(P) Ltd. as well as in CP 433/1999 entitled Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Company Vs. Mohta Bright Steels (P) Ltd. In CP 366/1999 the Claim is for a principal sum of Rs.73,46,674.37 together with Rs.13,44,990.99 towards interest at the rate of 21% per annum calculated up to 31.12.1998 A Statutory Notice dated January 6, 1999 was served on the Respondent Company which sent its response thereto in terms of its letter dated 1.2.1999. The defense of the Respondent is that problems commenced due to the supply of defective material by the petitioner leading to its rejection. In the Reply there is a reference to a Debit Note dated 28.9.1997 raised by the Respondent Company for a sum of Rs.9,89,888.86. Mention has also been made to the Respondent's letter dated 23.12.1997 whereby the petitioner was notified of discrepancies including insufficient and deficient supply of material and poor quality of material. A demand for a Credit Note was made by the Respondent Company and according to it Debit Note for Rs.7,93,430.40 was made on 20.12.1997. Paragraph 15 of the Reply refers to a Debit Note dated 17.12.1998 which reads as under: GBS/MISCDN/018 171298 DEBIT NOTE M/s. MADHYA PRADESH IRON & STEEL CO., 'Kanchenjunga, 9th Floor, k 18, Barakhamba Road, NEW DELHI110001. Dear Sir, We debited your account for Rs.691021080p (Rs.Sixty nine lacs ten thousand two hundred ten & Paisa eighty six only), towards the details given below: Sl.No. ITEM AMOUNT (RS.) 1. Excess paid to produce at risk & cost of MISC on pending orders on 51198 680 MT x Rs.3350.00 PMT 22,78,00000 2. Cost of inconvenience 02% PM of value of orders (pending) as on 51198 380MT x Rs.22750Rs.864500000 300MT x Rs.19500Rs.585000000 ___________ Rs.14495000x2% 2,89,90000 3. Cost of RP by our customers on us as on 301198 7,65,50200 4. Cost L.D. Levied on us by our customers on us as on 301193 1,02,50000 5. Cost of loss of business and profit expected to be earned and loss of goodwill 12,55,20000 6. Details as per Annexure 22,19,10886 Total 69,10,21086 Thanking you, Your's faithfully Sd/illegible for GB. SPRINGs (P) LTD., AUTHORISED SIGNAtorY." This stand was controverter by the petitioner in terms of its Advocate's letter dated 5.6.1999. 2. Mr. Krishnamani, Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent has contended that a civil Suit for the recovery of money under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending on the Original Side of this Court and, therefore, the present petition ought not to be entertained any further. His argument is that any order that may now come to be passed in these proceedings would adversely affect and jeopardise the Respondent's defense in the said Summary Suit. The Reinstatement of the law regarding windingup is to be found in the perspicuous judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Vs. North India PetroChemical Ltd and Another, (. In NEPC Vs. Indian Airlines, 100 (202) Delhi Law Times 14, I had attempted to distil the observations of the Apex Court in PIICUP case (supra) by setting down the following proposition: (i) If there is a bona fide dispute and the defense is a substantial one, the Court will not windup the company. (ii) Where the debt is undisputed the Court will not act upon a defense that the company has the ability to pay the debt but the company chooses not to pay it. (iii) Where the defense of the company is in good faith and one of substance, and the defense is likely to succeed in point of law, and the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defense depends, the petition should be rejected. (iv) The Court may consider the wishes of creditors so long as these appear to be justified. (v) The machinery of windingup should not be allowed to be utilised merely as a means of Realizing its debts. (vi) If the stance of the adversaries hangs in balance i