JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. This original side appeal was filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 13.04.2015, passed in Company Petition being Company Petition No.157 of 2014. By impugned order, learned Single Judge admitted the Company Petition No.157 of 2014 and directed publication in two daily newspapers.

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:

a) The present petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It has issued a service order on 27.02.2012 to the present respondent for the supply of a 600 MT crawler crane on hire for a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/- for five months. Besides hire charges, the service order provided for payment of Rs.30,00,000/- towards mobilization charges and another sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards demobilization charges. The present appellant, being the respondent, paid the mobilization charges but declined to pay the demobilization charges on the ground that, as per trade practice with its customers, if the contract period is extended beyond the initial period of the contract, it is not liable to pay demobilization charges.

b) The appellant herein, being the respondent, filed a counter before the learned Single Judge, which contained a contract extending the period beyond the initial period of five months. In this extended contract, the provision for demobilization charges was deleted. It is the contention of the present appellant before the learned Single Judge that the amendment of the service order was signed on 06.12.2012. The present respondent herein strongly disputed the receipt of such purported amended service order. Hence, the dispute arose and a Company Petition was filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the learned Single Judge, after service of statutory notice under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, for initiation of winding-up proceedings. Learned Single Judge of this Court is of the view that the dispute raised by the present appellant/respondent therein is not a bona fide dispute. Thus the Company Petition was admitted.

3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

a) Learned counsel for the appellant raised three grounds in this appeal.

i. The dispute is a bona fide dispute.

ii. The appellant company is economically solvent company.

iii. If it is held that the dispute is not bona fide, the winding-up petition is not maintainable. When the entire disputed amount is deposited with the registry, the respondent herein may be relegated to a civil suit.

b) Learned counsel for the appellant emphasizes that the service order dated 27.02.2012 is not disputed by the respondent, which contains several clauses specifically mentioning demobilization charges. The said service order was accepted by the respondent company, wherein hiring of a 600 MT crawler crane for five months was extended for another period of 35 days. As per the service order, the hiring period ended on 15.12.2012. The above crane was required for the next 0.84 months (22 days), from 16.12.2012 to 07.01.2013. Learned counsel further argued that the dispute is obviously bona fide between the parties. Thus, the observation of learned single judge is illegal and improper, and the same is required to be set aside.

c) Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is economically solvent company. The winding-up petition cannot be accepted merely on the statement of the respondent company. He submits that the material papers submitted along with the appeal does not dispute the fact that the respondent company is solvent. Moreover, commercial insolvency of the respondent company was never pleaded or proved before the learned single judge. In these circumstances, a company petition filed solely as a means to enforce payment of a debt is not permissible.

d) Lastly, it is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that even if it is admitted that there is no bona fide dispute, if the principa