of the Respondent – Company. He then submitted that the learned Single Judge has further erred in observing that the authorized signatories alone could transact in foreign exchange and execute the documents, including confirmation in respect thereof. He invited our attention to the authorization given to two persons viz Radheshyam Agarwal and Rohan Agarwal by a Resolution which was passed by the Company. He submitted that the confirmation which is referred to in the said Resolution does not include the confirmation in respect of acceptance of liability. He therefore submitted that, even otherwise, the said observation made by the learned Single Judge is factually incorrect. He then submitted that the learned Single Judge has further wrongly observed that the first demand was raised by the Appellant/Petitioner on 27/06/2012. He submitted that this observation is also factually incorrect. He submitted that the first demand for payment was made under the deal confirmation of 26-06-2008. He submitted that the payment under the agreement was to be made at the end of the period mentioned in the agreement. He submitted that the finding given by the learned Single Judge in para 5 of the order is based on wrong premise. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered whether the disputes raised by the Respondent were bonafide. He has taken us through the initial agreement between the parties, correspondence and the
