1. Since, on same set of facts, except a change in the amount due to the respondent, similar relief has been claimed, both these Company Petitions have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. For convenience sake, the facts narrated in Company Petition No. 269 of 2014 are referred to.

3. Petitioners are partners of unregistered partnership firm, namely, M/s. Devang Electricals. Respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act), engaged in the business of execution of engineering contracts and construction works. The petitioners firm claims to have supplied various goods to the respondent under different purchase orders.

4. As the respondent failed to pay the amount due with respect to the said supplies, the petitioners firm got issued a statutory notice, dated 30.12.2013 under Section 434 of the Act calling upon it to pay the amount due and further cautioning that in the event of non-payment of due amount, it would be constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 434 of the Act. In spite of the same, the respondent neither gave reply nor denied the legal demand, as such, the petitioners filed this Company Petition seeking to wind up the respondent on the ground of its inability to pay the amount due.

5. The respondent filed its counter-affidavit denying the liability and raising a legal objection that the alleged debt is barred by limitation. Since there is no enforceable debt, this Petition seeking winding-up of the respondent is not maintainable.

6. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit dealing with the specific objection taken by the respondent as to limitation, asserting that initially, Company Petition (SR) No. 3392 to 3394 of 2014 came to be filed on 04.06.2014, but raising certain objections, the Registry returned the same, and instead of re-presenting the same, they filed the present Company Petition on 18.12.2014.

7. In the Company Petition, the petitioners filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 186 days in re-presenting Company Petition (SR) No. 3392 to 3394 of 2014 and in the affidavit filed in support thereof, they explained, in detail, the reasons necessitated for filing the Company Petition afresh on 18.12.2014 instead of re-presenting the Company Petition (SR) No. 3392 to 3394 of 2014 returned by the Registry.

8. Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, asserts that ledger account of the respondent in the books of the petitioners firm discloses that with respect to various supplies, payments were made on 25.04.2011 leaving a total balance of Rs.30,58,152/- as due. He further asserts that in the letters, dated 27.07.2011 and 25.08.2011, the respondent stated that it would release the payments shortly which disclosed admission of debt; that it is only on account of various objections raised by the Registry, instead of re-presenting Company Petition (SR) No. 3392 to 3394 of 2014, the petitioners chose to file the present Company Petition on 18.12.2014; that the petitioners filed Company Petition (SR) No. 3392 to 3394 of 2014 on 04.06.2014 and that the respondent admitted in letter, dated 27.07.2011 and E-Mail, dated 25.08.2011 with respect to the amount due to the petitioners and therefore, there is an enforceable debt and the Company Petition is maintainable. He further asserts that in the counter-affidavit, particularly, in paragraph 11, the respondent admitted that there is some amount due to the petitioners firm. He further asserts that as a matter of abundant caution, the petitioners filed an application in the present Company Petition and in the affidavit filed in support thereof, they explained the circumstances, under which the present Company Petition was filed on 18.12.2014. To buttress the same, he places reliance on the judgment of Orissa High Court reported in State Bank of India v. Dilip Chandra Singh Deo. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in Harish C