JUDGMENT : Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. This is an application under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short “the Act of 1956”) for winding up of Impex Ferro Tech Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. 2. According to the petitioner, in terms of the various purchase orders issued by the company between April, 2013 and July, 2015, it supplied coal to the company. Against the total quantity of coal supplied the petitioner raised various invoices upon the company which were received by the latter. The company made payment of certain invoices and sent an account confirmation statement (hereinafter referred to as “the said account confirmation”) to the petitioner admitting its outstanding principal dues to the petitioner for Rs. 1,74,65,867/-. However, in spite of requests of the petitioner the company did not pay said amount. By a notice dated March 15, 2016 issued under Section 434 of the Act of 1956 the petitioner called upon the company to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,74,65,867/- as admitted by itself in the said account confirmation. The company received the said notice dated March 15, 2016 but neither did it reply to the same, nor made did it payment to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed the present application for winding up of the company. 3. The company filed its affidavit-in-opposition to this application alleging that by various letters between February 17, 2012 and May 22, 2013 it informed the petitioner of defective supply as also short supply of coal. In this connection, the company disclosed the letters dated February 17, 2012, May 08, 2012, June 30, 2012, August 28, 2012, November 29, 2012, January 28, 2013, March 28, 2013 and May 22, 2013 addressed to the petitioner. It further alleged that the said account confirmation has been prepared by an officer of the company who was not conversant with the details and the said document does not include the deduction to which company is entitled on account of delay in supply of goods under the purchase orders. Further, since at the relevant time the staff of the company had issued en masse resignation, the statutory notice dated March 15, 2016 issued by the petitioner could not be placed before the persons responsible to deal with the same and the company could not reply to the said notice. Further, since at the relevant time the staff of the company had issued en masse resignation, the statutory notice dated March 15, 2016 issued by the petitioner could not be placed before the persons responsible to deal with the same and the company could not reply to the said notice. The company also alleged that it is entitled to receive Rs.2,86,00,000/-, together with interest from the petitioner due to production loss suffered for 2 days because of delayed supply of coal. 4. In its affidavit-in-reply the petitioner denied all the allegations made by the company in its affidavit-in-opposition and reiterated its claim in the petition. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this application is founded on the said account confirmation furnished by the company for the period April 01, 2013 to July 27, 2015 acknowledging its outstanding dues to the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,74,65,867/-. According to the petitioner, the defence sought to be made up by the company on the allegation that its officer who issued the said account confirmation was not conversant with all the details is an afterthought and devoid of any merit. It was submitted that the officer of the company who prepared the said account confirmation has not affirmed any affidavit stating that he was not conversant with the details of the transactions between the parties. Even the petitioner did not withdraw the said account confirmation. So far as the alleged letters dated February 17, 2012, May 08, 2012, June 30, 2012, August 28, 2012, November 29, 2012, January 28, 2013, March 28, 2013 and May 22, 2013 disclosed by the company in its affidavit-in- opposition, the petitioner submitted that none of the said letters suggested the company has suffered any loss for any act of the petitioner towards supply of coal against the relevant purchase orders. The petitioner contended that in any event, in view of the issuance of the said account confirmation for the period April 1, 2013 to July 27, 2015 by the company those alleged letters have no significance in this case. The petitioner contended that in any event, in view of the issuance of the said account confirmation for the period April 1, 2013 to July 27, 2015 by the company those alleged letters have no significance in this case. By referring to the said account confirmation it was further argued that from the column under the heading “Debit amount” of the said document, it is evident that the company prepared the same after deducting the various amounts, as per the respective debit notes issued by it against the relevant invoice of the petitioner and the balance amount mentioned in the last column of the said document disclose the actual outstanding amount payable to the petitioner. The petitioner strenuously urged that the company in its affidavit has not been able to demonstrate any error in the said account confirmation issued by itself. According to the petitioner, the company has not disclosed any contemporaneous document alleging that it suffered any operational loss due to any act or omission of the petitioner. With regard to the case made out by the company for not replying to the statutory notice dated March 15, 2016 on the ground of en masse resignation of its employees, the petitioner submitted that such allegation is also a bald allegation and the company has not disclosed any document to substantiate such allegation. It was strongly contended that the allegations made by the company for the first time in its affidavit-in-opposition lack prima facie proof and such allegations are aimed only to delay the realisation of the bona fide claim of the petitioner. Urging all these, it was strenuously argued for the petitioner that the company has failed to disclose any bona fide defence to the petitioner’s claim in this application and, as such, this application should be admitted. 6. It was, however, contended on behalf of the company that since the said account confirmation for the period April 1, 2013 to July 27, 2015 was prepared by an officer who was not conversant with the relevant facts of the case, the petitioner cannot maintain its present claim against the company on the basis of the said document. 6. It was, however, contended on behalf of the company that since the said account confirmation for the period April 1, 2013 to July 27, 2015 was prepared by an officer who was not conversant with the relevant facts of the case, the petitioner cannot maintain its present claim against the company on the basis of the said document. It was submitted that in its affidavit-in-reply the petitioner has alleged that the said letters dated February 17, 2012, May 08, 2012, June 30, 2012, August 28, 2012, November 29, 2012, January 28, 2013, March 28, 2013 and May 22, 2013 disclosed by the company in its affidavit-in-opposition are manufactured documents. Therefore, there arises a bona fide dispute with regard to the genuineness of the said letters and the entire claim of the petitioner should be relegated to a suit. 7. I have considered the materials on record, as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner has founded its claim in this application primarily on the said account confirmation furnished by the company disclosing that Rs.1,74,65,867/- remained due and outstanding by itself to the petitioner on account of the invoices raised by the latter for the period April 1, 2013 to July 27, 2015. The company could not deny the issuance of the said account confirmation to the petitioner. However, in its affidavit-in-opposition the company for the first time sought to disown its obligation to pay to the petitioner the outstanding amount mentioned in the said account confirmation alleging that the officer who issued the document was not conversant with all the details. It is to be noted that there is conspicuous absence of an affidavit by the said officer of the company stating his ignorance of the facts relating to the transaction between the parties herein. The company on its own volition issued the said account confirmation and subsequently it did not issue any communication to the petitioner alleging the said document to be incorrect or that the same should not be acted upon. Further, when the said account confirmation disclosed the outstanding dues of the company to the petitioner was arrived at Rs.86,17,084/- after deducting the various amounts from its respective invoices, the company could not point out any error in the entries or calculation reflected in the said document. Further, when the said account confirmation disclosed the outstanding dues of the company to the petitioner was arrived at Rs.86,17,084/- after deducting the various amounts from its respective invoices, the company could not point out any error in the entries or calculation reflected in the said document. The said letters dated February 17, 2012, May 08, 2012, June 30, 2012, August 28, 2012, November 29, 2012, January 28, 2013, March 28, 2013 and May 22, 2013 were issued by the company to the petitioner in respect of five separate purchase orders and none of the said letters suggested any alleged claim of the company for any operational loss suffered by it due to delayed supply of coal by the petitioner. There is complete lack of any prima facie evidence for the alleged loss suffered by the company on account supply of coal by the petitioner. For all these reasons, I am unable find any merit in the defence sought to be made out by the company that the said account confirmation is not binding on it. In the statutory notice dated March 15, 2016 the petitioner expressly referred to the said account confirmation statement based on which it claimed payment of Rs.1,74,65,867/- from the company. The receipt of the said statutory notice dated March 15, 2016 by the company is not in dispute. However, in the absence of any prima facie evidence I do not find any credibility in the case made out by the company that the said notice was not brought to the notice of the concerned officer of the company on the ground that there was en masse resignation of its staff. It is settled law that when a company does not reply to the satutory notice issued under section 434 of the Act of 1956, there arises a presumption that the company has admits the claim of the petitioning creditor. If an authority for this view is looked for, the same can be found in the decision by Ruma Pal, J (as Her Ladyship then was) in the case of Associated Forest Products (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. K.T.S. (Singapore) PLC Ltd. reported in 1993(1) Cal LT (HC) 382. 8. For the reasons as aforesaid, I find that the company has failed to make out any bona fide defence to the claim of the petitioner in this application. 8. For the reasons as aforesaid, I find that the company has failed to make out any bona fide defence to the claim of the petitioner in this application. Accordingly, this winding up application against the company is admitted for a sum of Rs .1,74,65,867/- with interest thereon, at the rate of seven per cent (7%) , per annum from the date of receipt of the statutory notice dated March 15, 2016 till the date of payment. The company is directed to pay the said principal amount of Rs. 1,74,65,867/-, together with interest to the petitioner by eight equal monthly instalments. By the first seven equal monthly instalments the company shall pay the principal amont of Rs. 1,74,65,867/- and by the last instalment the company shall pay the interest amount to the petitioner. The first of such instalments shall be paid by the company to the petitioner, within August 31, 2018 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid to the petitioner within the 10th day of each succeeding month. 9. In the event of any failure on the part of the company to pay any one of the above instalments within the time stipulated above, the petitioner shall be free to advertise this application once in the English newspaper, "The Statesman” and once in the Bengali newspaper, “Bartaman”. In the said notices the petitioner shall mention that the application shall appear before this Court on the first Monday, after four weeks from the date of publication thereof. 10. The publication in the official gazette is dispensed with. 11. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.