IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Company Petition No.685 of 2007 In the matter of Update Advertising and Marketing Pvt.Ltd. ETC Networks Limited ..Petitioner Mr.H.Thakore i/b M/s Thakore Jariwala and Associates for petitioner. Mr.A.C.Mahimkar for respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 27th June 2008 27th June 2008 27th June 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners are in the business of operating Satelite Television Channels. They carry on business of broadcasting programmes on these channels. The channels are free to air. No decoding is required for receiving signals and no subscription is paid by the subscribers. Thus, petitioners’ main source of revenue/income is advertisements. 3. The respondent is customer/constituent of the petitioner. It has approached the petitioner requesting it to telecast the programme more particularly set out in para 5. As per the release order/contract the programme was telecast and for various telecasts, the bills/invoices were raised. 4. The invoices were accepted without any dispute but despite regular follow up the payment was not made. Therefore, notice that is stipulated by sections 433 and 434 has been delivered which was duly received but there is no reply thereto. It is on this basis that the company petition for winding up is filed. 5. Mr.Thakore urges that presumption in law arises clearly and the company is deemed to be unable to pay its debt. Even the market sources informed that the respondents are not doing financially well. 6. An affidavit in reply is filed by the company and it has stated that there is an Intercorporate deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- which has been forwarded on 5th July, 2001. The respondent has utilised the air time of Rs.1,27,850/- by end of 2001. The respondents did not avail of further air time. Therefore, balance sum from this deposit is refundable. A part payment was made by the petitioner in July, 2002 of Rs.4,00,000/- and balance of Rs.4,72,015.00 is unpaid. Even the petitioner was requested to pay these sums but there is no response. The respondent has admitted that it has availed of air time between June, 2005 and November, 2005. It has admitted that a sum of Rs.12,01,269.59 is payable. However, the accounts have to be reconciled. There is no question of petition refunding the deposit to one M/s Multimedia Informatics Pvt.Ltd. That is a distinct company with which the respondent has no business relations. Therefore, the accounts be reconciled and barring a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- nothing would be due and payable is the submission of Mr.Mahimkar. 7. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and has contended that there is no intercorporate deposit but advance payment made in July, 2001. The recovery thereof is completely time barred and in any event the dispute alleged in that behalf is also settled between the parties in July, 2002 in the manner set out in the rejoinder. Therefore, that payment cannot be linked with the present proceedings. 8. Mr.Thakore on instructions makes a statement that after the petition was filed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by the company to the petitioner and balance of Rs.6,73,284.59 is due and payable. In my view, dispute with regard to the setting and reconciling of account between the parties cannot be decided in limited jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner will have to prove the entries in its account and then recover the balance, sum if any. Equally, the respondent will have to prove its case of set off or adjustment of the alleged intercorporate deposit. In such circumstances, in my view, the following order would meet the ends of justice. 9. Upon the respondent paying to the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,00,000/0 within a period of two weeks from today, the petitioner to file a suit against the respondent in competent court within four weeks thereafterfor recovery of balance sum with interest. Needless to state that all contentions and pleas of both sides in these proceedings are kept open and merely because this Court has set out the rival cases does not mean that any opinion is expressed thereon. Needless to further add that in default the company petition to stand admitted and thereafter the petitioner will take further steps in accordance with law. 10. All concerned parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)