be a decree of that Court. Therefore, on the basis of Section 46 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the presumption that is required to be drawn under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 could have been drawn if the foreign award is enforceable under Chapter-I Part-II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It has not been pointed out to me that any application was made within the meaning of Chapter-I and more particularly Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of the subject foreign award in India. Prima facie, therefore, the defence of the Company that the foreign award cannot be held to be enforceable is a bonafide defence and cannot be brushed aside. The winding up petition cannot be said to be maintainable once such is the nature of the defence raised by the Company. Further, the plea that the foreign award is dated 14.09.2007 and although the statutory notice is dated 17.09.2008 and is stated to have been received in 2008 itself, this Company Petition is presented on 22.01.2009, but nothing has been stated as to how the foreign award has become enforceable. No steps have been taken to enforce the foreign award till date, therefore, whether such steps can be taken now or not is also a plea which cannot be said to be lacking in bonafides. 9 Once I have concluded that there is a bonafide defence raised by the Company insofar as the demand made on it, then, it cannot be said that the Company Petition for winding up is maintainable. The nature of pleas raised enables me to conclude that this Company Petition is not the remedy for the Petitioner to recover the sum under the subject foreign award. The Company Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
