Court denies respondent's counter-claim, orders deposit to avoid winding-up petition

The court found that the respondent company's counter-claim was insufficient to dismiss the winding-up petition filed by Dubai Dry Docks Co. Ltd. against M/s. Hede Navigation Co. Ltd. The judge noted a lack of bona fides in the respondent company's challenges to the repairs and delayed payment. As a result, the court stayed the advertisement of the winding-up petition for three months, requiring the respondent company to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs by a specified date to pursue their claims. Failure to comply would lead to the advertisement of the winding-up petition, emphasizing the need for prompt action by the respondent company.

---

---

Issues:
- Winding up petition filed by Dubai Dry Docks Co. Ltd. against M/s. Hede Navigation Co. Ltd.
- Dispute over unpaid debt of Rs. 13,88,725 by the respondent company.
- Repairs carried out on vessels Discaria Harvest and Shanta Rohan.
- Allegations of delaying payment and raising frivolous disputes by the respondent company.
- Counter-claim by the respondent company against the petitioners.
- Bona fides of the winding-up petition and claims made by both parties.

Analysis:
The petition for winding up was filed by Dubai Dry Docks Co. Ltd. against M/s. Hede Navigation Co. Ltd. due to the respondent company's failure to pay a debt of Rs. 13,88,725, including principal and interest. The respondent company had repairs done on vessels Discaria Harvest and Shanta Rohan, with disputes arising over payment for the repairs. Despite promises and proposed payment schedules, only a partial amount was paid, leading to the winding-up petition.

The petitioners argued that the respondent company was intentionally delaying payment by raising baseless disputes, while the respondent company claimed that the repairs were substandard, leading to losses and additional repair costs. The respondent company also raised a counter-claim against the petitioners, alleging bad workmanship and excessive charges. The court noted the ongoing disputes and counter-claims between the parties.

The court found that the respondent company's counter-claim was not sufficient to dismiss the winding-up petition. The judge observed that the respondent company's challenges to the repairs were raised only after the petitioners initiated legal action, indicating a lack of bona fides. Despite claims of substantial repairs and losses incurred, the court was not convinced of the respondent company's arguments against the petitioners.

In the final ruling, the court decided to stay the advertisement of the winding-up petition for three months to allow the respondent company to establish their bona fides. The respondent company was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by a specified date and pursue any legal actions they deemed necessary. Failure to comply with the deposit requirement would result in the advertisement of the winding-up petition. The court emphasized the need for the respondent company to demonstrate their intentions and pursue their claims within the given timeframe.

---