Co.Pet. 11/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Ms. J R Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard M s. S Kejriwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner claims that Rs.11,05,000/- (including interest) due from the respondents has remain unpaid since long and accordingly this winding up pet ition has been filed under the Companies Act. 3. But in the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents, the bona fi de of the claim is disputed by contending that respondent No.1 is neither a Bank ing Company nor a Non-Banking Financial Institution and accordingly the money st ated to have been deposited by the petitioner is outside the ambit of the Compan y’s permissible activities. That apart, forgery in the signatures appearing in t he receipts relied upon by the petitioner is also alleged by the respondent. Eve n the Company’s Letter Head is stated to be fabricated. 4. Considering the objections on the bona fide of the petitioner’s claim, I am of the view that it would be inappropriate to consider winding up of the res pondent Company on the basis of the available material. The case is disposed of accordingly. 5. However the disposal of this winding up petition will not foreclose the option of the petitioner, if any, to take recourse to other legal remedies to re cover the alleged dues.