( 1 ) THIS Winding-up Petition has been filed under section 433 (e) and 433 (1) (a) of the Companies Act with the grievance that the Respondent is liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 26,68,000/- (Rs. Twenty Six lakhs Sixty Eight Thousands only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Claim is premised on two bills dated 31. 12. 1996 and 15. 5. 1997 for a sum of rs. 9,73,500/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand five Hundred only) and Rs. 16,95,000/- (Rs. Sixteen lakhs Ninety Five Thousands only) respectively. It has been vehemently argued that despite several written reminders, payments in respect of these Bills have not been released. Despite its delivery the Statutory notice dated 22nd March, 1999, has similarly failed to elicit any response. It is further contended that upon a perusal and consideration of the defence put forward, the present Petition deserves to be allowed.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the Petitioner the following cases have been relied upon. 1. AIR 1999 Delhi 27. GKW. Ltd. Vs. Shriram Bearings Ltd. 2. 52 (1993) DLT 577. Mayar Traders Ltd. Vs. Akhil Services Ltd. 3. 73 (1998) DLT 593. Rishi Pal Gupta Vs. M/s. S. J. Knitting and finishing Mills Pvt. Ltd. 4. 1982 (52) Company Cases 479. Wastinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. 5. 1978 (48) Company Cases 378. (Bombay ). United Western Bank Ltd. , 6. AIR 1996 Punjab and Haryana 60 m/s. Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. M/s. P. S. B. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.

( 3 ) I shall first deal with the consequences of the respondent s failure to send a Reply to the Statutory notice. The reliance of Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Learned senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner on the above-mentioned decisions of my Learned Sister Usha mehra, J. is somewhat exaggerated. The decisions do not inexorably lead to the conclusion that Winding-up orders must unvariably be passed where no response to a statutory Notice has been made. From my understanding of the judgment my Learned Sister had taken the failure to reply to the notice as an important factor in determining whether a bona fide defence had been put forward. In the circumstances of both the cases, she preferred to view the defence as an afterthought and as being bereft bona fide. In CP 220/2001 entitled H. B. Stock Holdings Ltd. Vs. Associated Infotech Ltd. , I have favoured the opinion that where no response had been made to the statutory notice the Respondent Company runs the risk of a winding-up petition being admitted for hearing at the threshold stage itself. Normally, the Company Judge consider it prudent in the first instance to issue notice to the Respondent so that its defence to the possible far-reaching and fatal winding-up orders can be considered. The admission of the Petition at its first hearing is possible because, by virtue of Section 434 of the Companies Act, a presumption of the indebtedness can be legitimately drawn by the Court where no Reply to the statutory notice is forthcoming. The risk of the admission of the petition, as well as the appointment of a Provisional liquidator is thus broodingly and ominously present in all those cases where the Respondent Company neglects to send any Reply to the winding-up notice. But this is as far as the danger extends. My attention has been justifiably drawn to the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in Vimco Ltd. Vs. Sidvinkproperties (P) ltd. , 1996 Vol. 86 Company Cases 610, where it has been held by P. K. Bahri, J. that where a bona fide dispute had been shown to the Court, the question of applying the deeming provision should not automatically arise. I continue to be in respectful agreement with this view. Applying this ratio to the facts of the present case, without in any manner diluting or undermining the significance of the failure of the Respondent Company to respond to the statutory notice, this factor will be duly kept in perspective when the conspectus of facts is considered.

( 4 ) THE law on the subject has been largely distilled in Pradeshiva