JUDGMENT H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.— These three petitions are filed under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the Respondent-company. 2. The Petitioners in these petitions are creditors of the Respondent-company. The Respondent-company is common in all these petitions. The prayer in all these three petitions is for winding up of the Respondent-company. Hence this common order. 3. The Respondent-company is a registered company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Respondent-company is engaged in manufacture and sale of computers, its accessories, development of software and training of technologists, etc. 4. The Petitioner in C.P. No. 89 of 2008 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing servers and other electronic equipment. The Respondent-company had taken on lease the computer systems and peripherals on payment of monthly rent from the Petitioner-company with effect from April, 2004. Out of 51 computer systems leased by the Petitioner-company, the Respondent returned 33 computer systems and the remaining 18 computers are not returned. The Petitioner-company further contends that the Respondent-company has not paid the entire rentals to the Petitioner-company. As per the statement of accounts maintained by the Petitioner-company the Respondent-company was found due in all a sum of Rs. 7,90,218 being the rental dues and the cost of unreturned computer systems. Despite repeated requests and demands the Respondent-company failed to pay the amount due to the Petitioner-company. Finally on September 10, 2007, the Petitioner company got issued a statutory notice calling upon the Respondent-company to pay the dues failing which to take appropriate action. The Respondent-company by its reply dated September 18, 2007, denied the entire transaction and also their liability to pay to the Petitioner-company. Hence this petition. 5. The Petitioner in C.P. No. 37 of 2007 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and engaged in the business of providing complete travel related services to big and mid size corporates. The Petitioner further contends that they are the world's third largest corporate travel management company. The Petitioner company is doing business with the Respondent-company from November 16, 2001. In the course of business, the Respondent-company booked air tickets for its employees through various countries and availed of travel related services. The Petitioner further contends that they are the world's third largest corporate travel management company. The Petitioner company is doing business with the Respondent-company from November 16, 2001. In the course of business, the Respondent-company booked air tickets for its employees through various countries and availed of travel related services. Between November 16, 2005 and November 30, 2005, for services availed of by the Respondent-company, the Petitioner-company raised invoices aggregating to a sum of Rs. 11,00,464. On June 28, 2006, the Petitioner-company wrote a letter and on October 26, 2006, sent an e-mail requesting the Respondent-company to make payment. Finally on September 30, 2006, the Petitioner-company got issued a statutory notice calling upon the Respondent-company to make payment failing which to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Companies Act. The Respondent-company instead of complying with the demand made in the statutory notice sent a reply on December 4, 2006, denying the claim of the Petitioner-company. Hence this petition. 6. The Petitioner in C.P. No. 70 of 2009 is a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act and engaged in the business of providing information technology services and in particular sourcing of IT professionals to various IT companies. There came to be an agreement between the Petitioner-company and the Respondent-company as per annexure A series, the exchange of e-mails wherein the Petitioner-company had agreed to supply the services of IT professionals to the Respondent-company and in turn the Respondent-company will lend the service of IT professionals to their customers. After deducting the salaries payable to the IT professionals, the balance will be apportioned between the Petitioner-company and the Respondent-company at the ratio of two-thirds and one-third, respectively. In terms of this arrangement the Petitioner-company sourced the service of IT professionals to the Respondent-company and raised invoices on the Respondent-company. The Respondent-company paid in respect of few invoices, partly paid in respect of few invoices and unpaid in respect of few invoices. After giving deductions to all the payments made by the Respondent-company, they were found still due a sum of Rs. 55,99,073. The last payment made by the Respondent-company was on April 10, 2006. Further, the Respondent-company through their e-mail dated May 17, 2006, acknowledged their liability to pay dues to the Petitioner-company. Despite repeated requests, demands and letters, the Respondent-company has not paid the dues to the Petitioner-company. 55,99,073. The last payment made by the Respondent-company was on April 10, 2006. Further, the Respondent-company through their e-mail dated May 17, 2006, acknowledged their liability to pay dues to the Petitioner-company. Despite repeated requests, demands and letters, the Respondent-company has not paid the dues to the Petitioner-company. Finally on March 16, 2009, the Petitioner-company issued a statutory notice calling upon the Respondent-company to pay the principal and interest in all a sum of Rs. 86,22,572. The Respondent-company despite receiving statutory notice neither replied nor complied with the demand made therein. Hence this petition. 7. After service of notice the Respondent-company entered appearance and filed separate statement of objections in each of the petition, inter alia, contending that the Petitioners in collusion with the previous managing director of the Respondent-company by name Pawan Kumar falsely created certain documents and are making false claim against the Respondent-company. The Respondent-company further contends that they have removed the former managing director Pawan Kumar and several criminal cases are also filed against him. The Respondent-company has denied the transactions with the Petitioner-companies. It is also contended that the dues claimed are time barred. The Respondent-company is financially sound and with a mala fide intention these petitions are filed. On these grounds the Respondent-company opposed the petitions. 8. In C.P. No. 70 of 2009 vide order dated June 25, 2010, this Court admitted the petition and permitted the Petitioner to take out advertisement in The Hindu a English daily. In compliance of this order, learned Counsel for the Petitioner filed a memo with paper publication The Hindu. In C.P. 89 of 2008 vide order dated December 15, 2008, the petition came to be admitted and the Petitioner was permitted to take out advertisement in The Hindu and the same was complied with. It is also seen from the record that C.P. No. 37 of 2007 this Court vide order dated January 19, 2010, appointed a provisional liquidator. 9. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers. 10. In C.P. No. 37 of 2007 the claim of the Petitioner is supported by invoices as per annexures C1 to C23. Annexure D is the copy of the statement of accounts. Annexure E is the letter dated June 28, 2006 and annexure F a copy of the e-mail dated October 26, 2006. 10. In C.P. No. 37 of 2007 the claim of the Petitioner is supported by invoices as per annexures C1 to C23. Annexure D is the copy of the statement of accounts. Annexure E is the letter dated June 28, 2006 and annexure F a copy of the e-mail dated October 26, 2006. The statutory notice is dated November 10, 2006, as per annexure G. The Respondent-company has not denied the transaction nor their liability at any time before issuing the statutory notice on November 30, 2006. It is for the first time that the Respondent-company denied their liability in their reply notice dated December 4, 2006. Again this denial in the reply notice by the Respondent-company indicates that their former managing director Pawan Kumar played fraud on the Respondent-company. For the fraud played by him, the Petitioner-company shall not be punished. There is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the Petitioner-company and Pawan Kumar in connivance have played fraud on the Respondent-company. In the absence of any such material on record, the defense of the Respondent-company is vague, invalid and moonshine. 11. The claim of the Petitioner in C.P. No. 89 of 2008 is supported by the copy of the statement of accounts as per annexure J. Annexure K is the statement specifying the computer systems supplied by the Petitioner-company to the Respondent-company and return of some of the computers. Further on August 4, 2010, learned Counsel for the Petitioner filed a memo with copies of the documents containing the supply and receipt of computer systems to the Respondent-company. Further annexures M, N, P, Q and R are the copies of the purchase orders, invoices, gate passes and the affidavits filed by the employees of the Petitioner-company for having delivered the computer systems to the Respondent-company. At no point of time, before issuance of the statutory notice as per annexure H on September 10, 2007, the Respondent-company has denied the transaction nor liability to pay the dues to the Petitioner-company. It is for the first time the Respondent-company in their reply notice dated September 18, 2007, contend that there are no computers available in their company supplied by the Petitioner-company. Further in the reply it is stated that as per the statement of accounts maintained by them the Petitioner-company is due in a sum of Rs. It is for the first time the Respondent-company in their reply notice dated September 18, 2007, contend that there are no computers available in their company supplied by the Petitioner-company. Further in the reply it is stated that as per the statement of accounts maintained by them the Petitioner-company is due in a sum of Rs. 1,86,936.88 being the excess payment made by the Respondent-company to the Petitioner-company. In this connection the Respondent-company contends that they have also filed a civil suit against the Petitioner in O.S. No. 5609 of 2008 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore. This defence taken by the Respondent-company clearly establishes the fact that the Respondent-company admitted the transaction between the parties. The Respondent-company has not denied the payments made by them to the Petitioner-company as specified in the statement of accounts as per annexure J produced by the Petitioner-company. Merely because the Respondent-company has filed a suit against the Petitioner-company for recovery of certain money is not a valid defence or triable defence with regard to the dues payable to the Petitioner-company. 12. The claim of the Petitioner in C.P. No. 70 of 2009 is supported by the correspondence at annexures A and B series. Annexure C is the copy of the statement specifying the invoices raised by the Petitioner-company and the payments made by the Respondent-company. On May 17, 2006, the Respondent company sent an e-mail as per annexure D with a copy of reconciliation statement. In this reconciliation statement at annexure B the Respondent-company admitted the liability. Further, the Respondent-company in reply to the statutory notice as per annexure R3 dated April 9, 2009, have not denied the claim of the Petitioner-company as found at annexure A. The Respondent in its reply contends that the claim of the Petitioner-company at annexures B and C as barred by limitation. This is the only defence taken by the Respondent-company at the earliest point of time in their reply notice at annexure R3. As against this defence the Petitioner-company contends that on April 10, 2006, the Respondent-company made a payment and this is the last payment. Since the transaction between the parties is a running account the clock of limitation starts from the date of the last payment on April 10, 2006. Therefore, the petition filed on April 8, 2009, is within time. 13. Since the transaction between the parties is a running account the clock of limitation starts from the date of the last payment on April 10, 2006. Therefore, the petition filed on April 8, 2009, is within time. 13. The Petitioner contends that in addition to the last payment on April 10, 2006, the Respondent in their reconciliation statement at annexure D dated May 17, 2006, have admitted the liability. On the other hand, the Respondent-company denied the reconciliation statement at annexure D. In view of this controversy between the parties learned Counsel for the Respondent-company submitted on June 9, 2010, that they will file the affidavit of the person who has sent the e-mail, i.e., satish@vmoksha. Further, this Court directed the Respondent to trace out from the hard disk of their computer which was used by Satish as to whether any e-mail was sent on May 17, 2006 and what were the attachments forwarded thereto and to file statement in that regard. In compliance with the order dated June 9, 2010, an affidavit was filed stating that the Respondent is unable to find any e-mails in their server. This Court further observed in its order dated June 22, 2010, that "the affidavit filed by the Respondent-company is nothing but misleading and does not point out to securing the information which is in the possession of the Respondent. This is only a ruse to dilly-dally the production of the original of the e-mail at annexure D. This calls for a thorough enquiry by appointing an authority who could be directed to examine the servers and hard disks of the computers and other electronic material in the custody of the Respondent used for their routine regular business". In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the defence taken by the Respondent-company is not valid, genuine and the same is moonshine. 14. On August 16, 2010, the Respondent filed the list of documents. In this list of documents, the auditor's report of the Respondent-company for the year ending on March 31, 2009, is filed. From this report it is seen that the Respondent-company continuously suffered losses and the accumulated losses were to the tune of Rs. 23 crores. Even the net worth of the assets is less than 50 per cent, of the losses. Even otherwise the Respondent-company has not paid dues payable to the Petitioners. From this report it is seen that the Respondent-company continuously suffered losses and the accumulated losses were to the tune of Rs. 23 crores. Even the net worth of the assets is less than 50 per cent, of the losses. Even otherwise the Respondent-company has not paid dues payable to the Petitioners. As already held the defence taken by the Respondent is not valid, bona fide and moonshine. Therefore, the Respondent-company is deemed to be unable to pay its debts as specified under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. 15. Pursuant to the order of this Court, advertisement was taken. Pursuant to the advertisement nobody came forward either to support or oppose the winding up order. In the circumstances, the following order: (i) The petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) The Respondent-company is ordered to be wound up. (iii) Each of the Petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 with the official liquidator to meet the initial expenses of the winding up proceedings. (iv) The Petitioners are directed to serve a copy of this order on the Registrar of Companies within 30 days. (v) The Petitioners are further directed to take out advertisement of this order in English daily The Hindu within 14 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.