Judgment :- 1. M/s. Itakem Finechem Pvt. Ltd. has filed this petition under Sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) and (c) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of M/s. Taurus GKK Leathers Pvt. Ltd., on account of their inability to pay the admitted liability. 2. The petitioner is in the business of imports and trade of chemicals used in the leather industries for manufacture of leather products. The petitioner supplied chemicals to the respondent for a sum of Rs.5,11,849/- (Rupees five lakhs eleven thousand eight hundred forty nine only) as on 01.04.2008. Thereafter, additional chemicals were supplied to the respondent and after adjusting the payment received from the respondent, an amount of Rs.10,08,088/- (Rupees ten lakhs eight thousand eighty eight only) was still outstanding. 3. It is submitted that as per the agreed terms of sale, the respondent had agreed to pay interest @ 36% p.a., if the bills were not paid on due date. That by adding interest to the principal on the date of filing of this petition, an amount of Rs.15,10,200/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs ten thousand two hundred only) was said to be outstanding. Statutory notice was issued to the respondent on 30.04.2010, which was acknowledged and in the reply, the amount was disputed. 4. This petition was, therefore, filed on the ground that the respondent-company has failed to pay the admitted liability of Rs.10,08,088/- (Rupees ten lakhs eight thousand eighty eight only) along with interest @ 36% p.a. 5. The petition was contested by the respondent, wherein the fact that the money was due and payable was not disputed. The plea in defence was that the petitioner be put to strict proof as to how this amount is due and payable. The only plea taken was that the amount claimed was not correctly depicted. The reading of counter shows that there was no specific denial. The plea was also taken in the counter that the company had approached the B.I.F.R. for reconstruction of the company being sick unit. 6. In sum and substance, the stand of the respondent was that the company was willing to pay the agreed amount due and payable to the petitioner. 7. It is not disputed that the respondent-company has cleared the principal amount due, during the pendency of the company petition. 8. 6. In sum and substance, the stand of the respondent was that the company was willing to pay the agreed amount due and payable to the petitioner. 7. It is not disputed that the respondent-company has cleared the principal amount due, during the pendency of the company petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the respondent is still under debt, as they have not paid the interest amount on the principal, therefore, the company deserves to be wound up. 9. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Vijay Industries vs. NATL Technologies Limited, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:- "Companies Act, 1956 – Section 433, 434 – Whether interest payable on the sum due would be a debt so as to attract the provisions of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Respondent never denied the demand of interest as such, but in its reply dated 30.12.2003 merely stated that a sum of Rs.16,80,468 (sic for Rs.15,18,460) was due – Section 433 of the Companies Act does not state that the debt must be precisely a definite sum. It has not been disputed before us that failure to pay agreed interest or the statutory interest would come within the purview of the word 'debt'. It is one thing to say that the amount of debt is not definite or ascertainable because of the bona fide dispute raised thereabout or there exists a dispute as regards quantity or quality of supply or such other defences which are available to the purchaser, but it is another thing to say that although the due as regards the principal amount resulting from the quantity or quality of supply of the goods stands admitted but a question is raised as to whether any agreement had been entered into for payment of interest or whether the rate of interest would be applicable or not. In the latter case, the application for winding up cannot be dismissed – On the date of filing of the application, dues in respect of at least a part of the debt which was more than the amount specified in Section 433 of the Companies Act was not denied. In the latter case, the application for winding up cannot be dismissed – On the date of filing of the application, dues in respect of at least a part of the debt which was more than the amount specified in Section 433 of the Companies Act was not denied. It is not a requirement of the law that the entire debt must be definite and certain. The Division Bench of the High Court proceeded on the basis that the the entire sum covering both the principal and the interest must be undisputed. The findings of the High Court, with respect, are not correct for more than one reason; firstly, because the Division Bench did not hold that the invoices were not proved by cogent evidence; secondly, question of leading evidence would arise only after the company petition is admitted and, thirdly, issuance of invoices and signature of the respondent thereon is not disputed. The judgment of the Division Bench also contains a legal flaw insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the appellant had in fact issued three notices being dated 6.01.2003, 8.09.2003 and legal notice dated 23.12.2003 specifically mentioning that the payments had been adjusted towards interest first and balance, if any, shall be adjusted towards the principal. Thus, a prima facie case was made out. For the reasons aforementioned, have no other option but to set aside the judgment of the High Court. Interest of justice would be subserved if we in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the respondent to pay simple interest on the admitted sum at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance amount instead of 24% per annum within eight weeks from the date of amount became due till it is paid failing which the consequences provided in law shall ensue." 10. On consideration, this Court finds that this judgment cannot advance the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that winding up can be ordered on undisputed claim, it may be either the principal or the interest. It was held that it is not that both should be admitted. In this case, it is admitted that during the pendency of petition, the respondent has paid the amount due which also stands accepted by the petitioner. 11. It was held that it is not that both should be admitted. In this case, it is admitted that during the pendency of petition, the respondent has paid the amount due which also stands accepted by the petitioner. 11. In any case, once it is not disputed that the petitioner received the principal amount during the pendency of company petition, it, therefore, cannot be said that it would be just or equitable to wind up the company, or that company has lost its substratum so as to order its winding up. It is well settled law that petition for winding up is not a mode of recovery of debt due from the company. 12. Therefore, while dismissing this company petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out its remedy to claim interest, if due, by ordinary civil remedy. 13. No costs. Consequently, Comp.A.Nos.1818 and 1819 of 2010 are closed.