JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal is directed against an order of June 7, 2016 by which the Company Court refused to entertain a creditor's winding-up petition merely on the ground that there was an arbitration agreement in the matrix contract under which the claim was made. 2. In course of the discussion in the order impugned, a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at 2013 (179) Comp. Cases 15 (Maheswari Ispat Ltd. v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd) has been referred to and some of the observations from such Division Bench judgment, which do not constitute the ratio decidendi of such judgment, have been quoted verbatim. 3. The discussion herein may be totally academic in view of the change of law and upon High Courts being denuded of their authority to entertain creditors' winding-up petitions against companies. For over a century the law has remained unchanged. A creditor asserting as such has a statutory right to seek the winding-up of a debtor company. However, it is not necessary that even if such creditor demonstrates an undisputed debt, that the company must be wound up. 4. In accordance with the procedure envisaged by the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 as approved by the Supreme Court, a creditor's winding-up petition is to be advertised inviting support or opposition from all creditors of the company and a decision is to be made whether the company should be wound up after hearing such creditors and others interested. However, the issuance of an advertisement is also a stigma and the practice that has been followed in this Court for more than six decades [recognised in 1951 (56) CWN 29 (Bharat Vegetables)], mandates the petition to be taken up in two stages. At the initial stage affidavits are called for and the debt is adjudicated upon. If the debt is established, the petition is admitted and it progresses to the second stage upon advertisements being issued. At such second stage the issue as to the indebtedness or the extent of indebtedness can be reopened only in the rarest of cases and not at the behest of the company; at such stage the Court considers whether the company ought to be wound up despite its admitted inability to pay at least one creditor. 5. At such second stage the issue as to the indebtedness or the extent of indebtedness can be reopened only in the rarest of cases and not at the behest of the company; at such stage the Court considers whether the company ought to be wound up despite its admitted inability to pay at least one creditor. 5. The right of a creditor to have his petition taken up for consideration is statutory and he is entitled ex debito justitiae to an order of admission if the debt is established. There is no discretion in the matter. The discretion is only at the second stage as to whether the company ought to be wound up despite its inability to pay its debt to at least one creditor. 6. The observations to the contrary in the order impugned are to be disregarded. 7. When a creditor has a statutory right to seek the winding-up of a debtor company, a private agreement to have the inter se disputes resolved by arbiration cannot stand in the way of the statutory right. In any event, a creditor's petition is not admitted unless the debt is undisputed and found to be due. The tests are somewhat as in an Order 37 suit for summary judgment and the tests have been accepted to be as those laid down in the judgment reported at 49 CHN 246 (Kironmoyee Dassi v. Dr. J.Chatterjee). 8. It is elementary that what is referred to arbitration is a dispute. When a dispute arises as to the debt or the extent thereof, instead of the claim of the relevant petitioning creditor being relegated to a civil suit, the claim is relegated to an arbitral reference, if the arbitration agreement is admitted. Thus, the sine qua non for a claim to be relegated to a civil suit or an arbitral reference is the existence of a dispute. Equally, if there is a dispute, a creditor's petition cannot be admitted as the debt cannot be regarded as undisputed and the presumption that the company is unable to pay its debts would not arise. Thus, an arbitration agreement can never stand in the way of a creditor asserting his statutory right of applying for winding up a debtor company. 9. The authority on the subject is reported at (1999) 5 SCC 688 (Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries India Ltd.). 10. Thus, an arbitration agreement can never stand in the way of a creditor asserting his statutory right of applying for winding up a debtor company. 9. The authority on the subject is reported at (1999) 5 SCC 688 (Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries India Ltd.). 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned dated June 7, 2016 cannot be sustained and CP 224 of 2016 is remanded to the Company Court for consideration on merits. Since the company is represented and seeks to file its affidavit-in-opposition to the petition, the company is permitted a fortnight from date to file its affidavit-in-opposition to CP 224 of 2016; reply thereto, if any, may be filed within a fortnight thereafter. 11. APO 183 of 2017 and ACO 75 of 2016 are allowed as above. 12. There will be no order as to costs.