SSM 1 cp.193.2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 193 OF 2010 Goradia Impex Private Limited .... Petitioner Versus Sehgal Fine-Forge Private Limited. .... Respondent Mr. R. S. Tripathi for the Petitioner. Deepa S. Matwankar i/b S. D. Patil for the Respondent. CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11 th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Tripathi for the Petitioner. Perused the Petition and the Affidavit-in-Reply and Rejoinder. 2. The Petitioner’s case is that certain goods were supplied, sold and delivered to the Respondent company. Thereupon invoices were forwarded and there was no dispute raised about quality and quantity of the goods. Hence, the amount under the invoices is due and payable and that having not been paid nor is there reply to the SSM 2 cp.193.2010.sxw statutory notice so also the Respondent company failing to secure the claim of the Petitioner and making payment, this Petition for winding up has been failed. 3. In the Affidavit-in-Reply the company has pointed out that there were defects in the goods and they were of sub-standard quality. It has been pointed out that the goods under 3 invoices bearing No. 428, 429 and 445 have not been received and they denied the dues as well. At the same time the version is that the goods supplied under invoice no. 428 and 429 both dated 13th March, 2009 were of sub- standard quality. The Respondents have paid in all Rs.5,87,061/- and the account statement is forwarded. 4. In rejoinder, the Petitioner states that the reply is confusing and contradictory. If the goods were not received there was no reason to make any payment under these invoices. In paragraph no. 2 of the rejoinder, it has been stated that the payments have been made. Rs. 5,87,061/- were paid towards invoice amount of SSM 3 cp.193.2010.sxw Rs. 4,66,423/- and excess amount of Rs.1,20,638/- was to be adjusted against the Invoice No. 428 dated 13th March, 2009. The Petitioner states that the excess amount was paid under the previous bill and it was given credit in the next bill. To my mind, the statements made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Rejoinder and reliance placed on ledger account clearly shows that a dispute of reconciliation of accounts arises and the amount payable under the foot of the same is claimed. The company does not admit its liability and the dispute raised by the Respondent company appears to be bonafide. Hence, this is not a fit case for entertaining a winding up Petition. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J).