JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 7th May, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Company Petition filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short, the Act), seeking winding up of the respondent-Company, came to be dismissed, (for short, the impugned judgment). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner firm rendered services to the respondent- Company for preparation of detailed project report, conducting audit, making liaison with the banks for procuring term loan and getting the working capital limits sanctioned, including various other jobs, which were assigned by the respondent-Company to the petitioner firm from time to time. On account of such services, the respondent-Company owed a sum of Rs. 12,06,580/- to the petitioner-firm against Bill No. TS 5/09/06, dated 26th September, 2006. In addition to the above amount, the respondent-Company was also liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- as service tax and Rs. 1,50,000/- for not honouring the contract. It was further averred that when the respondent-Company did not pay the said amount despite several requests by the petitioner-firm and assurances given by the respondent-Company, the petitioner-Firm was constrained to issue a legal notice, dated 9th January, 2007, whereby the respondent-Company was asked to pay the due amount within 30 days and in default, the respondent-Company was put on caveat that a petition for winding up of the respondent-Company would be filed. 3. It is also pleaded that in February, 2008, the Managing Director of the respondent-Company made a telephone to the partner of the petitioner firm for preparing the project report, which request was turned down, for the respondent-Company had not paid the outstanding amount. 4. Thus, it was claimed that the respondent-Company was in debt and therefore, the petitioner firm sought for the winding up of the respondent-Company by filing the company petition. 5. The company petition was resisted by the respondent-Company by filing detailed reply. Preliminary objections in regard to maintainability of the petition, disputed questions of facts, suppression of material facts etc. were raised by the respondent-Company. 6. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the pleadings of the parties and the various pronouncements of the Apex Court, has held that the debt, as claimed by the petitioner, was disputed and the respondent-Company has bona fide and substantial grounds to resist the same. were raised by the respondent-Company. 6. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the pleadings of the parties and the various pronouncements of the Apex Court, has held that the debt, as claimed by the petitioner, was disputed and the respondent-Company has bona fide and substantial grounds to resist the same. It has also been held that the petitioner was not in a position to show that the respondent-Company has become insolvent and therefore, was unable to pay its debt. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the company petition. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 9. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent-Company shows that it has disputed the amount claimed by the petitioner and has also stated that the respondent-Company is flourishing by leaps and bounds. The learned Single Judge has discussed the reply and reproduced the relevant portion thereof in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment, which is not being referred to for the sake of brevity. The respondent-Company has disputed the claim made by the petitioner on bona fide grounds and not that the respondent- Company was unable to pay the claimed amount. 10. In order to determine whether the respondent-Company has a case to dispute the claim made by the petitioner and whether it had a bona fide ground to avoid the payment or the respondent-Company was unable to pay the debt as claimed by the petitioner/appellant and whether in a Company Petition, intricate disputed questions of fact can be gone into like a Civil Court, the learned Single Judge has referred to various judgments of the Apex Court and deduced certain legal principles in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment. The said principles were rightly discerned by the learned Single Judge, are based upon the mandate of Section 433(e) of the Act, read with the mandate of the Apex Court in IBA Health (India) Private Limited vs. INFO-Drive Systems SDN. BHD. (2010) 10 SCC 553, which has been referred to by the learned Single in paragraph 29 of the impugned judgment. It is profitable to reproduce paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned judgment hereunder: “29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IBA Health (India) Private Limited vs. INFO-Drive Systems SDN. BHD. BHD. (2010) 10 SCC 553, which has been referred to by the learned Single in paragraph 29 of the impugned judgment. It is profitable to reproduce paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned judgment hereunder: “29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IBA Health (India) Private Limited vs. INFO-Drive Systems SDN. BHD. (2010) 10 SCC 553, has also explained that a dispute would be substantial if it is bona-fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived, the relevant extract from the decision is quoted below: “20. The question that arises for consideration is that when there is a substantial dispute as to liability, can a creditor prefer an application for winding up for discharge of that liability? In such a situation, is there not a duty on the Company Court to examine whether the company has a genuine dispute to the claimed debt? A dispute would be substantial and genuine if it is bona-fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. The Company Court, at that stage, is not expected to hold a full trial of the matter. It must decide whether the grounds appear to be substantial. The grounds of dispute, of course, must not consist of some ingenious mask invented to deprive a creditor of a just and honest entitlement and must not be a mere wrangle. It is settled law that if the creditor’s debt is bona-fide disputed on substantial grounds, the court should dismiss the petition and leave the creditor first to establish his claim in an action, lest there is danger of abuse of winding up procedure. The Company Court always retains the discretion, but a party to a dispute should not be allowed to use the threat of winding up petition as a means of forcing the company to pay a bona-fide disputed debt.” 30. From the aforesaid judgments, the following broad legal principles can be deduced: 1. If the debt is bona-fide disputed and the defense is a substantial one, the Court will not wind up the company. Conversely, if the plea of denial of debit is moonshine or a cloak, spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived, the Court can exercise the discretion to order the company to be wound up. 2. A petition presented ostensibly for winding up order, but in reality to exert pressure to pay the bona-fide disputed debt is liable to be dismissed. 3. Conversely, if the plea of denial of debit is moonshine or a cloak, spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived, the Court can exercise the discretion to order the company to be wound up. 2. A petition presented ostensibly for winding up order, but in reality to exert pressure to pay the bona-fide disputed debt is liable to be dismissed. 3. Solvency is not a stand alone ground. It is relevant to test whether denial of debt is bonafide. 4. Where the debt is undisputed and the company does not choose to pay the particular debt, its defence that it has the ability to pay the debt will not be acted upon by the Court. 5. Where there is no dispute regarding the liability, but the dispute is confined only to the exact amount of the debt, the Court will make the winding up order. 6. An order to wind up a company is discretionary. Even in a case where the companys liability to pay the debt was proved, order to wind up the company is not automatic. The Court will consider the wishes of shareholders and creditors and it may attach greater weight to the views of the creditors. 7. A winding up order will not be made on a creditors petition if it would not benefit him or the company’s creditors generally and the grounds furnished by the creditors opposing winding up will have an impact on the reasonableness of the case. In the light of the settled legal principles, the endeavour of this Court must be to find out whether the debt claimed by the petitioner is a bona-fide disputed debt or not and in this process this Court will not dwell into the intricate disputed questions of fact like a Civil Court exercising its jurisdiction in a suit filed for recovery of money. It is for this precise reason that the pleadings of the parties has been quoted in extenso.” 11. Financially, the respondent-Company was in a sound position and has not become insolvent. Moreover, the petitioner has not placed anything on record which would indicate that the respondent-Company was commercially insolvent. It is for this precise reason that the pleadings of the parties has been quoted in extenso.” 11. Financially, the respondent-Company was in a sound position and has not become insolvent. Moreover, the petitioner has not placed anything on record which would indicate that the respondent-Company was commercially insolvent. After going through the pleadings of the parties and the documents on the file, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that intricate questions of fact are involved in the instant case, which cannot be gone into in a Company Petition filed under Section 433(e) of the Act. 12. The learned Single Judge has minutely examined the pleadings of the parties and has rightly applied the law governing the field. Having said so, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.