A winding-up petition cannot be maintained if the debt is bona fide disputed and the defense is substantial, and parallel proceedings for recovery of the same debt are not permissible.

G. S. Chaube, J.

1. This company-petition under Sections 433 (e), 434 (1) (a) and 439 (1) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") has been presented for winding up of Rajhans Steel Ltd. , a public limited company incorporated under the Act, having its registered office at Joraphatak Road in the district and town of Dhanbad and factory or worksite at Mihijam in the district of Santhal Parganas of this State, which has been arrayed in this petition as opposite party No.1 and shall hereinafter be referred to as such. The petitioner is Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. a company incorporated under the said Act having its registered office at Sriram Bhawan Tumsar in Maharashtra and regional office at Everest House, Jawaharlal Nehru Road in Calcutta, and shall be referred to hereinafter as the petitioner-company.

2. The case of the petitioner-company is that pursuant to two separate orders, one dated March 22, 1984, and another dated April 6, 1984, placed with it by opposite party No.1 for supplying ferro manganese and ferro silicon, the petitioner-company, which carries on business of manufacturing, selling and/or otherwise dealing in ferro manganese, ferro silicon and other ferro alloys, had supplied to the former at its worksite at Mihijam 12.090 M. T. ferro manganese and 8 M. T. ferro silicon on March 27, 1984, April 11, 1984 and April 17, 1984. While 7.020 M. T. ferro manganese and 5 M. T. ferro silicon had been supplied on March 27, 1984, at the rate of Rs.5,700 and Rs.11,350 per M. T. respectively as per the agreement/supply order dated March 22, 1984, the remaining supplies of ferro manganese and ferro silicon on April 11, 1984 and April 17, 1984, were made at the rate of Rs.7,050 and Rs.12,750 per M. T. respectively as per the letter of agreement/supply order dated April 6, 1984. In terms of the agreements/supply orders including those respective packing charges, freight and payment of excise duty and Central sales tax, etc. , the petitioner-company submitted to opposite party No.1 six bills ; three for ferro manganese and the remaining three for ferro silicon for a total sum of Rs.1,87,503.27 against the supplies made by it and received and consumed by opposite party No.1 without any objection or demur. It is not necessary to refer to all the terms of supply except the one that opposite party No.1 was to pay interest at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum for the overdue period if the bills were not paid within 30 days of the despatch of the materials.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner-company that against the said bills, opposite party No.1 made payment to it to the extent of Rs.80,885.28 on different dates and a sum of Rs.1,06,617.99 on account of the price of the materials supplied remained, and is still, unpaid in spite of repeated demands. The petitioner-company sent letter dated December 19, 1986, to opposite party No.1 through its advocate demanding payment from the latter of a sum of Rs.1,95,805.03 which included Rs.77,081.95 by way of interest and Rs.12,105.09 on account of additional Central sales tax, besides the unpaid price of the materials supplied. When opposite party No.1 did not make any payment even in spite of the statutory notice, the petitioner-company filed a suit for realisation of the same in the Calcutta High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, being Suit No.1073 of 1987. While the said suit was still pending in the Calcutta High Court, the petitioner-company came to learn that besides that, the Board for Indus-trial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) has directed liquidation of opposite party No.1, in Company Petition No.1 of 1985r filed by one Eastern Oxygen Acetylene Ltd. , for winding up of opposite party No.1, this court had passed order on September 12, 1988, appointing the official liquidator for taking possession of the latters property. Hence, this company petition for winding up of opposite party No.1 was filed by the petitioner-company on September 29, 199