IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.85 OF 2009 Sarladevi D.Changiowala ...Petitioner V/s. M/s.Taj Television (India) Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Ashok Saraogi for Petitioner. Mr.Ashish Kamath i/b Lekhs Legal for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. APRIL 9, 2009. APRIL 9, 2009. APRIL 9, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Having noticed the rival stand, in my opinion, it raises a triable issue which cannot be addressed in the present proceedings. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioners sold, delivered and supplied goods to the Respondents under different invoices as per the request of the Respondents. On the other hand, the case of the Respondents is that : 2 : the goods were delivered to the Respondents only in the third week of June 2008 and on checking of the final sample, it was found that the branding on the boxes was tilted in almost 70% of the watches, the dial was faulty, numbers were chipped off, there was problem in the branding as the logo was smudged and there was dust inside the dial. It is the positive case of the Respondents which has not only been stated in the reply to the statutory notice but also in the reply affidavit filed to oppose this Petition that due to such substandard quality of goods, the consignment sent by the Respondents of the goods received from the Petitioners were eventually returned to the Respondents by their clients on the ground that the same were of substandard quality. The entire argument revolves around this dispute which cannot be resolved in the proceedings in Company jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners would proceed on denial. 3. The fact remains that the dispute raised in the Petition is a triable issue and cannot be resolved in Company Petition. The Company Petition : 3 : cannot be used as means to recovery of outstanding dues, in particular, where there is serious dispute about the quality of goods supplied. 4. The only argument of the Petitioners is that there is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondents had instantly informed in writing about the substandard quality of goods. The case of the Respondents, however, is that the Petitioners were duly informed about the same. As a matter of fact, the Respondents had paid advance amount to the Petitioners. 5. Be that as it may, all those aspects will have to be tried in appropriate proceedings. All questions on merits of the stand taken by the parties are left open to be decided on its own merits in the said proceedings. Petition dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.