JUDGMENT A.K. Banerji, J.
1. By means of this petition filed under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited (petitioner in short) has sought the winding-up of the respondent company namely, The Co-operative Company Limited, having its registered office at Nawabganj, Saharanpur. U. P. on the ground that the said company is indebted to the petitioner and has not been able to pay its dues despite receipt of the statutory notice, hence is liable to be wound-up by this Court.
2. The petitioner's case, as set out in the petition, in brief, is that the petitioner entered into an agreement for the sale of Rectified Spirit which the petitioner supplied to the respondent-company against allotment orders of the Excise Commissioner, U. P., Allahabad, obtained by the respondent-company. As per the agreement, the supplies were made by the petitioner for the year 1993-94 which were received and consumed by the respondent-company. It was agreed that the petitioner will be paid the amounts on the basis of running payments against their bills. Subsequently, there was a rise in the price of Rectified Spirit and it was agreed that future supplies would be made at the rate of Rs. 23,50 per bulk litre and the delivery would be made against payment in the form of demand draft along with an extra amount of Rs. 2.00 per bulk litre. The arrangement was signed by one Sri Bhupendra, a director of the respondent-company and by the Senior Executive Director on behalf of the petitioner. At the time of the said arrangement on 2.5.1994, the dues against the respondent-company were to the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs. However, on calculation it was found that the exact amount was Rs. 28,88,529.25 paise to which the petitioner was entitled along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the basis of custom and trade practices. As this amount was not paid by the respondent despite demand, the petitioner was constrained to serve a statutory notice dated 31.12.1994 under Section 434 of the Act on the respondent-company. The respondent did not give any reply to the said notice neither made any payment as per the demand, hence, the present petition.
3. On notice being Issued by this Court to the respondent-company to show cause why this petition may not be admitted and advertised, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the said respondent by one S. S. Bhatnagar. Office Manager, who alleges that he has been duly authorised to file the affidavit on behalf of the company. In the said counter-affidavit, the respondent, inter alia, denied the figures given by the petitioner and asserted that there was a bona fide dispute between the parties regarding the accounts and the respondent was always willing to pay the amount provided the account was settled. It has been further stated that the parties had business relations since the year 1973 and there was no grievance whatsoever of any kind. They were also having a running account and the accounts used to be settled from time to time as per mutual agreement. The difficulty started when the Central Government decontrolled the price of molasses. This led to instabilfty of the price and charging of excess price of Rectified Spirit by various distilleries. As the relalions between the parties were good, the petitioner vide their letter dated 23.10.1993 agreed to supply Rectified Spirit to the respondent upto 3 lakhs bulk litres at the rate of Rs. 10 per bulk litre and that after the completion of the said supply, a further supply of 2 lakhs bulk litres would be made at the rate of Rs. 11 per bulk litre. Pursuant to this agreement, the petitioner supplied Rectified Spirit and raised bills but instead of Rs. 10 per bulk litre. It charged Rs. 11 to Rs. 11.50 per bulk litre and. subsequently, for the 2 lakhs bulk litres, instead of charging at the rate of Rs. 11, it charged over Rs, 12.50 to Rs. 13 and even Rs. 15 per bulk litre. The difference in the price was pointed out by the respondent-company to the petitioner vide their letter dated 10.11.1993. During the months of January to March, 1994. the petitioner-company had full stock of Rectified .Spirit and were having difficulty regarding the storing of the same. Therefore, they persuaded the respondent to lift Rectified Spirit at the rate of Rs. 12.50 per bulk litre. However, in the bills they charged between Rs. 15.50 to Rs. 18 per bulk litre. On account of the high rates charged by the petitioner company. the respondent stopped lifting the material with effect from 30.1.1994 to 15.2.1994. A telephonic discussion took place on 14.2.1994 and the petitioner had assured that the higher rates would be adjusted and to maintain the business relationship, the respondent lifted the material as is evident from the letter dated 16.2.1994. However, the said adjustment was not made and. hence, there was a bona fide dispute between the parties with regard to the over-charging. Apart from the same, it was further stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondent-Company which was always running in profit had to shift its plant to another place on account of the fact that they did not have adequate place at the factory site for setting up effluent plant which became necessary on account of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta. The shifting of the factory from Nawabganj to Tapri and setting up of the effluent plant involving heavy expenses and the company had to spend Rs. 2.50 Crores for setting up the effluent plant. Consequently, in the assessment year 1994-95. the company had to suffer a loss of over Rs. 46.85,395. On account of the said fact, whatever is the balance amount that will be paid to the petitioner as per the settled account but they were not in a position to pay the same in one instalment. It was denied that the company was insolvent or not in a position to pay its dues. Further it was denied that the respondent was liable to pay any interest as there was no such agreement.
4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder-affidavit in which the allegations of the respondent-company that the petitioner had over-charged the respondent-company or that there was any dispute with regards to the bills were denied. It has been further stated that the letters on which the respondent was placing reliance regarding fixing of rate or protesting against excess charging, were not received by the petitioner and the same were alleged to have been sent by ordinary post. It was stated that the bills were raised according to the arrangement between the parties and there is no basis to allege that the dispute was regarding the accounts or the difference in prices. It was further stated that one of the directors of the company had admitted in writing the past dues of over Rs. 30 lakhs. Consequently, the respondent company is estopped from disputing the amount claimed in the statutory notice. It was further stated that as the respondent did not pay its dues according to the custom and trade practice, the petitioner is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 24%. The res pendent-company has not paid its dues despite receipt of statutory notice, consequently, it will be deemed that it is unable to pay its debt and deserves to be wound-up.
5. During the course of the present winding-up proceedings, the parties have exchanged supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder-affidavits, in which not only allegations and counter allegations have been made but certain facts and figures have also been stated which were being disputed by the concerned parties.
6. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior Advocate assisted by Sri Janardan Sahai, for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Before the respective submissions made by the counsel are considered, it would be necessary at this stage to point out that as in the counter-affidavit, the respondent-company was not denying the fact that the supplies of Rectified spirit had been made to them but they were disputing the amount claimed by the petitioner and were ready to pay the amount which was found after proper accounting, this Court vide order dated 22.8.1995 had directed the respondent to pay the sum of Rs. 3,64,329 which was being admitted by the respondent-company to the petitioner in two instalments, out of which the first instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs was to be deposited within one month and the balance amount within 6 weeks. It is not disputed that the admitted sum has been since paid by the respondent to the petitioner, though, not within the time fixed by the Court. The respondent-company had paid this amount in several Instalments during the course of about a year or more. However, as the petitioner was claiming an amount of over Rs. 28 lakhs plus Interest at the rate of 24% per annum, they have strongly pressed their petition for winding up of the respondent-company.
8. On behalf of the petitioner, its learned counsel have mainly contended that the director of the company had admitted in the agreement dated 2.5.1994 that a sum of about Rs. 30 lakhs was payable by the said respondent to the petitioner but as they have disputed the amount for the first time in the counter-affidavit filed before this Court and have tried to raise the dispute regarding the admitted sum, the purported dispute was not bona fide and was raised for the purposes of the present winding-up petition. In effect, the defence sought to be raised was only a "moonshine" and. consequently, this Court is empowered to go into the matter in depth even for the purpose of wfnding-up. It has been further contended that in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent have admitted that they have suffered a loss of Rs. 46.85,395 for the assessment year 1994-95, whereas. It is apparent that the respondent-company was unable to pay its debts. This is further evidenced from the fact that even the admitted amount was not paid in two instalments within the time fixed by the Court but they took almost one year to pay even the admitted amount of Rs. 13 lakhs and odd. It was further contended that as the respondent-company had not even paid the amount admitted by them within 3 weeks of the receipt of the statutory notice dated 31.12.1994, neither did they give any reply to the said notice, consequently; it will be deemed that the respondent was unable to pay its debts and, consequently, should be wound-up. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-company has contended that there were very good business relations between the petitioner and the respondent-company who had been supplying Rectified Spirit to the respondent for about 20 years, at the rate agreed to them. However, when the sale of molasses was decontrolled, the petitioner contrary to the agreement raised the price of the goods supplied. Consequently, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the rate and the said fact was evidenced by the letters written by the respondent to the petitioner. Consequently, the dispute raised by the respondent is a bona fide dispute pertaining to a commercial transaction and the said dispute cannot be adjudicated in the present summary proceedings but has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned counsel has also invited the attention of the Court to his application (A-22) enclosing the copy of the plaint of the suit filed by the respondent-company in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div.. Saharanpur, praying for a decree for the balance amount of Rs. 15,24.200.25 paise after adjusting the sum of Rs. 13.64.329 already paid by the respondent to the petitioner during the course of the winding-up proceedings under the orders passed by this Court along with interest of Rs. 12.49.11.49 paise. Learned counsel has contended that as a suit has already been filed by the petitioner before the civil court for recovery of the amount claimed in the present winding-up proceedings along with interest, this petition ought to be dismissed on this ground alone.
9. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Sri Jain has invited the attention of the Court to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas and Company v. Madhu Woollen Industries Put, Limited, (1972) 42 Com. Cases 125, and has contended that the principle which has been laid down is that where the company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to winding-up order but the exact amount of debt is disputed, the Court will make a winding-up order without requiring the creditor to quantify the debt precisely. It has been held in the said case as follows :
"The principles on which the Court acts are first that the defence of the company is in good faith and one of substance, secondly, the defence is likely to succeed in point of law and, thirdly, the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends."
10. The learned counsel has contended that in the facts of the present case, the defence set-up by the respondent-company does not meet the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case. Elaborating his arguments, the learned counsel has contended that the dispute with regard to the rate claimed by the respondent is an after-thought. The alleged letters regarding the rate claimed too written in this regard by the respondent have been fabricated or manufactured. At any rate, the said letters are prior to the agreement dated 2.5.1994. Consequently, the said agreement supersedes all those letters and assuming that the same were written loses on significance. Moreover, had the objections been bona fide, the respondent would have given a reply to the statutory notice pointing out the objections now been sought to be raised with regards to the rate rather than keep mum and raise it for the first time before this Court. It has been further contended that the explanation given by the respondent-company regarding the admission made by its director Bhupinder Singh that about a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs are due to be paid to the petitioner as on 2.5.1994. namely, that the same was not in admission and was inadvertently mentioned as the accounting had not been done, could not be accepted. Learned counsel has supported his submissions by placing reliance upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dawn Communications (P.) Limited v. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Limited, (1995) 4 CLJ 63 (Raj), and, on an another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of UCO Bank. Ujjain v. Achal Alloys (P.) Limited. (1993) 3 CLJ 43 (MP). It has been laid down in the former case that the discrepancy in bills was not raised in writing before the statutory notice of demand could not be treated to be bona fide but was false and frivolous. In the second case, it was laid down that failure and neglect by the company to pay the acknowledged debt despite statutory notice the company's plea of bona fide dispute is based on false and baseless allegations, consequently, the winding-up petition deserves to be admitted. Learned counsel has also referred to certain other decisions Including the decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited u. Mafia Laxmi Sugar Mills Company Limited. (1991) 71 Com Cases 544. In which similar observations have been made. It is not necessary to refer to all those cases as all the said cases were decided on the peculiar facts of the said cases. In the case of Dawn Communications Pvt. Limited (supra), the respondent-company for the first time raised a dispute in the winding-up petition that the goods supplied do not conform to the order placed, rates were not settled and the petitioner company despite request did not supply the necessary particulars. The only question for consideration before the Court was whether the payment of the said bills were bona fide disputed by the respondent-company. After discussing the facts of the said case, the Court found that the dispute raised for payments of bills were not bonajide. Similarly, the observations made in the case of UCO Bank (supra), and Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited (supra), by the respective Courts were on the peculiar facts of the said cases before the Court in the facts of the present case, both the learned counsel for the parties have raised lengthy arguments regarding the amount of the Rectified Spirit supplied and the rates according to which the said supplies were made, the bills for the relevant years have been filed and are on the record. Different interpretations with regards to the supplies made and the rates fixed from time to time on which the same were supplied are in dispute. According to the respondent-company, the petitioner-company initially charged Rs. 10 per bulk litre but subsequently it was charging at the rate of Rs. 11 and Rs. 11.50 per bulk litre. Subsequently, contrary to the. arrangement it had increased its rate to Rs. 12.50 to Rs. 13 and even Rs. 15 per bulk litre. According to the res pendent-company there was a running account between the petitioner and the respondent-company and when it came to their notice that the petitioner was over-charging the respondent, they had written several letters, copies of which have been annexed to the counter-affidavit protesting against the said increase. They have also contended that subsequently as the business relations between the petitioner and the respondent were good and as the tanks of the petitioner-company were over-flowing as the respondent had stopped lifting the supplies, the petitioner had agreed to accept the payment of Rs. 12.50 per bulk litre. However, subsequently they reciled from the same and have even charged a price of Rs. 23.50 per bulk litre. These allegations have been strongly refuted by the petitioner-company and even the receipt of the letters alleged to have been written by the respondent-company to the petitioner inviting their objections to the rates being charged by the petitioner, were being denied. Having considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is primajacie of the view that the facts of the present case at hand raises such disputed questions which could be decided only after taking evidence and cannot be decided on the basis of affidavit and supplementary affidavits filed before this Court. While hearing the winding-up petition, this Court is only exercising summary jurisdiction and such disputed and complicated questions cannot be decided by means of an affidavit specially when allegations of fabricating of documents and letters have also been alleged. If the letters on which reliance have been placed by the respondent-company have been written and sent to the petitioner, .in such a case it cannot be said that the respondent-company was not disputing the bills bona fide and the defence set-up in this company petition was made for the first time and was an after thought. In view of the said position in the present case, the cases on which Sri Jain has placed reliance can be distinguished. In view of the above. It cannot be said that the tests laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Afodhusudandos Gordfiandas (supra), are not satisfied inasmuch as in the facts of the present case, prima facie it cannot be said that the defence raised by the company is not in good faith and one of substance or that the defence is not likely to succeed in a point of law. Prima Jade it also cannot be said that the company has not adduced prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends. In fact, while dealing with the scope of Section 433(e) of the Act. the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Madhusudhandas (supra) had observed as follows :
"Two rules are well-settled. First, if the bona fide dispute and the defence is a substantial one, the Court will not wound-up the company. The Court has dismissed a petition for winding-up where the creditor claimed a sum for goods sold to the company contended that no price had been agreed upon and the sum admitted by the creditor was unreasonable. See in re, London and Paris Banking Corporation, 1974 LR 19 Eg. 444. Again a petition for winding-up by a creditor who claimed the payment of an agreed sum for the work done for the company when the company contended that the work had not been properly done was not allowed. See in re Brighton Club and Norfold Hotel Company Limited, 1865 (35) Beau 204.'"
11. It is beyond dispute that the machinery for winding-up will not be allowed to be utilised merely as a means for realising its debts due from a company. In amalgamated Commercial Traders (P.) Limited v. Krishna Swami (Ack), (1965) 35 Com Cases 456 (SC), the Apex Court quoted with an approval the following passage from Bucklay of Companies Act (13th Ed. 451) :
"It is well-settled that winding-up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of the debt which is bonajide disputed by the company. A petition presented ostensibly for a winding-up order but merely to exercise pressure will be dismissed, and under circumstances be stigmatized as a scandalous abuse of the process of the Court."
12. It will not be out of place to mention here that admittedly the petitioner-company has filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15.24.200.25 paise along with interest of Rs. 12.49.111.49 paise. totalling to Rs. 27,73.211.74 paise. and sought a decree for this amount. It has been mentioned in the plaint that an adjustment of Rs. 13,64,329 already paid by the respondent to the petitioner under the orders passed in the present company petition, has been made. In view of the fact that a Suit has already been filed and the questions which are being sought to be raised regarding the amount claimed to be due and the dispute being raised by the respondent-company was now being sought to be adjudicated before the civil court on the basis of evidence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion and go into the questions which are being disputed in the present case. Sri Jain has, however, contended that merely because a Suit has been filed by the petitioner for the purpose regarding the subject-matter of dispute in the present case, that will not preclude this Court from deciding this winding-up petition on merits. He has contended that the winding-up proceeding is not merely for the benefit of the petitioner but of all share-holders, creditors or contributories of a company. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of Patna High Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Sukhani Mining and Engineering Industries Private Limited and others, (1977) 47 Com Cases 1. It has been held in the said case that there is no provision in the Companies Act nor is there any decision of any. Court to show that mere fact that a creditor files a Suit for realisation of the debt, the same would debar him from proceeding with the petition for winding-up of the company which is already pending. It has been further observed that there is no such provision, the reason being that a winding-up proceeding is not merely for the benefit of the petitioner but of all shareholders, creditors or contributories of a company. Therefore, the winding-up proceedings could not be stayed merely because the creditor has filed a Suit against the company. In the said case, the Central Bank had filed a Suit against the respondent-company. Before the wlnding-up petition was heard on merits, the bank had filed a Suit possibly because to escape the law of limitation. A prayer was made on behalf of the respondent-company either to dismiss the winding-up petition or to stay the proceedings till the Suit is decided. On the said facts, the Court held that it did not find any justification for dismissing the wlnding-up petition or in adjourning the hearing till the decision of the Suit. In the present case at hand, as the Court has already come to a conclusion that the dispute which is being sought in the present case prima facie appears to be a bona fide one and such disputed questions and complicated facts cannot be decided. In the present case winding-up proceedings and also as the suit has already been filed and the same disputed questions are to be decided in the said suit which are being sought to be raised in the present winding-up proceedings, it would be proper for the petitioner to get the matter adjudicated by the civil court. Consequently, the decision in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) cited above will not be of any help to the learned counsel.
13. It was next contended that in paragraph-10 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent-company has admitted that it had suffered a loss of Rs. 46,85,395 for the assessment year 1994-95, whereas, its authorised capital is only of Rs. 50 lakhs. The losses must be in addition to other liabilities of the respondent, consequently, the ability to pay its admitted dues is seriously in doubt. I am not impressed with this argument, for the reason that merely because the respondent-company has suffered heavy loss it cannot be said that its substratum is lost or that it will not be able to pay its debts. It has already been noticed that the respondent-company has paid a sum of Rs. 13.64.329 to the petitioner. It is true that they had not been able to pay the amount in two instalments and within time initially fixed by the Court. However, they made the payment in several instalments after obtaining necessary orders with regards to the same from the Court. Consequently, the Court had permitted the respondent-company to make the payment by giving them more time and further instalments. Learned counsel has, however. referred to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. v. North India Petro Chemical Limited and another, JT 1994 (1) SC 579 :
"What then is inability when the sections say "unable to pay its dues"? That should be taken in the commercial sense. In that, it is unable to meet the current demands. As stated by William James, V. C. It is "it is plainly and commercially Insolvent--that is to say that its assets are such as to make it reasonably certain--as to make the Court feel satisfied--that the existing and probable assets would be insufficient to meet the existing liabilities."
14. From the said facts as on record, it cannot be stated that the respondent-company is unable to pay its dues or it is unable to meet its current demand or that the facts before the Court are such as to feel satisfied that the existing and probable assets would be Insufficient to meet the existing liabilities. As noticed above, there is no such material on the record before me. On the other hand, in the affidavit filed by the respondent-company before this Court, it has been stated that as the company had to shift its factory to another place for the purpose of setting up of an effluent plant whereby, they had incurred an expense of over Rs. 2.5 crores. they had to face such financial crunch and, hence, they had sought instalments from this Court for depositing the admitted amount. However, the company has turned round the comer and has already earned profits and has been able to wipe off most of its accumulated losses. It has also been stated that it employs over 200 persons and if the company is ordered to be wound-up, the said employees will not only be thrown out but it will result in great hardship to the share-holders and other creditors of the company. It has been held in the case of B. Vishwanathan v. Sesha Sayee Paper and Boards Limited, (1992) 73 Com Cases 156, that where a company has a monthly turn-over of about Rs. 6.5 crores and having over 2,000 employees, it was not in public interest to wound-up the respondent-company. Similarly, in the case of Rishi Enterprises, the Gujarat High Court in the case in (1992) 73 Com Cases 271, had held that a company which is running company employing about 500 employees who are paid their wages regularly and which does business of crores of rupees every year cannot be brought to a halt on the basis of petitions for winding-up the company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. merely because it is in some financial difficulty at the moment. In the case of New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Limited v. Dye Chemical Corporation, (1986) 59 Com Cases 183, it was held that the 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 is the duly of the Court to welcome revival rather than affirm the debt of the company and for that purpose the Court is called upon to make a discreet exercise. Similar observations have been made in the case of Navjluan Trading Finance (P.) Limited, (1978) 48 Com Cases 402. Consequently, I do not find any force in this submission made by the learned counsel.
15. It has been lastly contended that in the statutory notice dated 31.12.1994. the petitioner had claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the outstanding amount. The amount of interest was payable by the respondent-company according to the trade custom and practice. The respondent has denied that any sum was payable as interest. The said denial was not bona fide. In support of his submission that interest was payable. learned counsel has placed reliance upon two decisions namely, in the case of Stephen Chemical Limited v. Inno Search Limited, (1986) 60 Com Coses 702 and in the case of Devendra Kumar Jain v. Polar Forging and Tools Limited, (1993) 1 CLJ JS4. It has been held in the former case of Stephen Chemical (supra), that where a petition is presented for winding-up of a company on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts and the company admits its liabilities and in fact it pays up, the Company Court could determine as to whether the creditor is entitled to interest on the amount in question or not as the basic policy is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Similar observations have been made in the case of Devendra Kumar Jain (supra). On the basis of the said decisions the learned counsel has contended that since the respondent-company has admitted a substantial part of its dues and has not paid the amount, the Court should award interest at the rate claimed in the statutory notice. So far as the decision in the aforesaid two cases cited above is concerned, the Court had gone into the question of interest to avoid multiplicity by relegating the parties to file a civil suit. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has admittedly filed a civil suit wherein, he has claimed interest at the above rate regarding the balance amount due. It is for the said Court where the Suit is pending to decide the question of interest as claimed before it. So far as the present proceedings are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed'to show that there was any agreement between the parties for payment of interest or give any evidence to show that there was any such trade practice or custom to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum as claimed. In the absence of any such evidence, it would not be proper for the Court to award interest at the sum claimed on the amount admitted by the respondent-company and paid to the petitioner under the orders of this Court. However, as the respondent-company had admitted a sum of Rs. 13.64.329 and had not paid the amount despite the service of the statutory notice on the ground that the same could not be ascertained without proper accounting, it would be proper in the interest of justice to direct the respondent-company to pay interest at the rate of 15% (simple) to the petitioner from the date of the statutory notice till the date of payment of the admitted amount of Rs. 13,64,329. The interest shall be payable proportionately taking into consideration the Instalments paid from time to time after adjusting the instalments. The respondent-company is directed to calculate the amount of interest at the rate of 15% (simple) as indicated above and shall pay the same by means of a bank draft in the name of the petitioner-company within 5 weeks from today.
16. In the facts and the circumstances of the present case, I direct the respondent to pay cost to the petitioner which i assess at Rs. 2,000. The amount of cost shall also be paid within 5 weeks. Both the amounts can be paid by means of a bank draft directly to the petitioner or to its learned counsel within the period indicated above.
17. With these observations, this winding-up petition is finally disposed of.