IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2008 NO. 429 OF 2008 NO. 429 OF 2008 in in in COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY PETITION NO.10 OF 2008 PETITION NO.10 OF 2008 PETITION NO.10 OF 2008 Hareshwar Mansukhlal Upadhyay .. Appellant Vs. M/s Dhantex Polycott Private Limited..Respondents Mr.R.G.Bhat i/b Ms Lata Wadhwani for Appellants Mr.Aashish Kamath i/b Apex Law Partners for Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : Smt Justice Ranjana Desai Smt Justice Ranjana Desai Smt Justice Ranjana Desai and and and K.K.Tated, JJ K.K.Tated, JJ K.K.Tated, JJ DATED DATED DATED : 24th November, 2008 : 24th November, 2008 : 24th November, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. In this appeal the order dated 29th August 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dimissing Company Petition is under challenge. The appellant who is the proprietor of M/s Vishal Trading Company had made a claim of Rs.17,27,019/- against supply of goods said to be worth Rs.43,00,000/- to the respondents. According to the appellant, he has supplied and delivered goods and the respondents have received the goods and haveeven used the said goods. It is the case of the appellant that the respondents made payment till September, 2006 but, did not make payment from December 2006 onwards. Therefore, a statutory notice came to be issued on 27th June 2007 for winding up of the company. The case of the respondents is that they have a bonafide dispute with the appellant about over-pricing of the goods. According to the respondents, the goods supplied to them are only worth Rs.30,00,000/- for which they have paid Rs.26,00,000/-. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the dispute appears to be bonafide. He therefore, dismissed the Company Petition by relegating the parties to a remedy of a civil suit for recovery of the said amount. Hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. He submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that there is a bonafide dispute. Learned counsel submitted that in fact till about 2006 the respondents had made the payments. The respondents even used the goods and a totally frivolous dispute is raised just to avoid making payments. He submitted that in the circumstances the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. In our opinion, no interference is necessary with the impugned order. We find that even prior to the statutory notice the respondents had addressed a letter to Clariant India Ltd whose goods the appellant had supplied to them making a grievance that the appellant who is a dealer of M/s Clariant India Ltd is over-pricing the goods. This letter is dated 7th May 2007. We find that by letter dated 1st January, 2007 M/s Clariant India Ltd wrote to the respondents that they should discuss the issue with the appellant. This indicates that there was a bonafide dispute about over-pricing much prior to the statutory notice. The learned Single Judge therefore cannot be faulted for having relegated the parties to remedy of a civil suit for recovery of amount. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. { Smt Ranjana Desai, J } Smt Ranjana Desai, J } Smt Ranjana Desai, J } { K.K.Tated, J } K.K.Tated, J } K.K.Tated, J }