* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 335 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 791 OF 2007 M/s.Synthesis Equity Research Foundation Pvt.Ltd ....Appellants/ Orig.Petitioners V/s. M/s.Prabodh Artha Sanchay Pvt.Ltd ....Respondents/ Orig.Respondents. ===== Mr.R.D.Soni i/by. Ram & Co.,adv.for appellant. Mr.Pravin Samdani with Mr.Biren Saraf with Mr.Shaukat Merchant and Ms.Urvashi Tapas i/by. M & M Legal Ventures, adv.for respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,,JJ. DATED : 18TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused appeal. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11th September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Company Petition No.791 of 2007. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned order, it is not in * 2 * dispute that after considering the submissions made by the rival parties, the learned Judge has recorded his finding in paragraph-5 of the impugned order which reads as under : “5. At this juncture, it is important to note that for the period of this transaction, several proceedings are pending between the parties, civil and criminal, as enumerated in paragraph-7 of the reply of the respondent. In addition, Mr.Khambatta, in fairness, points out that another Summary Suit, bearing No.169 of 2008, has been filed by the petitioner-company against the respondent-company and is pending in this court. Mr.Seervai points out that, in fact, in that suit, the plaintiff has alleged the existence of a joint venture agreement between the Directors of the petitioner-company and the Director of the respondent-company to jointly develop and exploit the land in question. Thus, there appears to be bonafide dispute between the parties in regard to the transactions and the amounts advanced thereunder. 4. Having seen the findings recorded, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case warranting interference with the impugned order. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is a reasonable and possible view which can be supported on the basis of the material available on record. No perversity in the impugned order could be demonstrated by the appellant. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, brought to our notice that various legal proceedings including suits between the parties are pending in different courts, as such it needs to be clarified that initiation and/or dismissal of the winding up * 3 * petition and/or appeal therefrom shall have no effect on the pending litigation between the parties, since winding up proceedings are not entertained on the ground of existence of bonafide dispute between the parties. Request made is reasonable. Order accordingly. Pending proceedings to be decided on its own merits without getting influenced by this order. With this clarification, the appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) (V.C.DAGA,J.)