-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.406 OF 2008 In COMPANY PETITION NO.492 OF 2004 M/s.Amrutanjan Limited : Applicant (Orig.Petitioner) V/s. M/s.Shamrock International Limited : Respondent (Orig.Respondent) ... Mr.N.S.Nappinai for the applicant. Mr.B.L.Gandhi i/b. Mr.K.C.Pandey for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATE : JULY 31, 2008. P.C. 1. This is an application, inter alia, for appointment of a provisional Liquidator. It is clear from the conditional order dated 4.4.2005 by which the Company Petition for winding up was admitted that this Court had rejected the defence of the company that they were entitled to claim certain amount by way of counter claim and, therefore, there is a bona fide dispute. This Court, in fact, directed the respondent-comapny to deposit a sum -: 2 :- of Rs.50 lakhs within a period of four weeks, failing which the Company Petition would stand admitted. Admittedly, the amount has not been deposited by the company and the petition has been admitted. There is also no dispute that an appeal against the order admitting the petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.4.2007. It is clear that the Division Bench merely modified the amount which the company was directed to deposit from Rs.50 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs. Even thereafter, the amount has not been deposited. The S.L.P. against the order of the Division Bench was also dismissed by the apex Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that a Summary Suit has been filed in this Court. The learned counsel for the company, however, states that summons has not been served on the company. The non-service of the summons is not relevant for the purpose of this application. 3. The inability of the company to discharge its debts is evident from the aforesaid circumstances. The learned counsel for the respondent sought permission to point out that they had sought the appointment of an Arbitrator. When that dispute was carried before the apex Court, Their Lordships observed that there was a dispute between the -: 3 :- parties about the delivery of goods. The proceedings under section 11 of the Arbitration Act have no bearing on the matter of winding up. In the circumstances, this is a fit case for granting the relief prayed for by the applicant. 4. Accordingly, Company Application No.406 of 2008 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) & (c). S.A. BOBDE, J.