ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. Alleging inability of M/s. Shiv Mahima Ispat Private Limited (hereinafter 'the respondent company') to pay its debt in due course of business despite a statutory notice and hence being deemed to be insolvent, the petitioner company Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) seeks the respondent company's winding up in this petition under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1956'). 2. Briefly stated the facts are that through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 17-4-2012 the respondent company agreed to purchase 1208.01 metric tonnes of HR coils from the petitioner company (hereinafter 'the petitioner'). Pursuant thereto in December, 2012 the petitioner dispatched HR coils from its Bokaro Steel Plant to destination Kanakpura, Jaipur as designated by the respondent company by rail between December 25 and 26, 2012 through invoices Nos. 50765-67, 50775, 50836 dated 25-12-2012 and 51078-81, 51085, 51088-89, 51104-06, 51109, 51111-12, 51147, 51196 dated 26-12-2012. The respondent company was required to make full payment against the aggregate value of the invoices, which it did vide cheque No. 025154 dated 3-1-2013 for a sum of Rs. 4,82,72,269/- drawn on YES Bank Jaipur favouring the petitioner. The invoices aforesaid and railway receipts (RR) were then endorsed in the respondent company's name and goods thereunder appropriated by it. The aforesaid Cheque towards sale consideration of the goods purchased was however dishonoured on 5-1-2013 for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement". The petitioner in the circumstances on or about 7-1-2013 required the respondent company to make full payment of the cheque amount for the goods supplied along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum by RTGS/Bank transfer to its account. In response, the respondent company through its written communication dated 10-1-2013 attributed the dishonour of its cheque to "some issues with its bankers" but assured that the due amount of Rs. 4,82,72,269/- would be paid through RTGS/pay order upto 20-1-2013. That was however not done despite repeated entreaties by the petitioner. In the circumstances legal notice dated 18-1-2013 was dispatched by the petitioner through its counsel to the respondent company and its directors under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requiring it to make payment of the amount under the dishonoured cheque. That was however not done despite repeated entreaties by the petitioner. In the circumstances legal notice dated 18-1-2013 was dispatched by the petitioner through its counsel to the respondent company and its directors under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requiring it to make payment of the amount under the dishonoured cheque. Further a notice dated 23-1-2013 under Sections 433(e) & (f), 434 and 439 of the Act of 1956 followed and was served at the respondent company's registered office. Yet the respondent company failed to pay the outstanding due debt to the petitioner. The petitioner in the circumstances appears to have filed a money suit for recovery of the due amount of Rs. 4,82,72,269/- before the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur. 3. The case of the petitioner in the winding up petition subsequently filed is that the amount due and payable to it for goods supplied and still largely retained by the respondent company is an undisputed debt, which it was under a legal duty to pay but failed despite a statutory notice. This neglect to pay the due debt has rendered it "deemed insolvent" and liable to be wound up under Section 433(e) of the Act of 1956. It has also been submitted that under the circumstances it is also just and equitable in the general interest of the body of creditors of the respondent company to wind it up, such that under the protection of limited liability of the Act of 1956, the respondent company does not continue to avail credit and run up debt likely not to be paid with the detrimental consequences for the unsuspecting creditors as also smooth trade and commerce-the life blood of an economy. 4. The respondent company, in its reply has raised a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the winding up petition. It has been submitted that as the petitioner has admittedly filed a money suit for recovery of the amount allegedly under the dishonoured cheque prior to the filing of the winding up petition, the winding up petition is an abuse of the process of law seeking to scuttle a fair trial in its civil suit and coerce the respondent company in paying a disputed debt. It has also been alleged that the goods supplied under respondent company's purchase order dated 5-12-2012 were defective, as the goods booked were of CC/016 IS 10748 specification, while the goods supplied were IS5986 FE 330 and thus wholly distinct from the ones required. It has been submitted that cheque No. 025154 dated 3-1-2013 for Rs. 4,82,72,269/- was issued under the belief that the ordered goods have been honestly supplied. It has also been stated that the petitioner company and respondent company had a commercial relationship over the last several years, in the course of which various supplies were made to respondent company in respect whereto several sums on account of credit notes for incentives, defective supplies, other losses suffered by the respondent company and goods returned to an extent of Rs. 1,65,94,500/- on 13-3-2013 entitle it to a set off from the amount due to the petitioner for supply of HR coils under purchase order dated 5-12-2012. These due sums are reflected in the respondent company's ledgers maintained vis-a-vis the petitioner and on adjustment thereof against the supply of HR coils in issue a sum of Rs. 44,352/- is in fact due against the petitioner. No amount at all, as a debt or otherwise is due and payable to the petitioner by the respondent company. It has been submitted that consequently the claim of the petitioner company for the debt of Rs. 4,82,72,269/- or any amount whatsoever under the dishonoured cheque No. 025154 dated 3-1-2013 towards supply of 1208.1 MT HR Coils under invoices dated 25-12-2012 and 26-12-2012 is a bona fide dispute and would be more appropriately adjudicated on the basis of evidence in a regular trial before the court of Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur in the petitioner's money suit. As such the winding up petition under Section 433 (e) & (f), 434 and 439 of the Act of 1956 is a gross misuse of statutory provisions and which should not be countenanced by this court. 5. In rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted that the entire defence of the respondent company is an afterthought, contrived, false, a sham and mala fide. The dispute with regard to earlier transactions and amounts recoverable in respect thereof from the petitioner is as vague as it is baseless. No contemporaneous correspondence has been adverted to or filed in support of the said claims averred in the reply. The dispute with regard to earlier transactions and amounts recoverable in respect thereof from the petitioner is as vague as it is baseless. No contemporaneous correspondence has been adverted to or filed in support of the said claims averred in the reply. And the dispute with regard to goods supplied under the purchase order dated 5-12-2012 being contrary to the specifications ordered, and the claim of alleged mandatory discounts by way of credit notes, "and other claims" in respect of earlier supplies have been set up only for the first time following the dishonour of cheque No. 025154 dated 3-1-2013 for a sum of Rs. 4,82,72,269/-. In fact no such defence was taken by the respondent company in its contemporaneous letter dated 10-1-2013, wherein it was categorically stated that the cheque dated 3-1-2013 for Rs. 4,82,72,269/- was dishonoured for issues with the respondent company's bankers and further that the amount under the cheque would be paid by 20-1-2013. It has been submitted that pendency of the money suit at the instance of the petitioner with regard to the same transaction on which winding up petition is based or for that matter resort to criminal processes for fraud by the directors of the respondent company as also for breach of statutory provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is of no event for the maintainability of the winding up petition. The statutory provisions for filing a petition for winding up of a debtor company unable to pay its debt and hence commercially insolvent are a different and distinct jurisdiction. It has been submitted that following the dishonour of respondent company's cheque No. 025154 dated 3-1-2013 for a sum of Rs. 4,82,72,269/-, towards consideration of 1208.01 MT Tons HR Coils supplied, the respondent company indeed returned goods to an extent of 240 MT (approximate) valued at Rs. 95,70,300/- on 24-1-2013, but remainder goods were not returned. All documents filed in regard to return of further goods valued at Rs. 1,65,94,550/- i.e. annexure-R/5 are false and fabricated. The Roadlines engaged by the petitioner for further return of unpaid goods aside of 240 MT earlier returned on 23-1-2013 were never allowed to obtain the cargo as is evident from their letter dated 14-3-2013. As such the contention of respondent company alleging return of unpaid goods to an extent of Rs. 1,65,94,550/- as against the admitted return of unpaid goods to an extent of Rs. As such the contention of respondent company alleging return of unpaid goods to an extent of Rs. 1,65,94,550/- as against the admitted return of unpaid goods to an extent of Rs. 95,70,300/- is wholly concocted, mendacious, false and simply an attempt to somehow create a dispute with regard to the debt due as a ground to oust the jurisdiction of the company court. 6. The winding up petition was admitted on 22-4-2016 by a detailed order. Notices of the admission of winding up were published in the Times of India (English), Dainik Bhaskar (Hindi) Jaipur Edition and the Official Gazette. None from the public having interest in the matter has appeared to oppose the petition. In fact even counsel for the respondent company has not appeared. 7. The case of the respondent company that the winding up petition has been filed as a pressure tactic to recover alleged debt which is seriously disputed bona fide on substantial grounds and entails misuse of the salutary winding up provisions of the Act of 1956 has been considered in detail and rejected vide order dated 22-4-2016 when the winding up petition was admitted. None has appeared for the respondent company to persuade the court to take a different view. 8. From the facts of the case detailed in the order of admission of the winding up petition on 22-4-2016 it cannot be held that the petitioner-Company had not approached this Court with clean hands making the purpose of filing the winding up petition questionable and mala fide. I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case the winding up of the respondent company for its inability to pay its debt inter alia to the petitioner company would not be contrary to public interest. In fact public interest warrants winding up of incorporated companies which are not able to discharge their debt despite statutory notice and are thus deemed to be insolvent. Companies with limited liability such as the respondent company cannot be allowed to run up debts which remain unpaid. If they were so allowed to do the wheels of commerce would come to a standstill to huge public detriment. Continuing functioning of insolvent companies with limited liability also raises issue of commercial morality. Such issue should be urgently closed with the winding up of such companies were warranted, as in the instant case. 9. If they were so allowed to do the wheels of commerce would come to a standstill to huge public detriment. Continuing functioning of insolvent companies with limited liability also raises issue of commercial morality. Such issue should be urgently closed with the winding up of such companies were warranted, as in the instant case. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Industries Vs. NATL Technologies Limited, (2009) 2 SCC 527 has held that following considerations are to be kept in mind by the Company Court while addressing winding up petitions:- (i) Whether the debt due as claimed is prima facie made out; (ii) Whether the respondent company has neglected to pay its debt; (iii) Whether there is a bona fide dispute with regard to the debt claimed by the petitioner company; (iv) Whether the defence to the winding up petition set up is one of the substance. 10. From the facts and material on record, it is fully established that goods (HR Coils) were indeed supplied to the respondent-Company and admittedly receipted by it. Payment thereof by way of a cheque issued was not made for reason of the cheque being dishonoured. The respondent-Company vide letter dated 10-1-2013 undertook to make the requisite payment by 20-1-2013. The promised payment was not made. A debt thus obtained. As earlier held the said debt is not disputed on any substantial and bona fide grounds. The disputes to the debt due as raised in the reply to the winding up petition are a mere after thought and without substance. Aside of the aforesaid, in any event, admittedly goods receipted or part thereof retained was more than Rs. 1 lac. They were dishonestly not returned and instead disposed of in the market. The sale price was appropriated by the respondent company most dishonestly. The statutory notice under Section 432(1)(a) of the Act of 1956 was not replied to. The defence to the winding up petition is of no substance, wholly contrived, mere moonshine, a sham and not bona fide. 11. On 27-5-2016, the respondent company was directed to file statement of affairs of the company. That has still not been filed. The statutory notice under Section 432(1)(a) of the Act of 1956 was not replied to. The defence to the winding up petition is of no substance, wholly contrived, mere moonshine, a sham and not bona fide. 11. On 27-5-2016, the respondent company was directed to file statement of affairs of the company. That has still not been filed. Thereafter vide order dated 16-9-2016 while deciding the application under Section 450 of the Act of 1956 the Official Liquidator attached to this court was appointed as provisional Liquidator of the respondent company with a direction to take possession of the assets, both movable and immovable, of the respondent company. The Official Liquidator was also authorised to exercise powers under section 457(1) of the Act of 1956. The respondent company was also directed to file statement of affairs of the company under pain of contempt. Even the said direction to file the state of affairs has again gone abegging. 12. In view of aforesaid facts the respondent company M/s. Shiv Mahima Ispat Private Limited is directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator is appointed as the Liquidator of the respondent company under Section 448 of the 1956 Act. He shall take steps to take possession of the immovable and movable assets of the respondent company, if not so already done. The Directors of the respondent company are again directed to file statement of affairs of the respondent company before the Official Liquidator as statutorily required and also put on record their correct addresses. 13. The citation of winding up of the respondent company be published by the petitioner in two news papers i.e. The Times of India (English) Delhi Edition and Dainik Bhaskar (Hindi) Jaipur Edition. The Citation be also published in the official gazette. 14. All costs to the account of the petitioner company. 15. A copy of this order be supplied to the Official Liquidator.