( 1 ) MR. Raval, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently submitted that once the Company fails to pay undisputed amount, then this Court should admit the petitions and should not adjourn them. According to his submissions, this Court has absolutely limited discretion. For that purpose he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Indus. P. Ltd. , 42 company Cases 125.

( 2 ) IN my view, there is no such absolute law, Section itself confers judicial discretion upon the Courts. In the present case, it seems that the only to coerce the Company and extract from it immediately by any means the amount which is payable to the petitioners. There is no such law that a company which is a running company employing about 500 employees who are paid their wages regularly and which is having business of crores of rupees every year should be brought to a grinding halt by admitting these petitions only because it is in some financial difficulty at the moment. On the contrary even in those cases where the Company is closed, it has been laid down that it is the duty of the Court to welcome revival rather than affirm the death of the Company. It has been also held that it would not be right to say that creditors can insist on winding up of the Company by the Court as a matter of right if the position of the Company is such that it would be unable to pay its debt to them even if the Company can be resurrect. The petitioning creditor cannot be permitted to insist for a pound of flesh from the Company which may be a death blow to the Company only on the ground that for a temporary period a running Company is not in a position to pay the debt. This would be clear from the following decisions of this Court.

( 3 ) ). In the case of New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad v. Dye-Chem. Corpn. , 59 Company Cases 183, Division Bench of this Court in O. J. Appeal No. 11 of 1984 has held as under :"it is the case of the creditors that the Company is unable to pay its debts and that it is just and equitable that the Company should be wound up. The circumstances call for no proof of inability on the part of the Company to pay its debts as such inability is self-evident on the admitted facts. There are huge debts, secured as well as unsecured, which, as matters stand, are far beyond the means of the Company to meet. Even so, a Court will exercise a sound discretion in deciding whether to wind up a Company or not and in doing so consider many relevant factors. It may be that despite the inability to pay its debts, a Company has still prospects of coming back to life and if the Court is told of any specific proposal, which in the opinion of the court is likely to materialise, the Court will be inclined to give a chance to resurrect the Company. It should be the policy of the Court to attempt to revive though at the moment the Company may not be solvent and may not be able to meet its obligations to its creditors. But this should be only if it is shown that there is reasonable prospect for resurrection and survival. It may be easy for a Court when once it is shown that the Company is unable to pay its debts to bury it deep and distribute whatever is available as distributable surplus. But it is the duty of the Court to welcome revival rather than affirm the death of the Company and for that purpose the Court is called upon to make a discreat exercise. " (Emphasis supplied) similarly, in the case of Navjivan Trading Finance P. Ltd. In Re. 48 Company cases 402, this Court has held as under :"it is not doubt true that the modern trend as etched by a number of pioneering decisions rendered by D. A. Desai, J. of this High Court (no wonder tens of thousands of workers with gratitude filled eyes feel beholden to him for it) is against winding up of a Company so long as it is possible to resurrect the Company. Winding up is the last thing that the Court would do and not the first thing