1 cp216-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.216 OF 2010 Mitsubishi International GmbH ....Petitioner V/s. M/s.Meena Printech Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent Mr.Vishal Kanage i/b M/s.RKM Legal Services for the Petitioner. Ms.Seema S. Singh for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This is a petition for winding up the respondent company inter- alia on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent is liable to pay it a sum of Euros 33,941 together with interest thereon. The claim arises on account of the goods sold and delivered by the petitioner to the respondent on the terms and conditions contained in and evidenced by the purchase orders and the corresponding invoice dated 13.3.2007. 3. There is no dispute that the goods were sold and delivered to the respondent. Mr.Kanade further relied upon a letter dated 8.8.2007 wherein the respondent agreed to make 50% payment of the outstanding bill by the end of the month and the balance within two to three weeks thereafter. It was further stated that the respondent’s unit at Kandivali had been liquidated out of which the amounts would be paid as aforesaid. The 2 cp216-10 amounts not having been paid, the petitioner by its advocate letter dated 13.8.2007, served a statutory notice. 4. Although the receipt of the goods is admitted, I am not inclined to pass any order in this petition in view of the fact that at the relevant time, disputes were raised by the respondent with respect to the quality of the material supplied by the petitioner. For instance by an e-mail message dated 17.4.2007, the petitioner stated that its consultant would be visiting Mumbai and sought an appointment regarding the material. By an e-mail message dated 20.4.2007, the respondent informed the petitioner about the defects. The letter indicates that the respondent carried out tests with other material which were successful. The respondent also stated the fact that its supply to Jet Airways made from the material supplied by the petitioner were rejected. The petitioner by an e-mail message dated 4.10.2007 requested for the samples to investigate the matter. 5. The respondent has also relied upon the correspondence and the photographs regarding the allegedly defective material from its customers viz. Air India and Jet Airways. 6. The above correspondence ought to have been filed by the petitioner itself. The correspondence indicates a bona-fide dispute between the parties. In fact in the correspondence, the respondent has raised a counter-claim. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to say that there is nothing to be considered in the matter. 7. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to deal with another e-mail message dated 28.11.2008 relied upon by the respondent 3 cp216-10 to contend that the petitioner had in fact closed the matter. 8. The company petition is therefore dismissed.