Judgment :- This Company Petition is filed to wind up the respondent company and to appoint the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as the liquidator of the respondent company. .2. The petition averments are as under: .The petitioners original name was M/s. Tata SSL Ltd. and in that name they effected some supplies to the respondent from the year 2001 onwards. I respect of such supplies, the petitioner raised various invoices on the respondent amounting to a sum of Rs.33,50,386/-. The petitioner also raised interest debit note No.9037 dt.17. 1981 for Rs.4,99,014/-. Against the said amount, the respondent effected only part payment of Rs.4,54,542.81 and still a sum of Rs.31,51,399/- remain due and payable by the respondent. By a scheme amalgamation TATA SSL Ltd. merged with TATA Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. which was sanctioned by the Bombay High Court on 4. 2003 in C.P. No. 100 of 2003. As per the scheme, all the assets and the liabilities of TATA SSL Ltd. vested with Tata. Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. the petitioner herein. 3. The respondent failed to make any payment towards the balance amount and therefore sent a statutory notice of demand on 23..8.2004 calling upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.31,51,599/ . The notice was received by the respondent on 28. 2004, but no amount was paid by the respondent. The petitioner issued another notice in its present name dt.6.05.2005 and the same was returned with the postal endorsement "Co. closed". At the time of filing company petition, as per the petitioner, the respondent is due to pay a sum of Rs.66,17,937.90 and hence they prayed for winding up of the respondent company and appointing the Official Liquidator as the liquidator of the respondent company. 4. The respondent entered appearance through their counsel and filed counter affidavit. 5. The respondent stated that eh first notice issued in the name of TATA SSI Ltd. was not a valid notice as there was no such company on 23.04.2004. They also questioned the genuineness of the acknowledgment card on the ground that it does not disclose the current date and the year. The second notice sent by the petitioner in the present name was returned. Therefore, there was no acknowledgment of the statutory notice nor acknowledgment of alleged debts. They also questioned the genuineness of the acknowledgment card on the ground that it does not disclose the current date and the year. The second notice sent by the petitioner in the present name was returned. Therefore, there was no acknowledgment of the statutory notice nor acknowledgment of alleged debts. The respondent disputes the alleged debt as according to them the materials supplied by the petitioner were rejected and therefore the company petition is not maintainable The respondent also states that the claim itself is barred by limitation. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the company petition. .6. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating their earlier stand and praying for winding up of the company. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents and judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by letter dt.21.03.2002 the respondent admitted their liability and therefore they cannot deny their liability before the Company Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the second notice was sent to the current address of the company by registered post, therefore it is a valid service, even though the same was returned. For this submission, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1989(1) A.I.R.C.J. 29 (M/s.Madan & Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand). The learned counsel further added that the balance confirmation report submitted by the respondent on 17. 2002 will also prove the categorical admission of the liability by the respondent. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that a letter dt.21.03.2002 did not admit any specified amount and as the respondent company was maintaining a running account, they only received the balance confirmation report and the signature affixed in the report is only for the purpose of acknowledging the receipt of the report and not for admitting the liability. 10. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citation. 11. In a company petition filed for winding up of a company the petitioner has to first prove that the amount due is undisputed and admitted by the respondent company. 12. In this case, the petitioner relies on the Letter dt.21.03.2002 to prove that the due is admitted and undisputed by the respondent. 13. 11. In a company petition filed for winding up of a company the petitioner has to first prove that the amount due is undisputed and admitted by the respondent company. 12. In this case, the petitioner relies on the Letter dt.21.03.2002 to prove that the due is admitted and undisputed by the respondent. 13. A perusal of the letter would only show that the Deputy Manager of the respondent Company informed the petitioner company that they shall resume the normal production and shall start releasing the payments against the petitioners outstanding bills as per the understanding with the petitioner. 14. Therefore, this letter dt.21.03.2002 is not an unambiguous and categorical admission of a specified amount due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. 115. Similarly, the balance confirmation report dt.17. 2002 cannot also be said to be an unconditional admission of the debts by the respondent. 116. According to the respondent, they have rejected some materials supplied by the petitioner for which proper credit was not given by the petitioner. They have also filed certain letters in the additional typed set of papers to show that some materials were rejected and they asked for credit notes towards the value of the same. 117. In such circumstances, the above company petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, they have to approach the proper forum. 118. Coming to the question of proper service of statutory notice, I am of the considered view that once a notice is sent to the correct address by R.P.A.D., the notice is deemed to have been sent to the correct address as per statute. Hence, I am rejecting the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is statutory compliance of sending the notice before filing the petition. However, it is open to the respondent to prove that they have received the notice and also to prove that the R.P.A.D. was not sent as claimed by the petitioner before the appropriate forum if the petitioner files any litigation against the respondent in this regard. In the result, the C.P.No.54 of 2006 is dismissed.