JUDGMENT Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.: This appeal is directed against a judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant was directed to furnish security for Rs. 24,71,252/-, although the learned Single Judge recorded, inter alia, as follows :- "At this stage it is not possible for me to go into such details on the basis of affidavits filed by them. The grounds taken in the affidavit-in-opposition, in my opinion, has expressed a debatable point that whether the company has a case against the petitioner in respect of the claim asked by the petitioning creditor in this petition. In my opinion, such defence taken by the company is not a moonshine defence and should be decided on evidence by the parties to be adduced after institution of the suit before the appropriate forum." 2. It appears that the learned Single Judge has based the direction given by him for furnishing of security on the basis that the amount claimed is really on the basis of the agreements between the parties and in fact, that amount has been paid by the company. 3. The contention of Mr. S.N. Mukherjee and Mr. P.P. Mukherjee, learned Advocates appearing for the appellant, is that the judgment and decision of the learned Single Judge on the face of it appear to be inconsistent, since the learned Single Judge himself has found that a debatable point has been raised by the company in its affidavit-in-opposition to the winding-up petition and that the defence taken by the company is not a moonshine defence and should be decided on evidence by the parties to be adduced after institution of the suit before the appropriate forum. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing furnishing of security for Rs. 24,71,252/-. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant if there is a moonshine defence, there is no need for directing furnishing of security. In support of his contention, the learned Advocates for the appellant has relied on the following decisions:- i) AIR 1977 SC 577 (M/s. Mechalee Engineers & Manufacturers vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation;) ii) 1994 (1) CHN 409 (Dunlop India Ltd. vs. Anamika Udyog); iii) (1994) 3 SCC 348 (Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. vs. North India Petrochemicals Ltd. & Anr.); iv) AIR 1998 SC 2317 (M/s. Sunil Enterprises & Anr. vs. SBI Commercial & International Bank Ltd.); and v) (1999) 4 SCC 423 (Superintending Engineer & Ors. vs. B. Subba Reddy). 4. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that a suit has already been filed, wherein they have specifically alleged that no money is due and payable by the company to the petitioning creditor. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent, however, by Mr. P.K. Mullick, Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr. Siddhartha Mitra, Advocate that there are two agreements. So far as the first agreement is concerned, Mr. Mullick has strongly relied on "Statement of Green Leaf Supplied & Payment Received, Account of Greenline Tea & Exports Limited (A/c Iringmara Tea Estate)", being Annexure- "B" to the winding- up petition, which is at page 54 of the stay-petition, and has submitted that there is no defence of the company, so far as the balance due as on 31/3/1990. i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- , as shown in the said Statement is concerned. So far as the second agreement for supply of Green Leaf is concerned, the appellant-company has appropriated the said Tea Leaves supplied by the respondent, although Mr. Mullick on behalf of the respondent could not dispute that three letters had been sent by the company disputing the quality of the said Tea Leaves supplied. In fact, in the said three letters, the appellant-company has specifically alleged that the said Tea Leaves supplied by the respondent are of inferior and sub-standard quality and the appellant-company had agreed to pay more for better quality of Green Leaf at Rs. 10.50 per k.g., although the usual price that was being charged for the same was Rs. 7.50 per k.g. No doubt, a reply has been sent to the said letters, by a letter dated January 21, 1999, although the said three letters had been sent by the appellant company on 9/9/98, 25/12/98 and 30/12/98 respectively. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Siddhartha Mitra, Advocate, led by Mr. P.K. Mullick, Senior Advocate, that under the 1976 amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure the respondent is entitled to challenge the adverse finding even without filing cross-objection and in support of his contention, Mr. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Siddhartha Mitra, Advocate, led by Mr. P.K. Mullick, Senior Advocate, that under the 1976 amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure the respondent is entitled to challenge the adverse finding even without filing cross-objection and in support of his contention, Mr. Mitra has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Assam & Ors., reported in JT 1999 (6) SC 565, and in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., reported in JT 1999(9) SC 231. 7. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, considering the amendment of the 1976-amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that it is open to the respondent not only to support the decree on any ground whatsoever but to challenge the adverse finding without filing cross-objection. However, the instant case is governed by the said statute since the provisions for appeal are governed by section 483 of the Companies Act, which is undoubtedly a special statute. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (1999) 4 SCC 423 , held that in appeal governed by special statute, viz, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the aforesaid principle will not be applicable. So the Supreme Court held it otherwise. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for us to go into that controversy, in view of the order we propose to pass herein. 8. We have perused the "Statement of Green Leaf Supplied & Payment Received, Account of Greenline Tea & Exports Limited (A/c. Iringmara Tea Estate)", being Annexure - "B" to the winding-up petition, which is at page 54 of the stay-petition, wherein apart from the claim of Cutlachorra Tea Estate, the claim of Benodenagar Tea Estate also appears. The petitioning creditor, Ramawatar Agarwalla, claims to be the sole proprietor of Cutlachorra Tea Estate and had filed the winding- up petition on that description as the sole proprietor of Cutlachorra Tea Estate. There is nothing on record of the winding-up petition that the said Ramawatar Agarwalla has anything to do with Benodenagar Tea Estate. On proper adjustment of accounts, according to Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the appellant, only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is due, which, however, according to Mr. There is nothing on record of the winding-up petition that the said Ramawatar Agarwalla has anything to do with Benodenagar Tea Estate. On proper adjustment of accounts, according to Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the appellant, only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is due, which, however, according to Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate for the respondent, will be Rs. 1,25,720/- as on 31.3.98. Be that as it may, the Statement itself shows the balance amount due is Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioning creditor in respect of both Cutlachorra Tea Estate and Benodenagar Tea Estate. Therefore, there are disputes in regard to this balance amount Rs. 1,00,000/- itself. Since, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the appellant-company, admits that only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is due on this account, the appellant-company will pay the said amount of Rs. 40,000/- within a month from date. For the balance claim, if any, on that account it will be open to the respondent to file a suit therefor. 9. Regarding the second agreement, we find that the learned Single Judge's finding that is cannot be said that the defence taken by the appellant company is moonshine defence, appears to be correct. We have meticulously considered the records and the correspondences exchanged by and between the parties and we are of the view that the defence taken by the appellant company appears to be bona fide in nature. 10. In the above view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions cited by the learned Advocates for the appellant, it is not possible for us to hold that the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the appellant ate without any substance. In that view of the matter, we accept that there are bona fide disputes in this case and there is no need for furnishing security for the amount as directed by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we accept that there are bona fide disputes in this case and there is no need for furnishing security for the amount as directed by the learned Single Judge. We are, however, impressed by the bona fide attitude of the appellant as suggested by them that they will not dispose of any of the fixed assets of the company, including the tea gardens and the factory sheds, and will keep and maintain accounts regularly duly audited and accordingly, they themselves have fairly suggested that they do not have any objection to an order of injunction being passed restraining them from disposing of those assets of the appellant-company, except in the usual course of business. 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge should be modified to the extent that the appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on the basis of the statement (at page 54 of the stay petition), within a month from date, without prejudice to the contention of the appellant in regard to the claim made by the respondent. For the balance amount of claim on the basis of the said statement, the respondent shall be at liberty to file a suit against the appellant-company and the same should be filed within four weeks from date. 12. On the basis of the suggestion made by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, there will also be an order of injunction restraining the appellant from in any way or manner disposing of, selling, encumbering, alienating or removing any of its fixed assets, including the tea gardens, the factory sheds and the machinery installed thereat, so far as the respondent's claim on account of the said second agreement is concerned. This order of injunction will continue for a period of eight weeks from date. 13. It will be open to the petitioning creditor/respondent to apply for any interlocutory relief in the suit to be filed by them, if they are so advised , which will be considered by the appropriate Court without being prejudiced by the findings and/or observations made by us herein. 14. In default of filing the suit by the respondent as aforesaid, the order of injunction as granted above will stand vacated. 15. The order passed by the learned Single Judge directing furnishing of security, stands set aside." 16. 14. In default of filing the suit by the respondent as aforesaid, the order of injunction as granted above will stand vacated. 15. The order passed by the learned Single Judge directing furnishing of security, stands set aside." 16. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, after treating the same as on day's list. Filing of Paper Book by the appellant is dispensed with. All undertakings given by the appellant are discharge. 17. In view of the above judgment & order passed in the appeal itself, no further order need be made on the application for stay and the same is also disposed of accordingly. 18. Let xorex certified copy of this judgment be made available to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously. Prodyot Kumar Sen, J.: I agree. Appeal is disposed of.