that winding up is obviously, and evidently, unavoidable. (21) It is a settled proposition of law that a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce the payment of a debt which is disputed by the company, bona fide A winding up petition ought not to be aimed at pressurising the company to pay the money. Such an attempt would be nothing but tantamount to blackmailing or stigmatising the concerned company by abusing the process of the Court. (22) A winding up petition is not an appropriate mode enforcing bona fide disputed debts and it is nothing but misuse and abuse of the process of the Court. Such an attempt would be nothing but tantamount to blackmailing or stigmatising the concerned company by abusing the process of the Court. (22) A winding up petition is not an appropriate mode enforcing bona fide disputed debts and it is nothing but misuse and abuse of the process of the Court. (23) A winding up petition is not an alternative form for resolving the debt dispute. In certain cases disputes are such that they are fit for resolving through the civil Court rather than through the Company Court. (24) What is bona fide and what is not is a question of fact. The expression “bona fide” would mean genuine, in good faith and when a dispute is based on substantial grounds or when a defence in probable and with some substance, it is a bona fide dispute. It must be strictly noted that a winding up petition is not an alternative to a civil suit.” 26. In Mediqup Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Proxima Medical System G.M.B.H. AIR 2005 SC 4175 : (2005) 7 SCC 42 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “18. This Court in catena of decisions held that an order under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act is discretionary. There must be a debt due and the company must be unable to pay the same. A debt under this action must be a determined or a definite sum of money payable immediately or at a future date and that the inability referred to the expression ‘unable to pay its dues’ in Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act should be taken in the commercial sense and that the machinery for winding up will not be allowed to be utilized merely as a means for realising debts due from a company. 19. The respondent is not a creditor and the appellant is not a debtor insofar as US$ 1100 is concerned. The defence raised by the appellant is a substantial one and not mere moonshine which is to be finally adjudicated upon on merits before the appropriate forum. 20. Section 433 of the Companies Act says, “A company may be wound-up by the Court (a) to (d).......... (e) if the company is unable to pay its debts; (f).......... from the above it follows: (1) There must be a debt; and (2) The company must be unable to pay the same. 20. Section 433 of the Companies Act says, “A company may be wound-up by the Court (a) to (d).......... (e) if the company is unable to pay its debts; (f).......... from the above it follows: (1) There must be a debt; and (2) The company must be unable to pay the same. (3) An order under clause (e) is discretionary.” 21. The debt under Section 433 of the Companies Act must be a determined or a definite sum of money payable immediately or at a future date. We are informed that the financial position of the appellant is sound. 23. The Bombay High Court has laid down the following principles in Softsule (P) Ltd. Re. (1977) 47 Com. Cases 438 (Bom) “Firstly, it is well settled that a winding up petition is not legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of a debt which is bona fide disputed by the company. If the debt is not disputed on some substantial ground, the Court/Tribunal may decide it on the petition and make the order. Secondly, if the debt is bona fide disputed, there cannot be “neglect to pay” within the meaning of Section 433(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956 if there is no neglect, the deeming provision does not come into play and the winding up on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debt is not substantiated. Thirdly, a debt about the liability to pay which at the time of the service of the insolvency notice, there is a bona fide dispute, is not ‘due’ within the meaning of Section 434(1) (a) and non-payment of the amount of such a bona fide disputed debt cannot be termed as “neglect to pay” the same so as to incur the liability under Section 433 (e) read with Section 434(1) (a) of the Companies Act 1956. Fourthly, one of the considerations in order to determine whether the company is able to pay its debts or not is whether the company is able to meet its liabilities as and when they accrue due. Whether it is commercially solvent means that the company should be in a position to meet its liabilities as and when they arise.” 24. The Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Rim and Accessories (P) Ltd. (1990) 3 Comp. Whether it is commercially solvent means that the company should be in a position to meet its liabilities as and when they arise.” 24. The Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Rim and Accessories (P) Ltd. (1990) 3 Comp. LJ 322 (326) (Mad) has evolved the following principles relating to bona fide disputes: (i) If there is a dispute as regards the payment of the sum towards principal however small that sum may be, a petition for winding up is not maintainable and the necessary forum for determination of such a dispute existing between parties is a Civil Court. (ii) The existence of a dispute with regard to payment of interest cannot at all be construed as existence of a bona fide dispute relating the parties to a Civil Court and in such an eventuality, the Company Court itself is competent to decide such a dispute in the winding up proceedings; and (iii) If there is no bona fide dispute with regard to the sum payable towards the principal, it is open to the creditor to resort to both the remedies of filing a civil suit as well as filing a petition for winding up of the company. 25. The Rules as regards the disposal of winding up petition based on disputed claims are thus stated by this Court in Madhusudun Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1972) 42 Com. Cases 125 ; AIR 1971 SC 2600 . This Court has held that if the debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the Court will not wind up the company. The principles on which the Court acts are: (i) that the defence of the company is in good faith and one of substance; (ii) the defence is likely to succeed in point of law; and (iii) the company adduces, prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends.” 27. In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that if the defence raised by the respondent is a substantial one, not a moonshine, then the parties would adjudicate the matter before the appropriate forum only. 28. The Supreme Court further held, if the debt in bona fidely disputed one, and the defence is substantial, the Court will not wind up the company. 29. 28. The Supreme Court further held, if the debt in bona fidely disputed one, and the defence is substantial, the Court will not wind up the company. 29. In the light of the above legal parameters, now, let me consider the facts of the present case: Though the petitioner company filed Company petition, contended that a huge amount is due and payable by the respondent company, they have not produced documents to establish their liability. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner is relying on the letter dated 4.9.2001, in C.P. No. 153 of 2003 and 154 of 2003 to show the accepted liability of the respondent company. Now, it is an admitted fact that after the Company petitions were filed, the respondent cleared the admitted liability in instalments during the period 12.5.2004 to 29.11.2005. The statement of payment filed by the respondent company along with affidavit dated 30.1.2008 was not disputed by the petitioner company, even though the petitioner company was served with a copy of the statement. 30. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent companies are able to clear their debts which was admitted by them, and with regard to the balance amount, I find they are disputed bona fide by the respondents on the ground that they were involved with a dispute with I.O.C., for supplying the damaged cylinders which were transported by the petitioners. 31. As the admitted liability was paid by the respondents and as they are disputing the balance amount, following the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Company (supra) and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mediqup Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Proxima Medical System G.M.B.H. (supra), I am inclined to dismiss the Company petitions and accordingly C.P. No. 153 and 154 of 2003 are dismissed with no costs. 32. It is open to the petitioner to establish their claim in the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. Company petitions dismissed.