SSM 1 cp.271.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 271 OF 2010 Prashna Estates .... Petitioner Versus M/s. Omved Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent Ms. Veen Advani i/b Law Charter for the Petitioner. Carl Shroff i/b Ashar Laws for the Respondent. CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11 th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C.: Heard both the sides. 2. The Petitioner is a real estate agent. The Respondent was looking out for some premises and the Petitioner is supposed to have identified the same and forwarded the proposals to the Respondent. Since the proposals were routed through him, he seeks commission/services charges for the services rendered as a Real Estate Agent. The Respondent has filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply SSM 2 cp.271.10.sxw and has pointed out that there is no agreement save and except the reliance placed on Exhibit-A to the Petition. For that purpose, amount was already paid to the Petitioner. Now, in relation to some distinct premises the claim in the Petition has been raised. 2. On a reading of the entire material, I am of the opinion that the Respondent has a bonafide defence in as much as there is no written agreement and further, the Petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.2,04,703/-. As far as the claim raised in the Petition is concerned, the Respondent has pointed out that the premises shown were not satisfactory and defective. The reply read as a whole clearly shows that there is a bonafide dispute raised with regard to the claim made by the Petitioner as summarised in paragraph no. 3 of the reply. For these reasons, there is no merit in the Petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J).