1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 462 OF 2009 Billion Plastics Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.V.K.Polyshell Cables Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondents. Mr. Mukesh J. Pabari for petitioner. Mr.B.L.Bonde for Respondents.. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED :- JULY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and documents on record. 2. The fact that the Petitioners supplied goods to the Respondents on different dates mentioned in the concerned seven invoices is not in dispute. The total goods supplied to the Respondent company is in the sum of Rs. 3,56,904/-. The Respondent initially offered payment of only Rs.11,510/- by cheque to settle the invoice No.859. However, the said cheque was 2 dishonoured. Eventually, the Respondent gave demand draft of the like amount to the Petitioner to settle the said claim. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the other invoices have remained unpaid inspite of repeated reminders. The plea of the Respondent is that the goods supplied was of sub-standard quality. This stand is taken in the communication dated 10th April, 2008 at page 62 as well as 28th Octobr, 2008 at page 63. This stand has been taken almost after three months from the supply of goods and not immediately thereafter. Moreover, even though the Respondent contends that the Respondent wanted to return the defective goods supplied, there is nothing on record to establish that such attempt was made by the Respondent. On the other hand, from the communication pressed into service by the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent used the goods supplied by the Petitioner. In letter dated 10th April, 2008, it is clearly mentioned that the goods used were defective PVC, as a result of which the Respondent suffered loss in the end product and damage to the machine. The question is: whether the plea taken by the Respondent is honest and a plausible one ? In my opinion, the Petitioner is justified in contending that this is a bogus plea and a ruse to protract the claim of the Petitioner. The Respondent went to the extent of arguing that the statutory notice was not sent on the registered address of the Respondent company for which reason 3 itself action initiated by the Petitioner was defective, without substantiating the fact that notice sent was on the address other than the registered address. On the other hand, the Petitioner in paragraph-2 of its Petition has clearly asserted that notice was sent on the address, which is recorded as registered address in the record of the Registrar of Companies of the Respondent Company. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement. In my opinion, from the record, it is further noticed that it has been conceded by the Respondent that the Respondent has stopped production from March, 2008, which presupposes that financial position of the Respondent is not satisfactory. 3. Taking over all view of the matter, I am inclined to admit this Petition. However, as the claim amount is only in the sum of Rs.3,56,904/- I am inclined to pass following conditional order. (i) The Respondent shall deposit sum of Rs.3,56,904/- in this Court within six weeks from today, failing which the Company Petition shall stand admitted in which case, the Petitioner will be free to issue advertisement regarding admission of Petition. Petitioner shall advertise the 4 admission of the Petition in two local news papers, namely, "Free Press Journal", "Maharashtra Times" and in the Maharashtra Government Gazette. The Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the Prothonotary & Senior Master towards the publication charges, within three weeks thereafter with intimation to the Company Registrar failing which the Petition shall stand dismissed for non- prosecution. (ii) If the Respondent deposits the amount within time, it will be open to the Respondent to institute suit for appropriate relief, if so advised, within four weeks from the date of deposit of the amount, failing which the Petitioner will be free to withdraw the amount so deposited by the Respondent. In that event, the amount is deposited in time and the Respondent files suit, the amount so deposited shall stand transferred to the said suit account, whereafter the Petitioner shall stand disposed of. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)