-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.10 OF 2008 In the matter of M/s.Dhantex Polycott Pvt. Ltd. Hareshwar Mansukhlal Upadhyay Karta of Hareshwar M. Upadhyay (H.U.F.) Proprietor of M/s.Vishal Trading Co. : Petitioner ... Mr.C.N.Mehta with Mr.Avinash N. Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Kamat with Mr.Vinod Kothari i/b. Apex Law Partners for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2008. P.C. 1. This is a petition for winding up of the respondent-company. The petitioner has made a claim of about Rs.17,27,019/- against supply of goods said to be worth Rs.43 lakhs and the petitioner has sold, supplied and delivered the goods i.e. dyes on an agreed rate and the respondent has received the goods and acknowledged the same from time to time. The petitioner stated that the company made payments till about September 2006, but did not make payment from October 2006 onwards as reflected in -: 2 :- the statement of outstanding invoices payment at exh.‘E’ to the petition. According to the petitioner, the respondent has no reason not to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.17 lakhs suddenly. 2. According to the company, they have a bona fide dispute with the petitioner about over-pricing of the goods. The company has stated that they have received supply of goods said to be worth Rs.43 lakhs and they have, in fact, paid Rs.26 lakhs while the goods are worth Rs.30 lakhs only. They, however, dispute the liability as claimed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the question of over-pricing is a bogey now raised by the company. However, as pointed out by Mr.Kamat, the learned counsel appearing for the company, this is a dispute which appears to have been raised as early as on 7.5.2007. In paragraph 5 of the statutory notice, the petitioner has referred to a letter written by the company on 7.5.2007 to the principal, M/s.Clariant India Ltd. with a copy to them containing the allegations about the alleged higher prices charged by the petitioner. The petitioner stated that the allegations of higher price are false. However, it nonetheless shows the existence of a dispute about the price prior to the statutory notice also. In fact, as pointed out by Mr.Kamat, the principal of the petitioner -: 3 :- has sent an e-mail to the company stating that they will investigate into the allegations of charging higher prices. The principal took this stand only because prima facie they were satisfied about the allegations. Whatever be the truth of the dispute between the parties about pricing, one thing is clear that there is a dispute about pricing between the parties which has been raised by the company since May 2007 as is apparent from the petitioner’s own notice. The dispute, therefore, appears to be bona fide and in the circumstances, it is necessary to relegate the parties to the remedy of a civil suit for recovery of the said amount. 3. In the result, the Company Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. S.A. BOBDE, J.