:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 167 OF 2005 COMPANY PETITION NO. 167 OF 2005 COMPANY PETITION NO. 167 OF 2005 Hitesh Sharma ..Petitioner versus Flamingo Pharmaceutical Ltd. ..Respondents Ms. S. Malvankar with Ms. R. Malvankar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this company petition, the petitioner seeks winding up of the respondents company on the ground that the company has allegedly not paid his salary. 3. The petitioner was working as a Country Manager and was deputed by the company out of India. Apparently, he left the company. The company has filed a Civil Suit being S.C. Suit No. 3267 of :2: 2003 before the City Civil Court, Bombay, interalia for restraining him from entering into a competitive employment. That suit is admittedly pending. 4. According to the petitioner, the amount of 3580 US Dollars is outstanding on account of his salary. According to the company, the petitioner has not handed over charge properly and they have therefore not been able to finalise the accounts. In reply to the statutory notice, they have also alleged that they have suffered huge losses on account of inaction on the part of the petitioner and on account of not handing over the charge properly. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the company has not described what is meant by handing over proper charge. Even if that is so, it is clear that substantially what the company has alleged is loss caused to them on account of the petitioner’s leaving the service and the manner of leaving it. It also appears from the statutory notice that the petitioner had requested the City Civil Court which is hearing Suit No. 3267 of 2003 to settle the dues of his salary and other emoluments and the court has apparently directed the :3: company to settle the said amounts vide paragraph 3 of the statutory notice. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents has told that they are liable to pay local salary of the petitioner for the month of August, 2003. But apparently that does not satisfy the petitioner’s claim. Respondents have totally denied the petitioner’s claim as regards leave encashment and incentive under the Incentive Scheme dated 20.4.2002. The respondents have denied the millstone incentive of Rs.3,00,000/-. There seems to be a bonafide dispute of the petitioner’s claim. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the company petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)