IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Company Petition No.28 of 2008 Decided on : 09.09.2010 Rohit Pant ... Petitioner versus Swaraj Mazda Ltd. ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the respondent. **** Hemant Gupta, J(Oral) This is a petition for winding up of respondent-company for the alleged inability of respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,08,496.21 as per the details in Annexure P-4. The amount due and payable to the petitioner is alleged to be on accounts of Salary, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Society Contribution, Earned Leave Encashment, Medical incentives and amount due on account of wage revision etc. The petitioner has served a statutory notice under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure P-11). The respondent-company has replied to the said notice on 26.10.2007. Such reply has been appended by the respondent as Annexure R-1 to its written statement. In the said reply, the respondent has submitted that a sum of Rs.30 lacs was payable by the petitioner to the respondent- company for which legal notice dated 09.04.2007 had been served to the petitioner. In reply to the petition of winding up, it has been Company Petition No.28 of 2008 -2- pointed out that the petitioner was sent to Malaysia for specialized training and that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.36 lacs spent by the respondent for training of the petitioner as the petitioner resigned. A suit of recovery of the said amount is already pending before Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chandigarh. After going through the record of the petition, I find that the respondent has claimed over Rs.36 lacs even before the statutory notice was served by the petitioner. The respondent- company has filed a civil suit to recover the said amount. Still further the Balance-Sheets attached with the written statement shows that the company has good financial health. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the defence raised by the respondents lacks bona fide. The amount claimed is disputed. The claim of the amount stated to be due to the petitioner can be sought in appropriate proceedings after establishing right over the such claim and in accordance with law. Thus, the amount claimed by the petitioner cannot be said to be due and payable by the respondent-company as the respondent has to recover much more amount than claimed by the petitioner. Thus, I do not find that any case is made out for winding up of the respondent-company. The petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. September 09, 2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) sonia JUDGE