( 1 ) THIS winding up petition is based on notice under Section 434 issued on 22nd May, 1998. The crux of the notice under Section 434 and indeed this winding up petition is a short term deposit said to be given by the petitioner to the respondent company from time to time totalling Rs. 3,25,000/ -. This deposit was said to carry interest @ 18% p. a. The notice was served on the respondent. There is some dispute by the respondent company regarding the service which prima facie is not capable of belief and I proceed on the presumption that notice under Section 434 was served on the respondent company. Accordingly, it is necessary to look at the contents of the reply of the respondent company filed in this Court. The essence of reply of the respondent company is that there was an arrangement of the petitioner for securing work for the respondent company which did the work of interim decoration and the petitioner forwarded the said payment some time received in cash to the petitioner company as a result of which payment was made to the respondent company and since the petitioner was a serving Army Officer, these payments were made by cheque. The instance given by the respondent company is the instance of the work of Modern Medical Institute, Raipur, M. P. It has been averred that for the work procured from the said Institute for the respondent company, the petitioner made a commission/profit of Rs. 1 lac paid by a demand draft to him in 1996. The respondent has annexed the bills raised against the Raipur Institute. While not disputing that sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- is shown in the balance sheet to the credit of the petitioner, the respondent has sought to contend that this entry alone cannot form the basis for maintaining the winding up petition particularly when such entry was part of the transanction of the Raipur Institute referred to above. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Charanjit Singh Grewal and Another vs. Trillenium Technologies Ltd. and Ors. reported as 2002 VI AD (DELHI) 637 to contend that the demand raised in this petition is disputed bonafide. In fact the reply states that prior to the filing of the winding up petition, a civil suit No. 241 of 1998 was filed in respect of another firm of which the petitioner s wife was a promoter Director owing to her disputes with the Directors of the Respondent Company and this winding up petition is filed after the summons in the said suit No. 241/1998 was served on the petitioner s wife and the petitioner and appearance was entered in the said suit in June, 1998.

( 2 ) THE reply also avers in paragraph No. 5 that the petitioner being a Army Officer did not have access to such sources of money. It is contended that the source of money had not been indicated clearly though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the documents filed and the bank statements showed that the deposits were made.

( 3 ) CONSIDERING the entire gamut of facts, it is clear that transaction between the parties is not so clear so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Court in winding up. Apart from the amount shown in the balance sheet, there is no document of any kind whatsoever with the petitioner to indicate the nature and the manner of deposits including the claim of interest @ 18% p. a. on advances by the petitioner. It is not acceptable that a senior serving army officer would invest Rs. 4,00,000/- as a short term deposit with a company without any document containing any agreement whatseover. Furthermore, there being no written agreement, the averment about 18% interest is entirely based on an oral plea. In fact the petitioner does not even have a receipt indicating the factum and nature of the deposit. The respondents averment that the petitioner received a commission/profit of Rs. 1 lac by bank draft from the Modern Medical Institute has not been denied in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Similarly, there is other litigation pending between the parties whic