IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.550 OF 2009 Uttramchand Rajmal Jain ..Petitioner Vs. Shree Tex Shrees (India) Pvt Ltd. ..Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner Mr. Prashant Chande i/b Mr. Suresh M. Jain for the Respondents CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 9th December , 2009 P.C. : 1. The Company Petition is founded on an alleged supply of goods to the Respondents under invoices between 26th July 2007 and 5th October 2007. The claim is an amount of Rs.19,02,874/-, upon which interest has been claimed. 2. In the Affidavit in reply, it has been stated that there is a suppression of material facts on the part of the Petitioner. The defence is that the bills which are annexed at Exhibits A to A-40, are not supported by any evidence of delivery and it is not established as to when, where and how delivery was effected. In response to the statutory notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company had addressed a reply dated 16th January 2009, denying that it had agreed or accepted to make payments in respect of the bills in question. The Petitioner was called upon to furnish copies of the alleged bills and proof in support of delivery of goods. In the rejoinder which was addressed on behalf of the Petitioner on 25th January 2009, no such proof or details of delivery were forthcoming. In paragraph 10 of the reply, the Company has stated that there were dealings between several other firms conducted by the Petitioner and the Company and that if an account is taken up of the transactions, it would reveal that it is the Company which has to recover amounts from the Petitioner. The Company has denied that the Petitioner supplied material to it under various bills. 3. As already noted earlier, the Petitioner was called upon in the reply to the statutory notice to furnish details of the bills and in proof of delivery. No such details or proof was forthcoming. Though a similar defence has been raised in the Affidavit in reply, the Petitioner has chosen not to file a rejoinder disclosing details which would establish delivery of goods to the Company. None of the bills which are annexed at Exhibits A to A-40 contain any proof of delivery. 4. In these circumstances, there is a bonafide dispute between the parties on whether the goods were actually supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondents, under the bills in question, which form the basis of the Company Petition. This dispute cannot be resolved on evidence in a Company Petition for winding up and evidence would have to be adduced at the trial of a Suit. The Petitioner is accordingly relegated to its ordinary remedy of filing a suit for recovery. 5. The Petition is dismissed (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)