M.S. RANE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, Kelvinator of India Limited, have filed this petition seeking winding up of the respondent-company, Blue Star Limited, on the ground that the said company is unable to pay the debts. According to the petitioners, the debts are to the extent of rupees one crore forty-three lakhs odd plus interest. On perusal of the pleadings, the petition, the affidavit in reply and the rejoinder filed and on submissions across the Bar by counsel for the respective parties, it is gathered that the petitioners and the respondent-company have business dealings for quite some time. The petitioner are manufacturers of refrigerators and they have been marketing the said product trough the respondent company on the terms and conditions as agreed upon by the parties. It is noticed that initially the warranty period was for seven years which was further extended by mutual agreement for 15 years.

( 2 ) THE pleadings reveal that there were various other terms in the nature of understanding between the parties depending upon the market position. It was agreed upon that in case the product of the petitioner-company remaining unsold, certain accounting adjustments were to be made.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, as per the agreement and the arrangement, they supplied to the respondent-company their product from time to time. Letters of credit were established through banks and subsequently hundies were also drawn up. However, the amount as claimed remained due which the respondents did not pay and hence the petition had been filed after correspondence and on service of statutory demand notice. The respondents in their affidavit-in-reply have raised the dispute pointing out that they have to receive substantial amounts as per the bilateral arrangement between them and the petitioners. Reference is made to the correspondence prior to the service of statutory notice some of which have been referred to by the petitioners themselves in the petition. It is noticed that the respondents have raised the dispute right at the first opportunity available and set forth their counter-claim against the petitioners. Across the Bar, it was stated by learned counsel for the respondent-company that the said company has already filed a suit in this court against the petitioner-company for the recovery of their dues which suit is still pending.

( 4 ) THE short point that arises for consideration is whether the dispute raised by the respondent-company is reasonable and bona fide. The answer has to be in the affirmative.

( 5 ) IT is noticed that the parties herein have business dealings for a considerable period and transactions of over crores of rupees have gone through. It is noticed that the debt liability claimed by the petitioners relates to the earlier period and it is relevant to note that at subsequent stages the petitioner-company was having business dealings with the respondent-company over crores of rupees and on admission of the petitioners the respondent-company has paid the said debts. That rules out any doubt about the commercial solvency of the respondent-company.

( 6 ) THIS court is of the prima facie view that the dispute raised by the and on behalf of the respondent-company is reasonable and bond fide. There is no case made out even prima facie by the petitioners that the commercial solvency of the respondent-company is in jeopardy. Therefore, I hold that the dispute raised by the respondent-company is bona fide and consequently the petition filed stands rejected. No order as to costs.