Co.Pet. 5/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S S Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Ms. M Hazarika, learned senior counsel represent the respondent Company. 2. This winding up petition has been filed under the Companies Act, 1956 fo r an order of winding up of the respondent Company, for its alleged failure to p ay the outstanding dues of Rs.83,554/-. The petitioner had earlier issued statut ory notice on 18.8.2006 to the respondent, demanding its due payment on non-paym ent of which, the respondent was informed that winding up proceeding would be fi led against the company. 3. In response to the Court notice, the respondent, Company has filed its c ounter affidavit where the petitioner’s claim is disputed on the ground that the advertisement commission claimed by the petitioner for the advertisements publi shed in the Ajir Asom , Dongmusa , and Samay Prabha should not be claimed ainst the respondent Company as the respondent Company is not the owner of these three publication. Only with regard to advertisements published in the The Sen tinel in English and Sentinel in Hindi, the respondent conceded that they are liable to pay advertisement commission. However the amount of Rs.63,596/- claim ed by the petitioner in respect of the The Sentinel in English and Sentinel in Hindi was disputed by the respondent. 4. Considering the above challenge the respondent was asked to respond as t o what amount of advertisement commission for advertisements published in the T he Sentinel in English and Sentinel in Hindi are admitted by them to the peti tioner, Ms. M Hazarika on the basis of instructions submits that at best only a sum of Rs.15,712/- can be paid by the respondent and the respondent owes no resp onsibility to pay any further amount to the petitioner. 5. Mr. S S Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however submit s that the other 3 publications, namely, Ajir Asom , Dongmusa , and Samay P bha are also published by the Sentinel Group and therefore the option of recove ry of the due amount by the petitioner through other available means should not be foreclosed. 6. In the context of the submissions made by the learned counsels, it hardl y needs to be said that winding up proceedings are recovery proceeding. By very nature of the procedure, it is a summary proceeding provided under the Companies Act to seek winding up of a functioning Company, if it fails to pay its admitte d dues on demand. Therefore, it is not an appropriate proceeding nor the Company Court is equipped to adjudicate on disputed claims. 7. In view of the above and the contention raised, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.15,712/- as this amo unt is claimed as advertisement commission in respect of the The Sentinel in E nglish and Sentinel in Hindi. The amount be paid by an Account payee demand dr aft drawn in favour of the petitioner, within 2 weeks from today. If the petitio ner has any further claim against respondent Company, he may agitate such claim through any other proceeding as may be available in law, since such additional c laim is disputed by the respondent Company. 8. The winding up petition stands disposed of with the above order.