The court emphasized the importance of establishing a bona-fide dispute in debt claims and considered the potential extension of the limitation period based on the balance confirmation.

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. This Company Petition has been filed against the Respondent Company Galaxy Entertainment Corporation Limited, on the ground that is unable to pay its debts. It is the case of the Petitioner, that the Respondent Company is indebted to the Petitioner in the sum JPY 64,516,217 (Japanese Yen). It is the case of the Petitioner that these amounts have not been paid and, therefore, the present Company Petition.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the Petitioner being a proprietory concern is in the business of supplying gaming machines. It is the case of the Petitioner that in furtherance to the business transactions as agreed to between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Company, the Respondent Company placed an order on the Petitioner with respect to the purchase of certain machines as reflected in the Proforma Invoice dated 28th May, 2007. The said Proforma Invoice was thereafter amended and signed by the Petitioner on 11th April, 2008 and thereafter further amended on 1st November, 2008.

3. Pursuant to this purchase order, the Petitioner supplied the gaming machines to the Respondent Company on a regular credit basis, which according to the Petitioner, were accepted by the Respondent without any protest whatsoever. For the supply of these machines, the Petitioner raised its 10 invoices, the details of which are mentioned in Paragraph No. 8 of the Petition. Thereafter, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Company, before taking delivery of the said machines issued pre-inspection certificates certifying that the goods shipped under the said invoices were checked by the agent of the Respondent Company and were found to be in good working and acceptable condition. These certificates have been annexed at Exhibit 'B' to the Petition. It is the case of the Petitioner, that as far as the first Invoice Bearing No. GXY-0801 is concerned, the Respondent Company made part payment of approximately Rs. 47.57 lakhs. As far as the balance invoices are concerned, no payment was made. The Petitioner has also relied upon a balance confirmation issued by the Respondent Company (Exhibit 'C' to the Petition) to contend that the entire amount claimed in the present Company Petition has been admitted by the Respondent-Company.

4. In view of defaults being committed in payments of the amounts due to the Petitioner, on 23rd April 2012, the Petitioner was constrained to issue a statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the Respondent Company to pay its dues failing which winding up proceedings would be initiated. It is not in dispute that this statutory notice has been duly served on the registered office of the Respondent-Company. Despite receipt of the statutory notice, no reply was given and neither were the requisitions contained therein complied with. It is in these circumstances, that the present Petition is filed.

5. After the Company Petition was accepted, it was served on the Respondent Company pursuant to which they have filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply dated 23rd March, 2015. By virtue of this reply, they have resisted the admission of this Company Petition.

6. In this factual back ground, Mr. Ashutesh Thipsay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that there was no dispute with reference to the monies owed by the Respondent Company to the Petitioner. He submitted that in fact the Respondent Company has admitted its liability in full as evidenced by the balance confirmation dated 23rd April, 2012 (Exhibit 'C' to the Petition). He submitted that the disputes raised by the Respondent Company in its affidavit-in-reply are wholly illusory and moonshine. He submitted that the defence of defects in the machines supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent Company all relate to machines that were supplied much earlier and for which the Respondent Company had already made full payment. There was no real dispute wi