ORDER : COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2020 By medium of this application, the applicant has sought condonation of 31 days delay in filing of the appeal. A perusal of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the application disclose sufficient cause which prevented the applicant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered. Company Appeal No. 1 of 2021 This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Company Judge whereby he dismissed the application of the appellant Company and passed an order of winding up. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed an application for winding up of the appellant Company and the same was allowed by the learned Company Judge and aggrieved thereby the appellant has filed the instant appeal mainly on two counts; (i) that the learned Company Judge erred in awarding the interest to respondent No. 1, when the appellant Company was under the active nursing of BIFR/AAIFR and; (ii) the interest @ 9% as awarded by the learned Company Judge is on the higher side. 3. As regards the first contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to invite the attention to any of the provisions of law, which may entitle the appellant for waiver of interest, save and except, for relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case title as U.P. Oil Mills Agency, Kanpur vs. Saraswati Soap and Oil Mills Ltd., AIR 1954 (All) 129 , more particularly, para-8 which reads as under:- “8. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the claimant was entitled to interest up to the date of the presentation of winding up petition only. In offering to pay him interest till the date of winding up order the Official Liquidators have really offered to make an over payment to him. I am not concerned at this stage with the question whether or not the amount offered to be paid to the claimant can be cut down. All must hold at present is that the claimant's demand for interest till the date of payment must be rejected. The application is, therefore, rejected with costs.” 4. I am not concerned at this stage with the question whether or not the amount offered to be paid to the claimant can be cut down. All must hold at present is that the claimant's demand for interest till the date of payment must be rejected. The application is, therefore, rejected with costs.” 4. We may at this stage observe that this judgment had also been cited before the learned Company Judge and the learned Company Judge did not choose to concur or agree with the judgment U.P. Oil Mills Agency, Kanpur (supra). 5. We too are not inclined to agree or concur with the judgment as referred to above for the simple reason that even though the appellant may have approached BIFR and AAIFR or any other authority for that matter, but once no indulgence or relief was granted to the appellant by these authorities, then we would not come to the rescue of the appellant by treating the dispute raised by it to be bonafide. It is only when dispute is genuine and bonafide, the Court can consider the question of waiver of interest, that too, if permissible under law. 6. As regards the rate of interest, we find no merit in this contention, because admittedly both the parties were having commercial dealing and dispute itself emanates out of commercial transactions and, therefore, in such circumstances, the appellant would normally have to pay the commercial rate of interest as against the interest of only 9% awarded by the learned Company Judge. 7. Since, there is no appeal against this part of the award by the appellant, we are not inclined to disturb the findings regarding award of interest awarded @ 9% per annum. 8. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.