ORDER 1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES. 2. THIS MATTER ARISES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. THE RESPONDENT HEREIN FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY UNDER SECTION 433 OF THE COMPANIES ACT ON THE. GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD FAILED AND NEGLECTED TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF ACKNOWLEDGED CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT ARISING OUT OF THE GOODS SOLD BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE COMPANY PETITION WAS PRECEDED BY A STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 433 OF THE COMPANIES ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SENT ANY REPLY TO THE SAID STATUTORY NOTICE DENYING ITS LIABILITY. THE COMPANY PETITION WAS RESISTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS A BONA FIDE DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO THE H LIABILITY AS REFLECTED IN THE COMPANY PETITION. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CLAIMS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE READING OF THE STATUTORY NOTICE NOT ONLY DISCLOSES THE MATERIAL FACTS BUT ALSO THE NECESSARY PARTICULARS. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR ADMITTING THE COMPANY PETITION AND DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT TO ADVERTISE THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE FREE PRESS JOURNAL (ENGLISH EDN. FROM MUMBAI) AND NAVSHAKTI (MARATHI EDN. FROM MUMBAI) AND MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT GAZETTE. A FURTHER DIRECTION WAS ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT TO DEPOSIT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2000 TOWARDS THE COST OF PUBLICATION. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE IT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM FOR THE GOODS SUPPLIED WAS FOR A SUM OF RS. 31,64,699 AND THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY. THE LEARNED JUDGES OF THE DIVISION BENCH AFFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND OTHER RELEVANT PAPERS AND ALSO HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES. IN OUR OPINION, THE RESPONDENT HAS MADE OUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR INSTITUTING THE REMEDY UNDER SECTION 433(E) OF THE COMPANIES ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND AS AFFIRMED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT. NO CASE FOR ANY INTERFERENCE IS MADE OUT. 3. THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, STANDS DISMISSED. NO COSTS.