The court emphasized the significance of the respondent's balance sheet and statement of taxable income as an admission of the debt, and ruled that the defense of alleged defects in the bills was an afterthought.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This petition is filed under section 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been supplying steel products on regular basis to the respondent company as per their orders. It has been pleaded that after giving due credit of all payments made by the respondent company to the petitioner after March 2011 an outstanding amount of Rs.25,05,676/- was due and payable by the respondent company. On 1.6.2012 the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent demanding the payment of the outstanding dues. A response was received from the respondent on 10.7.2012 stating that a reply is being framed to the said legal notice. On 10.9.2012 the petitioner issued a statutory legal notice to which no reply has been received and thereafter the present winding up petition has been filed.

2. The respondents have entered appearance and filed their reply. In their reply it has been pleaded that the debt is a disputed debt and the present winding up petition would not lie for the said purpose. He also pleaded that the respondent company is a running concern with a healthy balance sheet showing profits. It is also pleaded that the respondent company is buying Dish ends from the petitioner and there is bona fide dispute in respect of many bills raised by the petitioner against the respondent company. As an example reference was made to invoice No. 233 dated 29.6.2010. It is pleaded that the bill amount has incorrect calculation in view of wrong statements made regarding the weight and density of the steel. The weight of steel which has been supplied is overstated in the bill. In such manner the rates are said to be overstated and excessive in several bills and are not in terms of the order placed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to Annexure D filed by the respondents themselves which is the Statement of Taxable Income filed for income tax purpose for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It has been pointed out that in the list which is attached to the Statement of Taxable Income under the heading “Trade Payable on 31.3.2012” a sum of Rs.13,23,057/- is shown as outstanding and payable to the petitioner. Hence, he pleads that this is an admission of claim by the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this statement of account which is filed by the respondent is not an admission of dues payable by the respondent. It is only a Statement and cannot be construed as an admission. He also submits that the petitioner has already filed a suit for recovery of the amount which is pending before District Court. He submits that the respondent has a bona fide and valid defence and is contesting the said suit and written statement to that effect has also been filed.

5. I may only note a few things. The balance sheet filed by the respondent Annexure D shows the Statement of Taxable income of the respondent. The respondent themselves have filed the balance sheet alongwith their reply to show the respondent to be a profitable concern. One of the lists which is attached to this document is a “Statement indicating the Trade Payable as on 31.3.2012”. The names of various concerns are stated in a list which is spread over three pages. Under the heading of Batra Steel an outstanding is shown as Rs.13,23,057/- This is a copy of document duly signed and stamped by the respondent company which has been placed on record. In my opinion, it is a clear admission of a debt due and payable to the petitioner.

6. I may also note that the legal notice was served by the petitioner on 1.6.2012. In the said legal notice the details of the 13 invoices said to be outstanding on the basis of which the petitioner was claiming the sum of Rs.25,05,676/- were stated. The respondent have duly received this notice. They have admitted so in their communication dated 10.7.2012. However,