( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner on the basis of inter-corporate loan to the sum of Rs. l50 lakhs, which was advanced to the respondent, and further sum of Rs. 32 lakhs, which was advanced to the respondent in January, 1992. This petition was filed on 20. 12. 1994. Notice to the respondent was issued on 15. 3. 1995. As reply was not filed within the stipulated period, the petition was admitted on 21. 8. 1995 and citation was ordered to be published in Delhi Gazette, statesman (English) and vir Arjun (Hindi) for 4. 12. 1995. In the meanwhile, an application was filed by the respondent, i. e. CA No-738/95 with the prayer that order regarding advertisement be stayed and further the proceedings be also stayed and the respondent be allowed to file reply and reply filed along with may be ordered to be taken on record. However, no reply in terms of the prayer, as mentioned along with CA 738195, was filed by the respondent for obvious reasons.

( 2 ) FROM the tenor and contents of the said application, it must be observed that it was a clever device by the respondent to create an impression that there was bona fide disputes between the parties as the petitioner was secured creditor. On the ground that security in shares as well as collateral security for alleged inter-orporate deposit was given in favour of the petitioner. The Managing Director of the respondent had also given personal guarantee to secure the repayment of inter-corporate deposit. Another ground was mentioned in the said application that the respondent company was a going concern and, therfore, the order passed by this Court regarding the citation and admission of the respondent company be revoked. The main rust of the application was that the petitioner was a secured creditor and, therefore, there was no need for filing the petition for winding up and, as a matter of fact, this petition for winding up was to coerce and put pressure on the respondent company for alleged claim, which was disputed by the respondent.

( 3 ) CURIOUSLY, even in sub-para (K) of Para-6, at page-20 of the paper book, an averment has been made that the respondent company be allowed to place on record the detailed reply, which is being filed along with this application. As I have observed, no reply along with this application was filed and even the same is not on record till date. In these circumstances, the respondent company, by this application, prayed that the order passed for admitting the petition be modified and vacated. During the course of hearing of this application, a specific query was raised from the respondent to state as to whether the respondent has received the inter-corporate deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs, Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 32 lakhs respectively from the petitioner or not. Affidavit dated 7. 12. 1995, pursuant to the directions of this Court, was filed by Mr. H S Jalan, Chairman of the respondent company, on 8. 12. 1995. Para-3 of the said affidavit is important and the same is reproduced as under -

"that I say Respondent company in persuance of Board Resolution dated 27th Sept. 1991 had accepted the loan of Rs. l50 lakhs from the Petitioner company as under :- Rs. 50. 00 lakhs vide petitioner co s cheque dated 8. 10. 1991; Rs. 50. 00 lakhs vide petitioner co s cheque dated 11. 10. 1991; Rs. 50. 00 lakhs vide petitioner co s cheque dated 11. 10. 1991; Subsequently to the best of my knowldge the Respondent company also received a sum of Rs. 32. 00 lakhs from the Petitioner company in or about November, 1991 and in all Respondent Company received inter corporate loan of Rs. 182 lakhs in 1991. "

( 4 ) HOWEVER, in para-4 of the said affidavit, it was stated that the respondent company had not received a sum of Rs. l50 lakhs from the petitioner comany in January, 1992, as has been alleged by the petitioner in para-11 of the sub-para-3 of the petition. This is one of the grounds, which have been vehemently contended by Mr. Behl, learned counsel for the respon