Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record of the company petition. 2. It is really shocking and surprising that the petitioner has not taken care even to mention in the petition under which provision of the Companies Act, 1956 the same has been filed. It is necessary and may be the requirement of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1949 to mention the provisions under which a petition/application is filed. It is expected from the petitioner to remain careful in future. 3. Having gone through the contents of the petition I find that it is a petition for winding-up of the respondent company -Shree Shyam Radio Taxi Services Private Limited, Jaipur. The ground on which the winding-up of the respondent Company is prayed for is its inability to pay the debts. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the promoter Director of the respondent Company. It is admitted by him in para No. 6 of the petition. He has a shareholding of 3333 equity shares of the face value of Rs. 33330 being approximately 1/3rd of the total shareholding of the respondent-company. It is stated that at the time of incorporation of the respondent-company the petitioner had advanced an amount of Rs. eight lakh to it out of which amount of Rs. 33330 was adjusted as share application money and balance amount was treated as unsecured loan. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that initially the respondent-company was working properly and beneficially for all concerned, but over a period of time certain differences started to emerge between the petitioner and other Directors of the company over the working and day-to-day functioning of the respondent-company. It is alleged that the suggestions and objections raised by the petitioner in the capacity of Director of the respondent-company, were not given much importance by other Directors and, therefore he decided to resign from the post of Director of the respondent-company with effect from 30th June, 2003 and necessary information in this regard is stated to have been sent/filed in the Office of the Registrar of Companies by way of Form No. 32. 6. In para No. 8 of the petition the petitioner has averred that on his resignation from the post of Director of the respondent-company, two other Directors of the respondent-company asked him to transfer shares held by him in the respondent-company. 6. In para No. 8 of the petition the petitioner has averred that on his resignation from the post of Director of the respondent-company, two other Directors of the respondent-company asked him to transfer shares held by him in the respondent-company. Relevant forms were also sent to him for this purpose. The petitioner refused to transfer the shares in the name of other Directors as desired by them. 7. In para No. 9 it is stated that the petitioner made a request to the respondent-company to refund the amount of unsecured loan taken by the respondent-company. Verbal assurances is stated to have been given by the other Directors of the respondent-company to the petitioner for the return of the same. It is admitted in para No. 10 of the petition that Rupees three lakh were refunded by the other Directors of the respondent-company to the petitioner on 22nd of July, 2003. They also alleged to have been given assurance to the petitioner that the balance amount would be returned as soon as possible. However, it is stated that no amount has been paid after that and the amount of Rs. 4,66,670 is due and payable to the petitioner by the respondent-company. 8. The petitioner, in para Nos. 11 and 12 of the petition, has given out that he, from time to time, requested the respondent-company for refund of the dues of unsecured loan amount but it was not returned and thus he served a legal notice dated 24th of January, 2004 on the respondent-company. The copy of the notice dated 24-1-2004 is there on the record of the petition as Exhibit-A. 9. The petitioner made reference to a criminal complaint filed by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur against other Directors of the respondent-company of the charges of fraudulent act of forging of his signatures in connection with the shares transfer. 10. Reply to the legal notice was given by the respondent-company through its other Directors. The copy of which is there on the record of the petition as Exhibit-B. In the reply to the statutory legal notice, the respondent-company admitted that Rupees eight lakh were given as loan by the petitioner to it. It is stated that two other Directors have also given Rs. 8,00,000 and Rs. 7,50,000 respectively as loan to the respondent-company. The copy of which is there on the record of the petition as Exhibit-B. In the reply to the statutory legal notice, the respondent-company admitted that Rupees eight lakh were given as loan by the petitioner to it. It is stated that two other Directors have also given Rs. 8,00,000 and Rs. 7,50,000 respectively as loan to the respondent-company. These loans were advanced by the Directors on the specific condition that as and when the payment of this loan amount is to be made to the lender, the respondent-company shall be entitled to adjust therefrom the depreciation on the vehicles purchased by the respondent-company as well as the business losses. 11. In para No. 2 of the reply to the notice aforesaid the respondent-company has given out that after adjusting the depreciation of the vehicles and the losses suffered by the respondent-company, the balance amount of Rupees three lakh on resignation by the petitioner, has been paid to him. The petitioner has given personal bank guarantee of the Company and he has been relieved therefrom by the respondent-company. 12. From the contents of the para Nos. 3 to 9 of the reply to the aforesaid notice I am satisfied that there is a bona fide dispute raised by the respondent-company against the demand of the dues of the alleged balance amount of the loan advanced to the respondent-company by the petitioner. 13. As there is a bona fide dispute raised by the respondent-company, this petition filed for winding-up of the respondent-company, is not a bona fide act on the part of the petitioner. It appears to be an attempt on the part of the petitioner to claim the alleged due amount under the threat of this winding-up petition. 14. In the result, this winding-up petition fails and the same is dismissed.