ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is before this Court claiming that it is a partnership concern engaged in providing advertisement, marketing and other business solutions for its customers. It is also engaged in the business of software applications for hand held devices, image sourcing solutions, etc. The respondent is said to be a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of providing manpower. The respondent had approached the petitioner seeking the services of the petitioner for image sourcing projects and after various correspondences and negotiations, the respondent had engaged the services of the petitioner. The payment schedule was agreed to be made in four equal tranches. Initially, an advance of 25% of the value was paid and remaining was still due and outstanding as on the date of the petition. The second tranche of payment was due after the development of software and third was due on completion of the User Acceptance Test. The petitioner is said to have developed, completed the applications and also had it installed, which were shipped to the respondent-customer. The respondent had confirmed in writing that the work was carried out to its satisfaction. The petitioner upon completion of the works in July 2010, had raised invoices for the value outstanding on the handheld applications developed by the petitioner. 2. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 22,74,301/- was received against the total value of Rs. 82,96,351/- due from the respondent. The remaining sum was due and outstanding as on the date of the petition. The respondent which was liable to make its payment had requested time for effecting payments, but failed to do so. The petitioner had issued a notice in terms of Section 433(e) and 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity) which was duly served on the respondent and the demand not having been met though a reply was issued, it was an untenable one raising irrelevant contentions and therefore the present petition. 3. The respondent having entered appearance through Counsel, has filed Statement of objections to raise two primary contentions: Firstly, that the petition was not maintainable on account of non-compliance with Section 434(1)(a) of the Act. 3. The respondent having entered appearance through Counsel, has filed Statement of objections to raise two primary contentions: Firstly, that the petition was not maintainable on account of non-compliance with Section 434(1)(a) of the Act. In that, notice issued under Section 434(1)(a) was not served on the Registered Office of the company and was admittedly served on the corporate office of the respondent-Company. Hence, it is contended that the ground under Section 434(1)(a) of deeming vendor of the respondent being unable to pay its debts does not arise and it would be for the respondent to establish on other material that the respondent is no longer able to service its debts and therefore, ought to be wound up in terms of Section 433(1)(c) and hence, the petition being silent as to the respondent's financial state of affairs would not be maintainable in the absence of any such pleading or material evidence in support of any such contention and hence it is contended that the petition be rejected. 4. In this background, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that insofar as the preliminary objection as to the petition not being maintainable under Section 434(1)(a) is concerned, it would not make any difference even if it could be accepted, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited, Yeshwantnagar, Karnataka v. Manganese Ore (India) Limited, Nagpur, 2001 (4) Kar. L.J. 590 (DB), ILR 2001 Kar. 4420 (DB), wherein this Court has held as follows: "12. But we do not agree with the appellant that the winding-up petition should be dismissed in limine. The averments in the petition disclose that the petition for winding-up is based not only on Section 434(1)(a) but also on Section 434(1)(c). Therefore, even if the legal fiction under Section 434(1)(a) is not available, the petition requires consideration under Section 434(1)(c). It is now well-settled that where the notice of demand issued under Section 434(1)(a) is defective, the creditor can still prove that the Company is unable to pay its debts under Section 434(1)(c). Reference may be made to the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ramdas and Company v. Kitti Steels Limited, (1999) 2 Comp. L.J. 398 (AP), the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Alliance Credit and Investments Limited v. Khaitan Hostombe Spinels Limited, (1997) 3 Comp. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ramdas and Company v. Kitti Steels Limited, (1999) 2 Comp. L.J. 398 (AP), the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Alliance Credit and Investments Limited v. Khaitan Hostombe Spinels Limited, (1997) 3 Comp. L.J. 200 (All.), the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Garodia Hardware Store v. Nimodia Plantations and Industries Private Limited, AIR 1998 Gau. 18 , 1999 (98) Comp. Cas. 434 (Gau.), and the decision of the Madras High Court in B. Vishwanathan v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited, 1992 (73) Comp. Cas. 136 (Mad.). 13. In this case no documents have been produced by the creditor in support of the case under Section 434(1)(c). Neither the audited Balance Sheets of the Company nor other documents to show that the Company has incurred heavy losses or had defaulted in payment, are produced by the creditor. On the other hand, the Company has also not filed objections denying the averments in the petition that it has defaulted in paying several creditors and is unable to pay its debts. As the petition is filed invoking Section 434(1)(c), the creditor should produce the documents in support of its claim and the Company should be given an opportunity to file its objections and documents to rebut the case of the creditor under Section 434(1)(c)." And would seek to point out that even if the petition for winding-up was not maintainable insofar as Section 434(1)(a) is concerned, that a presumption of the respondent-Company not being able to pay its debts is not available, the petition could yet be considered under Section 434(1)(c) and it would be possible for the petitioner to support his case on the strength of material to be furnished. Incidentally, it is also contended that the learned Counsel for the respondents themselves have furnished material before this Court which on the face of it would disclose that the financial health of the respondent-Company is in dire straits and therefore, would be a case for admission to be further considered on the strength of material evidence to be tendered. 5. Incidentally, it is also contended that the learned Counsel for the respondents themselves have furnished material before this Court which on the face of it would disclose that the financial health of the respondent-Company is in dire straits and therefore, would be a case for admission to be further considered on the strength of material evidence to be tendered. 5. However, the learned Senior Advocate Sri Sreevatsa appearing for the respondent would point out that the Division Bench judgment referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner no doubt indicates that if no ground is made out for sustaining the petition under Section 434(1)(a), the ground available under Section 434(1)(c) is not taken up provided that the petitioner has come to Court with the necessary pleadings and the material documents. In the present case on hand, if the petition is perused, there are no averments in this regard and the petitioner seeking to rest his case on material documents that are now sought to be filed across the Bar, would be unwelcome approach in considering such a case as to the respondent not being able to service its debts. It was for the petitioner to plead and establish that circumstances. It would be wholly unfair to proceed on the basis of material that is sought to be cited in defence of the respondent's case. In the light of the above circumstances, it is indeed true that the statutory notice was not served on the Registered Office. On this point, the Division Bench of this Court in The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited's case has laid down that there is a mandatory requirement of service of notice on the registered company and substantial compliance being sufficient insofar as that requirement is concerned, as held in the case of Manganese Ore (India) Limited, Nagpur v. The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited, Yeshwantnagar, Bellary District, 1999 (5) Kar. L.J. 363, 1999 (98) Comp. Cas. 755 (Kar.), ILR 1999 Kar. 2793, by a learned Single Judge of this Court is no longer good law. Insofar as the further contention that the petitioner can still sustain the petition in terms of Section 434(1)(c) is concerned, from a plain reading of the petition, there are no averments made as regards the financial state of the respondent-Company being in a bad condition. 2793, by a learned Single Judge of this Court is no longer good law. Insofar as the further contention that the petitioner can still sustain the petition in terms of Section 434(1)(c) is concerned, from a plain reading of the petition, there are no averments made as regards the financial state of the respondent-Company being in a bad condition. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to permit the petitioner to supply these pleadings at this point of time. The petition is of the year 2012 and to further procrastinate matters for default on the part of the petitioner in not having taken appropriate contentions, would lead to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. In view of the order of dismissal of the company petition, the Company Application No. 1095 of 2013 is dismissed as not surviving for consideration.