IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.618 OF 2007 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.297 OF 2004 Lakadia Enterprises Limited ..... Appellant V/s. SRG Human Resources Development Ltd. ..... Respondent Mrs.Jyoti Ghag i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Appellant. Mr.Ashok Singh i/b R.N.Gaonkar, for the Respondent. Mr.Kedar Dighe, for the Official Liquidator. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & P.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED : JULY 03, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The appeal arises from the order dated 16-06-2007 passed in Company Petition No.297 of 2004. By the impugned order the Company Judge has held that the appellant company has no bonafide defence and in spite of service of statutory notice prior to the institution of the winding up proceedings, the company failed to comply with. 3. The learned Single Judge on detailed analysis of the materials on 2 record has held that the respondent/petitioner had advanced a loan of Rs.47,00,000/- to the appellant company on 01-12-2000. Though, initially there was no challenge to the contention sought to be raised in that regard by the respondent/original-petitioner before the learned Single Judge, at the final hearing of the petition before the learned Single Judge, the appellant sought to contend that the real transaction between the parties was not in the nature of grant of loan, but it was an amount advanced for allotment of 4700 shares of the face value of Rs.10/- each at the rate of 1000 per share. The contention sought to be raised in that regard has been totally disbelieved by the learned Single Judge. The balance sheet for the year 2001-02 of the appellant company clearly contains an acknowledgment of unsecured loan of Rs.47,00,000/- to the respondent- petitioner. Besides, the balance sheet also discloses the original paid-up capital of the company was 700 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. Being so, it was rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that on 01-12-2000 there was no occasion for the appellant to agree for allotment of 4700 shares when the paid-up capital itself consisted of only 700 shares. Considering the same, we find no fault in the finding arrived by the learned Single Judge that the appellant company lacks bonafide defence and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is completely sustainable. There is no case 3 made out for interference in the Impugned order. Therefore, the appeal fails and is hereby rejected. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.)