-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.985 OF 2007 In the matter of Hindustan Unilever Limited Urmila Devi Agarwal : Petitioner ... Mr.Rahul Chitnis with Mr.Chakrapani Misra and Mr.Vishal Maheshwari i/b. Khaitan & Co., for the petitioner. Mr.J. Dwarkadas with Mr.Rohan Cama i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATE : JULY 17, 2008. P.C. 1. This is a petition for winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debt. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.54,11,000/- from the respondent on account of termination of re-distribution agreement by the respondent. 2. The petitioner’s claim as made out in the petition preceded by notice under section 434 of the Companies Act. The said claim is as follows:- -: 2 :- "01. Wrongful credit sale in market not 40,93,000.00 recovered by the said staff. 02. Godown rent per month @ Rs.20,000/- for the month of September & Oct- 40,000.00 ober 2006 (20,000 x 2) 03. Godown deposit for 6 months @ 1,20,000.00 Rs.20,000/- (20,000 x 6) 04. Salary A/C of Salesman @ Rs.60,000/- per month for six months from April 1,80,000.00 to September 2006 (60,000 x 6) = 3,60,000. 05. Salary of delivery man/godown @ 1,50,000.00 Rs.50,000 x 6 = 3,00,000/- 06. Merchandiser salary per month 1,08,000.00 18000 x 6 = 07. Office Staff. 8 personnel, 2 Computer staff + 2 Supervisors 1,20,000.00 (40,000 x 6) = 2,40,000/- 08. Capital investment: Auto - Computer-office furniture 5,00,000.00 Total 8,00,000 On sale 3,00,000 -------- 5,00,000 Low on sale 09. Bank - interest - Rs.42,00,000/- 1,00,000.00 Loan on interest Total 54,11,000.00" 3. Apparently, this claim arises out of termination of business relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-company by letter dated 19.10.2006 along with which the respondent forwarded to the petitioner cheque for Rs.6,72,506.05 towards settlement. Prima facie, the -: 3 :- payment made by the respondent-company while terminating the business relationship itself shows the respondent-company’s liquidity. Apparently, the petitioner was the re-distribution agent of the respondent-company and the company has decided to appoint another re-distribution agent. The reply clearly disputes the entire claim of the petitioner. If the petitioner has any grievance, she may resort to such remedies as may be available in law. 4. In the result, there is no merit in this petition for winding up which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.