Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This Company Petition is filed by a Solicitor firm, based in London, going by the name, Laytons Solicitors LLP UK. The petitioner, as is evident, is a limited liability partnership firm.

1.1 For the sake of convenience, the petitioner, hereafter will be referred to as Laytons.

1.2 This Petition has been filed by Laytons to seek winding up of the respondent company, i.e., Commonwealth Inclusive Growth Services Ltd. (hereafter referred to as "CIGSL").

The reason, which propelled Laytons to institute this Petition briefly, is as follows:

1.3 Laytons, evidently entered into a Representation Agreement (in short, agreement), dated 26th July, 2010 with CIGSL. This agreement enabled Laytons to act as the Solicitors for CIGSL in connection with its admission to the Alternative Investment Market (in short, AIM) and to render assistance in "initial fund raising".

1.4 AIM, apparently, is the sub-market of the London Stock Exchange which allows smaller companies to float shares, albeit, with, if you like, a more flexible regulatory system, than that, which is applicable to the main market.

1.5 In sum, under the agreement, Laytons, inter alia, was required to recommend and introduce CIGSL to potential nominated advisers and brokers and render advice on corporate re-structuring, AIM Rules, responsibilities of directors and rules of corporate governance.

1.6 Laytons claim, that they had indicated to CIGSL, that the, work envisaged under the agreement, which revolved around completion of "Initial matter" would cost in the region of 80,000 pounds (excluding VAT and disbursements). It appears that, in connection with the work carried out by Laytons, it raised four (4) invoices on CIGSL, the details of these invoices, for the sake of convenience, are set out herein below:     

1.7 It is, however, important to note that except for a partial payment made towards the first invoice, CIGSL did not pay any amount towards the remaining three invoices.

1.8 Evidently, on the issue of payment of amounts in respect of the invoices referred to above, e-mails were exchanged between the parties herein.

1.9 The first such e-mail dated 11th October, 2012, which was sent by Laytons, adverted to the fact that unless payment in the sum of 10,000 pounds was made by Friday, i.e., 19th October, 2012 and an acceptable proposal for the balance was sent, legal action would be taken against CIGSL for recovery of the unpaid invoices.

1.10 Apparently, in response to the aforementioned e-mail, vide e-mail dated 16th October, 2012, CIGSL informed Laytons that it will remit 10,000 pounds and pay the balance sum in five Equal Monthly Instalments. In the e-mail, a further assertion was made, to the effect, that CIGSL would receive funds on 19th October, 2012 and therefore, it would take several working days to remit the funds to Layton's account. Accordingly, the e-mail concluded by indicating that Laytons could expect first payment of 10,000 pounds on or before 26th October, 2012.

1.11 Since, this seemed like a reasonable offer, Laytons acknowledged the aforementioned e-mail within couple of hours and accordingly, thanked CIGSL for its response.

2. It appears that its hope of receiving funds was belied. On 30th October, 2012, Laytons sent another mail, wherein, it stated that it had received nothing towards the promised remittances and that CIGSL should confirm the details of remittances, as it was possible that the Bank was "sitting on it", an exp