1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. COMPANY PETITION NO.112 OF 2009 M/s. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. M/s.You Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Cyruz Ardeshir with Mr. C.D. Abduwala i/b Dave & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shiralkar and Mr. Sushant Chavan i/b M/s. Shiralkar & Co. for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 13th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. The claim on the basis of which the petition for winding up has been filed arises out of invoices raised by the Petitioner upon the company under which an amount of Rs.37,04,863.24 is stated to be due and payable. According to the Petitioner the Respondent had submitted customer applications in pursuance of which the Petitioner activated Internet connections at seven locations in different parts of the country. In paragraph 9 of the Petition, the following averment has been made - 2 “The Respondents have availed the said Internet services facility extensively and were billed on a regular monthly basis from time to time as per the usage of the Respondents of the services. The bills were sent to the Respondents from time to time. The Respondent Company has received the bills without raising any dispute of any manner whatsoever.” 2. In the affidavit in reply it has been averred that, as a matter of fact, the company had by its e-mails informed the Petitioner from time to time about deficiencies in the Internet connections. On 26th November, 2007 the company had drawn the attention of the Petitioner to the fact that the quality of the current bandwidth at Mumbai was not at par with its current service providers and that the company was contemplating a termination of the orders. The Petitioner’s representative responded to the company on 26th of November, 2007. On 15th February, 2008 the Petitioner was informed by the company that “ the links provisioned to conduct tests have failed to meet the requirements” and could not be implemented successfully. Accordingly, a notice of disconnection of services was issued. On 25th February, 2008 the representative of the Petitioner agreed that atleast a specific route was not accessible and that the 3 problem had been resolved only on 16th February, 2008. 3. The Petitioner has evidently suppressed from the Petition all the complaints about quality and of the deficiency in service that were made by the company to the Petitioner. On the contrary, the averment in paragraph 9 of the Petition is that the company had received bills without raising any dispute of any manner whatsoever. This is contrary to the record. The contention of the Petitioner is that the company had utilized the services and that it should be called upon to deposit atleast some form of security in order to enable the Petitioner to file a suit for the recovery of its dues. The submission cannot be accepted. From the record it is evident that there was a serious dispute about the quality of the services rendered by the Petitioner to the company. In these circumstances, it cannot be posited that there is a debt due and payable. The winding up petition will have to be dismissed by relegating the Petitioner to follow its ordinary remedies under the law. The Petition is dismissed. *****