: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.318 OF 2005 In the matter of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 And In the matter of Tradesvel Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Mrs. Leela G. Nair ..Petitioner. Mr.K.K.V.Kurup for the Petitioner. Mr.Denzil D’Mello for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, DATED : DATED : DATED : 22ND JANUARY, 2009 22ND JANUARY, 2009 22ND JANUARY, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : There is a bona-fide dispute atleast as regards the quantum payable. 2. The petitioner had initially contended that an amount of Rs.38,160/- was payable for the period June, 2004 to December, 2004 including bonus and interest. Subsequently, the petition was amended and a claim of Rs.1,24,173/- is made for the period 1.6.2004 to 15.11.2005. 3. Disciplinary action was taken against the Petitioner. It is not necessary to go into the : 2 : details of the same. Suffice it to note that by a letter dated 15.11.2005 the Petitioner was informed that she was found guilty but that the company has taken a lenient view and has terminated her services with immediate effect. By the said letter, the Petitioner was called upon to collect the dues. 4. As the Petitioner did not collect the dues the company by a letter dated 25.9.2006 forwarded a cheque in the sum of Rs.30,921/- in full and final settlement of her dues. She was informed that for the settlement of provident fund/family pension, she should obtain the application form from the Regional Provident Fund Office and to submit the same to the company for certification. 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner accepted the offer which was made on the basis of it being a full and final settlement. That the Petitioner accepted the same under protest is another matter. Prior to the filing of the petition, the company had by a letter dated 21.12.2004 stated that the Petitioner had not worked for a particular period and hence there was no question of payment of wages for that period. There is thus a bona-fide defence : 3 : regarding the quantum payable. It is not possible in the Company Petition to decide these issues as it requires evidence to be lead. 6. In any event, the above circumstances indicate that there is a bona-fide dispute. 7. In the circumstances, the Company Petition is dismissed. 8. The Petitioner shall always be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of the alleged dues. ***