The main legal point established in the judgment is that a genuine dispute on the debt claimed precludes a winding up petition, and the Company Court retains discretion in adjudicating disputed debts.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This petition is filed for winding up under section 433(e) and 434(1)(a) & (c) of The Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent company placed various Purchase Orders with the petitioner company for the purchase of Pressure Transmitters, Flow Transmitters etc. which were duly received by them to their satisfaction on different occasions. Petitioner also points out to three invoices dated 16.08.2012, 10.09.2012 and 11.09.2012 respectively totalling Rs.3,10,467/- payment of which has not been made by the respondents. Reliance is also placed on various e-mails including the email dated 28.09.2012 where the respondents have admitted that they would clear the outstanding payments in favour of the petitioner company. Further, to show their bona fide a copy of an unsigned cheque of Rs.1,94,959/- was attached with the said e-mail as a part payment for the invoices raised by the petitioner company and an assurance was given that the said cheque will be signed once the authorised signatory resumes his office. It is also pleaded that the respondents have not supplied C-Forms to the petitioner for the invoice issued in the year 2011-12 and 2012-13.

2. The respondents have filed their reply. In the reply various defences have been taken. The respondents does not deny that the petitioner company supplied goods in respect of the bills mentioned, However, it is stated that the goods were not supplied according to the satisfaction of the respondent company and there were manufacturing defects. It is also stated that there is a dispute regarding the prices charged by the petitioner company. It is further pleaded that unsigned cheque was not sent in view of the manufacturing defect in the material supplied and difference in the rate charged. Regarding C-Form it is the case of the respondents that they never refused to supply the C-Forms.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed that there are clear admissions on record to show that the respondents have not paid a sum of Rs.3,10,467/- and has not supplied the C-Forms. He, however, points out that pursuant to a contempt petition filed by the petitioner the respondents had paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs plus it also supplied the C-Forms for the year 2011-12. He submits that now there is a balance of Rs.1,10,467/- which remains unpaid from the principle amount and in addition he submits that the C-Forms for the year 2012-13 have not been supplied on account of which the petitioner company has already incurred tax and interest liability of Rs.1,08,000/- which the respondents are now liable to pay. He relies upon the application filed by the respondent company being CA 1840/2016 where he points out that the photocopies of the C-Forms have been placed on record and the originals have not been supplied to the petitioner. He also pleads that photocopies are incomplete as the copy of the back side of the C-Form has not been supplied which contain details of the invoices which were supplied.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the contentions of the reply. He has pointed out that even in the invoices which were filed by the petitioner specially the invoice No.01.94 dated 10.9.2012 the respondents have noted that the material has been received but a cable and two indicators have not been received and will be delivered on the next day. He has also stressed that the rates were never agreed upon. He submits that there was an admission on the part of the respondents that a sum of Rs.1,94,959/- was due and payable and hence a sum of Rs.2 lac has been paid to the petitioner. On C-Forms he has taken the same defence.

5. In a petition for winding up in case a debt is due under section 433(e) of the Companies Act a company is liable to be would up when it is unable to pay its debts. The settled legal position is that the debts on the face of the record s