ORDER : Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. 1. This is a creditor’s winding up petition under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956. This company petition was admitted on 24.10.2004 and after completion of the pleadings, petitioner examined P.W.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A15 and the respondent examined R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R15. The company petition was, thereafter, heard in part by the then Company Judge, who specifically by order dated 11.03.2013 released the matter from the caption for orders and posted before the regular Company judge. Again, it appears to have been heard but released from the caption ‘orders reserved’ by order dated 24.07.2013. Thereafter, the matter was posted before this Court on 03.10.2013 and the company petition was finally heard on 04.10.2013 and 07.10.3013 and was reserved for orders. This company petition is, therefore, being disposed of by this order. 2. The averments in the petition states that the petitioner company is a public limited company and that it has been engaged in manufacturing activity of Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) of various descriptions and selling it to various clients of the petitioner company. The authorized capital of the petitioner company is Rs. 12,00,00,000/-divided into 1,20,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. It is stated that the respondent company is a private limited company incorporated on 07.09.2004 and that respondent company, inter alia, carries on business as manufacturer, purchaser, processor etc. in populated, loaded or stuffed printed circuit boards, electronic circuit boards and all other king of circuit boards and also deals in electricity meters, water meters and other statistical meters or instruments. It is stated that the authorized share capital of the respondent company is Rs. 10,00,000/- divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner company sold, supplied and delivered PCBs from time to time to the respondent company under invoices cum delivery challans and the petitioner company is figuring as one of the sundry creditors in the annual accounts and balance sheet of the respondent company. It is alleged that as on 07.04.2010 the respondent company was due a sum of Rs. 14,47,540/- payable to the petitioner company towards arrears for supply of material already received by the respondent company, as per the terms of invoices together with contracted rate of interest at 24%. It is alleged that as on 07.04.2010 the respondent company was due a sum of Rs. 14,47,540/- payable to the petitioner company towards arrears for supply of material already received by the respondent company, as per the terms of invoices together with contracted rate of interest at 24%. It is alleged that all the PCBs supplied to the respondent company by the petitioner company under invoices cum delivery challans were acknowledged and certified with the stamped endorsement ‘RECEIVED CONTENTS VERIFIED’. It is alleged that though 90 days grace period for payment is allowed, the respondent company has been making payment from time to time but committed default since January 2009, as stated in para 12(ii) of the petition. The overdue and pending payments together with interest payable thereon for the overdue period is mentioned in tabulated form in para 12(iii) and as such, on the basis of certificate of the statutory Auditor of the petitioner company certifying that the respondent company is due a sum of Rs. 14,47,540/- to the petitioner company, the present company petition is filed claiming the said amount, as the debt repayable by the respondent but remaining unpaid in spite of requests. 4. It is alleged that the petitioner company made several demands but the respondent company gave false assurances and avoided payment. The respondent company, thus, failed to honour its promise on account of severe financial crunch. Hence, finally legal notice dated 27.12.2010 was issued by the petitioner company demanding the said due amount with interest. That notice was as well followed by a statutory legal notice dated 01.03.2011 under Section 434 of the Companies Act, which was duly served and invoked a reply from the respondent company dated 11.03.2011 giving vague and untenable reasons as to reconciliation of the accounts between the parties, which was refused by the petitioner company by issuing a rejoinder notice dated 07.04.2011 and hence, the present winding up petition is filed alleging that the respondent company is commercially insolvent and as such, is unable to pay its debt in terms of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and it is just and equitable that the respondent company is wound up. It was also claimed that the respondent company is commercially insolvent and is unable to discharge its debt to its creditors. It was also claimed that the respondent company is commercially insolvent and is unable to discharge its debt to its creditors. The deponent of the company petition stated on the basis of his belief that there are already a number of cases filed against the respondent company due to its commercial insolvency and inability to fulfill its commitments. Hence, it was prayed that the respondent company be wound up and the Official Liquidator be appointed as the Liquidator of the company. 5. The respondent company filed a counter affidavit denying all material allegations in the petition vide para 4 to 6 of the counter. It was stated that the respondent company is a profit making company and the total earnings of the company in the last three years has been over Rs. 1.5 crore. It was also claimed that the respondent company’s business is projected to be between Rs. 40 to 50 crores in the current financial year and the profit expected for the current financial year 2011-2012 is more than Rs. 1 crore. It was also claimed that the respondent company has an order on hand from the Maharashtra State to supply electricity meters to MSEDLC, which order itself is worth Rs. 25 crores. Further, the fixed assets of the respondent company are already described in detail in the balance sheet. It, further, claimed that there are 25 employees on the rolls of the company and salaries are being paid on time, apart from 20-50 labourers working in the manufacturing unit of the respondent company and that the respondent company is paying direct taxes and excise duty of lakhs of rupees. 6. So far as the merits of the claim of the petitioner company is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner company has been supplying PCBs since 2008 and it was agreed that rejection of defective PCBs should be replaced by the petitioner company on intimation of such rejections from time to time. It is stated that as on 31.03.2009, as per the invoices raised by the petitioner company, an amount of Rs. 34,29,687.72/- was due by the respondent company, which includes the value of the defective PCBs also. Even subsequent thereto also, the petitioner company supplied PCBs to the value of Rs. 21,13,003.72/- under various invoices. 7. Under para. It is stated that as on 31.03.2009, as per the invoices raised by the petitioner company, an amount of Rs. 34,29,687.72/- was due by the respondent company, which includes the value of the defective PCBs also. Even subsequent thereto also, the petitioner company supplied PCBs to the value of Rs. 21,13,003.72/- under various invoices. 7. Under para. 9 of the counter, the payments made by the respondent company without conciliation of accounts after 31.03.2009 are given in a tabulated form aggregating to Rs. 44,29,688/-. Under further para 10, the details of defective/rejected PCBs supplied by the petitioner company are given and the aggregate value is Rs. 13,70,536/-. It is stated that as per the ledger account of the respondent company, an amount of Rs. 11,13,003.72/- is due to be paid to the petitioner company on the basis of their invoices. However, since the defective PCBs value is to the tune of Rs. 13,70,536/-, the petitioner company is, in fact, due to pay Rs. 2,57,533/- to the respondent company. It is, therefore, stated that without accounting for the defective PCBs and without reconciliation of the account, the present demand in the company petition is made, which is unjustified. 8. In para 20 of the counter, it was specifically pointed out that on admission of the company petition on 24.10.2011 instead of publishing an advertisement as to admission, the petitioner company published the advertisement as if the respondent company was wound up. The said advertisement, which appeared in English and Telugu newspapers, resulted in serious harm to the reputation of the company in the market and it suffered irreparable agony and loss. It is alleged that the advertisement was deliberately published, as if the respondent company is wound up. Along with the counter affidavit, the income tax returns for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 together with balance sheet and profit and loss account for the last three years were also enclosed to substantiate the contentions in the counter that the respondent company is a profit making company. 9. Petitioner company filed a rejoinder to point out that the legal notice of the petitioner company was replied only with vague and untenable reply. Hence, the presumption under Section 434 of the Companies Act arises in favour of the petitioner company. 9. Petitioner company filed a rejoinder to point out that the legal notice of the petitioner company was replied only with vague and untenable reply. Hence, the presumption under Section 434 of the Companies Act arises in favour of the petitioner company. It was also pointed out that the reduction in profits of the respondent company shows that the net worth of the respondent company is eroded fast and is unable to pay its debts to the creditors. The petitioner company also placed strong reliance upon the stamped endorsement on the invoices cum delivery challans that the PCBs were "RECEIVED. CONTENTS VERIFIED". Hence, it is claimed that after two years of supply, the allegation of defective and rejected PCBs made by the respondent company is without any basis and that at no point of time, any such thing was pointed out to the petitioner company. It was, therefore, claimed that the defence raised by the respondent company was moonshine and there is no iota of honesty in the plea of rejection, as made. So far as the publication of advertisement is concerned, para 15 of the rejoinder admits the error but it is claimed that it is inadvertent and unintentional and correct publication has since been made, as permitted by this Court and a regret for the mistake is mentioned. Along with the said rejoinder reconciliation statement and various invoices cum delivery challans are produced, which contain stamped endorsements of the stores of the respondent company showing that ‘RECEIVED CONTENTS VERIFIED’ endorsement on the challans. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the following points emerge for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner company has established indebtedness of the respondent company, as claimed in the petition? 2. If the answer to the first point is in the affirmative, whether winding up of the respondent company is warranted under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, winding up of the respondent company is warranted under Section433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956? POINT No. 1: 11. The pleadings of the petitioner company including its statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, no doubt, claims a debt of Rs. 14,47,540/- payable by the respondent company along with interest at 24% per annum. POINT No. 1: 11. The pleadings of the petitioner company including its statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, no doubt, claims a debt of Rs. 14,47,540/- payable by the respondent company along with interest at 24% per annum. Counter filed by the respondent company seriously disputes the same by claiming that without taking into consideration the defective/rejected PCBs the aforesaid claim is being made and in fact, a sum of Rs. 2,57,533/- would be recoverable by the respondent company from the petitioner company. In this connection, a reply issued by the respondent company in response to the notice of the petitioner company may be necessary to be noticed. The said reply dated 11.03.2011 marked as Ex.P11 states that allegation that the respondent company had not remitted payment is surprising whereas the reality is that the account has not been reconciled. It further states that "...out of their supplied PCBs, we have found some percentage of PCBs of inferior quality and hence rejected. We are requesting the party to lift the material and settle the account. If there will be a credit balance of the party, we shall arrange the payment and in case if their rejection is found to be more, then they may have to repay us. But without lifting the rejected material and without proper reconciliation of the accounts, how can they claim any amount". Petitioner company was, therefore, requested to lift the rejected material and reconcile the account. 12. According to the petitioner company, however, the question of rejection of material and reconciliation of account does not arise, as they claim that all the invoices except that the material was received and contents are verified, as per rubber stamp to that effect placed on each invoice for which payment is made. Further, according to the petitioner company the said allegation as to rejection of material is made by the respondent company, for the first time, two years after the supply. Hence, the petitioner claims that the allegation of rejected/defective PCBs is merely an after thought. However, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he agreed that the stores section personnel do no carry out any inspection of the products. He also agreed that for many years the PCBs were delivered and payments were received and only disputes are the boards at the end that we have submitted along with the company petition. However, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he agreed that the stores section personnel do no carry out any inspection of the products. He also agreed that for many years the PCBs were delivered and payments were received and only disputes are the boards at the end that we have submitted along with the company petition. The respondent’s statement in para 9 of the counter affidavit that it had made payments between April 2009 and July 2010 for various invoices aggregating to Rs. 44,29,688/- is, however, not disputed by the petitioner company. The only dispute, therefore, appears to be with regard to the alleged defective and rejected PCBs supplied by the petitioner company, which are quantified at Rs. 13,43,663/- and together with CST at 2%, the said figure is shown as Rs. 13,70,536/-. However, the respondent witness, R.W.1, admits in his evidence with CST was wrongly claimed and therefore, the defective and rejected PCBs account has to be taken at Rs. 13,43,663/-. Whether the said rejection is within the stipulated shelf life of PCBs and whether the respondent company intimated the petitioner company at the earliest point of time to receive the defective PCBs etc. are matters on which there is no clear evidence by the parties. 13. Hence, keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Madhusudhan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1971 (3) SCC 632 it has to held that the defence of the respondent company appears bonafide but the exact amount of debt, which is disputed, cannot be ascertained on the basis of the evidence on record. However, it cannot be said that the defence of the respondent company is not a substantial defence. Since the object and purpose of the present winding up petition is not regarding quantification of debt due and payable, so for as is relevant for the purpose of the present petition, though the petitioner/creditor has prima facie established entitlement for the amount, as claimed in the company petition, it cannot be said that the defence of the respondent company is mere moonshine and is only raised for the purpose of avoiding its inability to pay the debt. Point No. 1 is accordingly answered against the petitioner company. POINT No. 2: 14. Point No. 1 is accordingly answered against the petitioner company. POINT No. 2: 14. Even assuming that point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner company, it is necessary to examine whether the petitioner company has made out a case for winding up the respondent company on the ground of its inability to pay the debt, as contemplated under Section 433(e)of the Companies Act, 1956. Two decisions of the Supreme Court relevant on the issue cited by both the learned counsel for the parties may now be noticed. The earliest decision, on point, of the Supreme Court is M/s. Madhusudhan Gordhandas & Co.’s case (supra), which in turn is based upon the ratio of the Supreme Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami (1965) 35 COMP CASE 456 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that if the debt is bonafide disputed and the difference is a substantial one, the Court will not wind up the company. 15. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Madhusudhan Gordhandas & Co.’s case (supra) as well as the ratio of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in IBA Health (India) (P) Ltd. v. Info-Drive Systems SDN. BHD (2010) 10 SCC 553 is strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner company. I shall, therefore, consider the said contention by assuming that the petitioner company has established the debt required for an order for winding up without establishing the exact amount of debt. 16. In the context, therefore, the Supreme Court also cautioned against attempt to pressurize the respondent company by process of winding up proceedings. Paras 33 and 35 in that context are relevant, which are extracted hereunder: 33. We may notice, so far as this case is concerned, there has been an attempt by the respondent company to force the payment of a 19 debt which the respondent company knows to be in substantial dispute. A party to the dispute should not be allowed to use the threat of winding up petition as a means of enforcing the company to pay a bonafide disputed debt. A Company Court cannot be reduced as a debt collecting agency or as a means of bringing improper pressure on the company to pay a bona fide disputed debt. A party to the dispute should not be allowed to use the threat of winding up petition as a means of enforcing the company to pay a bonafide disputed debt. A Company Court cannot be reduced as a debt collecting agency or as a means of bringing improper pressure on the company to pay a bona fide disputed debt. Of late, we have seen several instances, where the jurisdiction of the Company Court is being abused by filing winding up petitions to pressurize the companies to pay the debts which are substantially disputed and the Courts are very casual in issuing notices and ordering publication in the newspapers which may attract adverse publicity. Remember, an action may lie in appropriate Court in respect of the injury to reputation caused by maliciously and unreasonably commencing liquidation proceedings against a company and later dismissed when a proper defence is made out on substantial grounds. A creditor’s winding up petition implies insolvency and is likely to damage the company’s creditworthiness or its financial standing with its creditors or customers and even among the public. ... 35. We have referred to the above aspects at some length to impress upon the Company Courts to be more vigilant so that its medium would not be misused. A Company Court, therefore, should act with circumspection, care and caution and examine as to whether an attempt is made to pressurize the company to pay a debt which is substantially disputed. A Company Court, therefore, should be guarded from such vexatious abuse of the process and cannot function as a Debt Collecting Agency and should not permit a party to unreasonably set the law in motion, especially when the aggrieved party has a remedy elsewhere. 17. As per the counter affidavit, the respondent company’s financial statement for the years 2008-09; 2009-10 and 2010-11 show large turn over on sales and substantial profits after taxation. It is further specifically stated that the respondent company holds an order worth of Rs. 25 crores from MSEDCL, Maharashtra State apart from the fixed assets as shown in the balance sheet and expects profit of Rs. 40 to 50 crores in the financial year 2011-12. The said statement in the counter affidavit is not controverted in the rejoinder but it is claimed that since the profits of the respondent company are declining, it’s inability to pay has to be taken as established. 40 to 50 crores in the financial year 2011-12. The said statement in the counter affidavit is not controverted in the rejoinder but it is claimed that since the profits of the respondent company are declining, it’s inability to pay has to be taken as established. I find it very unreasonable and difficult to hold that even for a profit making company, an order of winding up is required to be made against it. In my view, the law is exactly to the contrary. In M/s. Madhusudhan Gordhandas & Co.’s case (supra) it was clearly held in para 22 as follows: 22. Another rule which the court follows is that if there is opposition to the making of the winding up order by the creditors the court will consider their wishes and may decline to make the winding up order. Under section 557 of the Company Act 1956 in all matters relating to the winding up of the company the court may ascertain the wishes of the creditors. The wishes of the shareholders are also considered though perhaps the court may attach greater weight to the views of the creditors. The law on this point is stated in Palmer’s Company Law, 21st Edition page 742 as follows: "This right to a winding up order is, however, qualified by another rule, viz., that the court will regard the wishes of the majority in value of the creditors, and if, for some good reason, they object to a winding up order, the court in its discretion may refuse the order’. The wishes of the creditors will however be tested by the court on the grounds as to whether the case of the persons opposing the winding up is reasonable; secondly, whether there are matters which should be inquired into and investigated if a winding up order is made. It is also well settled that a winding up order will not be made on a creditor’s petition if it would not benefit him or the company’s creditors generally. The grounds furnished by the creditors opposing the winding up will have an important bearing on the reasonableness of the case (See Re. P. & J. Macrae Ltd. [(1961) 1 AER 302]. 18. In the present case, no other creditor has come before this Court supporting the winding up of the respondent company in response to the advertisement published. The grounds furnished by the creditors opposing the winding up will have an important bearing on the reasonableness of the case (See Re. P. & J. Macrae Ltd. [(1961) 1 AER 302]. 18. In the present case, no other creditor has come before this Court supporting the winding up of the respondent company in response to the advertisement published. However, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it was specifically asked whether he has any information of any claim in any Court against the respondent company to which he answered by stating that he was not aware of any claim made by others against the respondent company. P.W.1 was also asked a question that whether the income tax returns filed by the respondent company show that the respondent company is a profit making company to which he answered in the affirmative. Further, R.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the respondent company, states that on several occasions the material supplied by the petitioner company has been rejected but the petitioner company did not chose to take back the said rejected material. He also states that that there are no cheque dishonour cases against the respondent company. Thereafter, a suggestion is given to him that the officials of the petitioner company visited the respondent company for verification of the material, which he denied. The aforesaid suggestion appears to be contrary to the case of the petitioner company. The evidence of the respondent company, particularly, the income tax returns and the profits earned by it year after year, therefore, clearly show that the commercial insolvency of the respondent company is not at all established by the petitioner company. It is significant to point out that in the company petition except two bare sentences in para 14 that the respondent company is insolvent and unable to pay its dues and in para 15 that the respondent company is deemed to be commercially insolvent there are no pleadings much less any material to support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner company that the respondent company is required to be wound up for its alleged inability to pay. 19. 19. Petitioner counsel also placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in IBA Health (India) (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) wherein the Supreme Court referred to the ratio of the Supreme court in M/s. Madhusudhan Gordhandas & Co.’s case (supra) in paras 21 and 22, which are extracted herein along with para 23: 21. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami and another (1965) 35 CC 456 (SC), in which this Court held that: (comp Cas p.463) It is well-settled that ’a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of the debt which is bona fide disputed by the company. A petition presented ostensibly for a winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed, and under circumstances may be stigmatized as a scandalous abuse of the process of the court. 22. The abovementioned decision was later followed by this Court in Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1971) 3 SCC 632 . The principles laid down in the abovementioned judgment have again been reiterated by this Court in Mediquip Systems (P) Ltd. v. Proxima Medical Systems (GMBH) (2005) 7 SCC 42 , wherein this Court held that the defence raised by the appellant-company was a substantial one and not mere moonshine and had to be finally adjudicated upon on the merits before the appropriate forum. The abovementioned judgments were later followed by this Court in Vijay Industries v. NATL Technologies Ltd. (2009) 3 SCC 527 . 23. The principles laid down in the above mentioned cases indicate that 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 debts is not substantiated and non-payment of the amount of such a bona fide disputed debt cannot be termed as "neglect to pay" so as to incur the liability under Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. In the said decision, the Supreme Court also considered the aspect relating to commercial insolvency of the company and held that "...A determination of examination of company’s insolvency may be a useful aid in deciding whether the refusal to pay is a result of bonafide dispute as to liability or whether it reflects the inability to pay, in such a situation, solvency is relevant not as a separate ground". 20. In Mediquip Systems (P) Ltd. v. Proxima Medical System Gmbh (2005) 7 SCC 42 the Supreme Court was considering a case of a company ordered to be wound up, which was in a sound financial position. In the context of interpreting Section 433(e) of the Companies Act quoted with approval the decisions of the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court in paras 23 and 24, which are extracted hereunder: 23. The Bombay High Court has laid down the following principles in Softsule (P) Ltd. Re, (1977) 47 Comp Cas 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 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 debts 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. 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 LJ 322 (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 relegating 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. As held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, in the present case also it is not shown that the respondent company is unable to meet its liability as and when they accrued. It is also accepted in the present case that the respondent company is a profit making company and not a single instance of any creditor’s legal action before any forum was pointed out by P.W. 1. In view of that, therefore, since, prima facie, dispute exists about the debt, as claimed by the petitioner company, I do not find any justification for ordering winding up of the respondent company. Point No. 2 is accordingly answered against the petitioner. POINT No. 3: There are neither pleadings nor any evidence to support the petitioner’s claim that the respondent company is liable to be wound up on the ground that such order would be just and equitable. Point No. 2 is accordingly answered against the petitioner. POINT No. 3: There are neither pleadings nor any evidence to support the petitioner’s claim that the respondent company is liable to be wound up on the ground that such order would be just and equitable. On the contrary, the facts, on record, clearly show that a profit making company for the last more than three years is not required to be wound up on any ground. Point No. 3 is answered against the petitioner. The company petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner company is at liberty to establish the debt of the respondent company by approaching the competent Court of law in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.