: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. 71 OF 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 71 OF 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 71 OF 2008 M/s. Reliance Communication and Infrastructure Ltd. ..Petitioners versus M/s. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondents Mr. C. Abuwala i/b. M/s. Dave & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Sunil Purohit with Mr. Uttam i/b. M/s. Pardiwala & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 24TH JULY, 2008. DATE : 24TH JULY, 2008. DATE : 24TH JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . . . Heard. 2. This is a petition for winding up of the respondents company on the ground that the respondents have not cleared telephone charges. 3. According to the petitioners, the respondents applied for availing 248 Reliance India Mobile telephone connection and agreed to the terms and conditions of the offer, which included the legal obligation to pay bills issued from time to :2: time. 4. The petitioners company provided 248 hand sets of Rs.1,500/- each. According to the petitioners the respondents have made extensive use of 248 connections from time to time and therefore they are liable in the sum of Rs.6,15,229.92 paise. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents admits that the respondents used hand sets and availed of the service provided by the petitioners only for the month of May. However, according to the petitioners, the respondents also used the service for few days in June. 6. However, the respondents appear to be correct in their contention that the petitioners have not submitted any bills to them for the telephone charges that are said to have arisen in the month of May and June. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the fact that no bill has been submitted to the respondents for the month of May and June as according to him the bills of May and June are not available. The said bills are deemed to have been :3: served. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the subsequent bills in which the earlier outstanding is carried on. However, there appears to be no basis for the subsequent bills in the absence of main bills for the relevant months. 8. In the circumstances, there appears to be a bonafide dispute raised by the respondents about their liability to pay telephone charges. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Company Petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)