Judgment Arijit Banerjee, J. This is an application under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner claims that a sum of Rs. 1,16,67,100/-(together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till March 31, 2013) is due from the company to the petitioner, which the company failed and neglected to pay in spite of statutory notice having been served on the company. As such the petitioner contends that the company is deemed to be unable to pay its debts and is liable to be bound up. The case of the Petitioner: By a Letter of Intent dated May 24, 2011, the company had awarded to the petitioner the work of supply and installation of loose and fixed furniture for the guest rooms in the hotel being built by the petitioner at Calcutta under franchise from Taj Gateway Hotels for an initial contractual sum of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- on the terms and conditions contained in the Letter of Intent. In pursuance of the Letter of Intent the petitioner had delivered and installed the required furniture for the hotel rooms and submitted its running invoices on diverse dates for payment. The petitioner raised the final invoice on 29th September, 2012 for a sum of Rs. 3,35,02,389/-. Apart from the aforesaid, at the company’s request the petitioner had executed, delivered and installed additional quantities of existing work order as also new items as required by the company, to the tune of Rs. 69,65,458/- and raised two invoices for the same both dated June 19, 2012. Such invoices were duly accepted by the company. In this connection, the petitioner refers to and relies on E-mails dated June 20, 2012 sent by the company (copies whereof are at page 64 of the petition and page 59 of the affidavit-in-opposition). According to the petitioner, the total contract sum amounted to Rs. 4,04,67,847 (Rs. 3,35,02,389/- for original contract plus Rs. 69,65,458/- for additional work). Out of that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 3,02,56,127/- leaving a balance sum of Rs. 1,02,11,720/- due and payable by the company. In partial discharge of its debts, the company issued two cheques for Rs. 62,49,517/- and for Rs. 29,88,882/- which were dishonored upon presentation. The petitioner issued the statutory notice on March 4, 2013 which was replied to by the company by its letter dated May 2, 2013. 1,02,11,720/- due and payable by the company. In partial discharge of its debts, the company issued two cheques for Rs. 62,49,517/- and for Rs. 29,88,882/- which were dishonored upon presentation. The petitioner issued the statutory notice on March 4, 2013 which was replied to by the company by its letter dated May 2, 2013. The petitioner responded to the company’s reply by a letter dated September 17, 2013. There was another contract between the parties for interior designing (ID Works contract) which was independent of the aforesaid contract. The sum payable to the petitioner under the ID Works contract has been paid in full by the company. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the payment in respect of the ID Works contract has been sought to be adjusted by the company against sums payable under the contract for supply of furniture. Such stand of the company is not valid and legally tenable. By a letter issued by the company (page 53 of the affidavit-in-opposition), the company admitted the dues of the petitioner under the contract for supply of furniture and apologized for the delay in releasing payment and assured that funds would be arranged as soon as possible. The petitioner’s admitted dues have not been paid by the company in spite of receipt of statutory notice by the company and as such the company should be wound up. The case of the company: Winding up is a discretionary remedy. The facts of the case and the correspondence between the parties which have been disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply were suppressed in the petition. On that ground alone, discretionary relief should be refused to the petitioner. The contract was entered into on 24th May, 2011. It required that supply of the furniture and fixtures should be completed within 120 days from 24th May, 2011 i.e. by the end of September, 2011. However, documents on record would show that the supply went on till the end of 2012. For this delay the petitioner is liable and the company is in the process of filing a suit. There was defective supply with missing parts as would be evident from the E-mails exchanged between May 2011 and April, 2012 (copies whereof are at pages 31 to 60 of the affidavit-in-opposition). In June 2012, there was reconciliation and it was discovered that materials worth Rs. 62 lakhs would have to be supplied by the petitioner. There was defective supply with missing parts as would be evident from the E-mails exchanged between May 2011 and April, 2012 (copies whereof are at pages 31 to 60 of the affidavit-in-opposition). In June 2012, there was reconciliation and it was discovered that materials worth Rs. 62 lakhs would have to be supplied by the petitioner. This is regarding missing parts. Upon such reconciliation a proforma invoice was prepared for Rs. 62,49,517/- which is falsely contended to be in respect of additional supply by the petitioner. There is another proforma invoice which is, in fact, in connection with additional supply. The invoice is dated 9th August, 2012 (page 61 of the affidavit-in-opposition). To ensure continuous supply the company made over two post dated cheques amounting to Rs. 92,38,399/-. The petitioner discounted those cheques and started sending goods to the company. However, till as late as 16th July, 2012 the goods were not delivered, there were missing items and all supplies had not been made. Despite this position, the petitioner wrongly deposited the post dated cheques worth Rs. 92 lakhs. The company paid Rs. 50 lakhs by RTGS on 14th August, 2012. The company paid a further sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to the petitioner as recorded in the Email dated 8th October, 2012 (page 82 of the affidavit-in-opposition). There cannot be any case on dishonored cheques since after the cheques were dishonored, there have been payment of Rs. 1,32,81,250/- by the company to the petitioner. There are bona fide and substantial disputes between the petitioner and the company and as such the winding up petition should be dismissed. The Court’s View: I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. There appears to be some disputed questions of fact between the parties. The winding up court is not a debt collecting court. Where a bona fide dispute is raised by the company as regards the petitioner’s claim, the winding up court will reject the winding up petition and will relegate the petitioner to a suit where a seriously disputed claim can be properly adjudicated. In the instant case, the company has raised a dispute as regards the petitioner’s claim. The question is, how bona fide is such dispute? In the instant case, the company has raised a dispute as regards the petitioner’s claim. The question is, how bona fide is such dispute? Having gone through the company’s reply to the statutory notice as also through the company’s affidavit-in-opposition, I find that the company’s defence raised in the affidavit-in-opposition is substantially at variance from the company’s defence alleged in its reply to the statutory notice. Whereas in the reply to the statutory notice the company contended that no extra work was awarded to the petitioner, in its affidavit-in-opposition the company admitted that additional work was, in fact, awarded to the petitioner. The company contends that there was substantial delay in execution of the work by the petitioner for which the company is in the process of filing a suit claiming damages, however, till date no such suit has been filed. It is also significant that the company’s cheques amounting to Rs. 92,38,399/- were dishonored upon presentation. The company claims that after the cheques were dishonored a sum of Rs. 1,32,81,250/- was paid by it to the petitioner but it is not clear whether such payment was wholly in respect of the contract for supply of fixture and furniture or whether part of it was in respect of the ID Works contract. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the view that although the winding up petition ought not to be admitted, the company should be put on terms as its defence has raised a doubt regarding its bona fide nature in the mind of the court. In the premises, the company is directed to deposit with the Registrar, Original Side, of this court upon intimation to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,02,11,720/- within four weeks from date. If such deposit is made the instant winding up petition shall stand permanently stayed and the petitioner will be at liberty to file a suit for realization of its claim against the company within four weeks from the date of deposit of the aforesaid amount by the company. In case such deposit is made, the Registrar, Original Side will invest the sum in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank of his choice. In case such deposit is made, the Registrar, Original Side will invest the sum in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank of his choice. In case, the deposit is not made as directed hereinabove, the winding up petition shall stand admitted and the petitioner will be at liberty to publish advertisement once in ‘The Telegraph’, English edition and once in ‘Ananda Bazar Partika’ within four weeks from the date of admission of this winding up petition. In the event, the deposit is made by the company as directed above and the petitioner does not file a suit within four weeks, thereafter, the winding up petition shall stand dismissed and the company will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by it with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. Let this matter appear under the heading “adjourned motion” in the monthly list of January, 2015 before the Company Court for further orders.