:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 292 OF 2007 COMPANY PETITION NO. 292 OF 2007 COMPANY PETITION NO. 292 OF 2007 In the matter of M/s. Saurashtra Fuels (P) Limited .. Company M/s. Western India Shipyard Limited ..Petitioners Mr. Clive D’souza i/b. Legal Associates for the Petitioners. Mr. D. D. Madan with S. Murthy i/b. Aarti Sathe for the Company. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seeks winding up of the company on the ground of its inability to pay debts under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act. The petitioners have made a claim of Rs.1,09,66,925/- in statutory notice in respect of repairs of a ship, named, M. V. Shree Shakti belonging to the company. The ship is said to have been repaired at the petitioners shipyard at Goa. The claim is based on Invoice dated 27.3.2006 for a total sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- and the bill :2: settlement note executed by the parties on 28.3.2006. According to the petitioners, the company paid some amount in pursuance of the bill settlement but have thereafter not paid the amount. The liability is therefore impliedly admitted by them. 3. Learned counsel for the company points out that the petition is based on bill settlement note dated 28.3.2006. However, the petitioners have suppressed from the court the fact that the bill settlement note was in fact cancelled on 1.4.2006 vide Exhibit ’A’ to the affidavit in reply. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the cancellation was not annexed to the petition because proceedings under the Company Act were going on and therefore it was not annexed. This explanation is completely unacceptable since the cancellation of a settlement is not expected to be left out when the party is relying on the settlement. 4. In this case, if the company had not entered appearance and pointed out the cancellation of the settlement it would have clearly led to the court directing the winding up of the company on the basis of the settlement dated 28.3.2006. It therefore :3: does not matter that the settlement which was cancelled was replaced by another settlement. Coincidentally that settlement is also nowhere referred to in the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the company submits that there is a bonafide dispute pertaining to the repairs carried out by the company. The defect was noticed after delivery of the vessel was taken by the company. The dispute is apparently raised by the company in a letter dated 15.5.2006 at Exhibit ’H’ to the reply. This letter has also been withheld from the court. 6. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to relief from this court having withheld material documents. Even otherwise they are not entitled to relief on the ground that there appears to be a bonafide dispute about the efficacy of the repairs carried out by the company. There is no merit in the contention that there is no bonafide dispute merely because some payments have been made. It is possible that in a given case the party makes some payment of amount which are considered to be legitimately due. No merit in the petition, hence dismissed. :4: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)