Company petition dismissed; defenses belated and lacking credibility. Deposit and bank guarantee ordered. Petition admitted based on Single Judge's findings.

The court dismissed the company petition for winding up after finding the company's defenses regarding disputed invoices and work quality to be belated and lacking credibility. The company was directed to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs and furnish a bank guarantee for the same amount. Additionally, the court admitted the company petition for winding up based on the Single Judge's findings, setting aside previous orders and remanding the matter for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dispute over invoices and payment amount
2. Quality of work done by the petitioner
3. Admissibility of the company petition for winding up

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around a dispute regarding invoices and payment amount between the petitioner and the company. The company claimed that invoices were over-billed and the work was not to specification. However, the court noted that the company did not challenge the receipt of invoices until later stages, raising defenses only after receiving a statutory notice. The court found these defenses to be neither bona fide nor credible, especially since the work was completed in November 1995, and no disputes were raised earlier. Ultimately, the court directed the company to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs and furnish a bank guarantee for the same amount, dismissing the company petition upon compliance.

2. Another issue addressed in the judgment was the quality of work done by the petitioner. The company contended that the work was substandard and the invoices were inflated. However, the court observed that the company did not raise any concerns about the work quality until replying to the statutory notice. The court found these defenses raised belatedly and lacking credibility. Despite the company's claims, the court directed the company to deposit a specific amount and provide a bank guarantee, ultimately dismissing the company petition upon compliance.

3. Furthermore, the judgment dealt with the admissibility of the company petition for winding up. Initially, a Single Judge directed the company to deposit a certain amount, which was later modified by a Division Bench. The company then filed a special leave petition, which was dismissed with liberty to seek relief from the High Court. Subsequently, the Division Bench found that the petition for winding up should be admitted based on the Single Judge's findings. The Division Bench allowed a review petition, setting aside the previous order and remanding the matter back to the court for further proceedings, leading to the final disposition of the company petition as per the court's directives.

---