S.P. Mehrotra, J.

1. Pursuant to the order dated 4.1.2005, the case is listed today.

2. Sri Jitendra Kumar holding brief for Sri Kushal Kant, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Company and Sri Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent-Company are present.

3. A Joint Affidavit, sworn by S.K. Jaggi on behalf of S.S. Agarwal on behalf of Lloyd Insulation (India) Limited (Petitioner-Company) and S.S. Agarwal on behalf of S.B.E.C. Sugar Limited (Respondent-Company) on 28.1.2005, has been filed today.

4. It is, interalia, stated in the said Joint Affidavit that the Petitioner-Company has entered into an agreement with the Respondent-Company on 25.1.2005 at New Delhi for the payment of the outstanding dues; and that according to the agreement the Petitioner-Company and the Respondent-Company have settled the matter for Rs. 20,52,708/-, according to which the Respondent-Company shall pay the said amount in four equal instalments of Rs. 5,13,177/- each by cheque.

5. Photostat copy of the said agreement has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the said Joint Affidavit.

6. It is , interalia, further stated in the said joint affidavit that in pursuance to the said agreement, four cheques of 5,13,177/- each have been handed over to the Petitioner-Company by the Respondent-Company at New Delhi.

7. Photostat copies of the said cheques have been filed collectively as Annexure No. 2 to the said Joint Affidavit.

8. It is, interalia, further stated in the said Joint Affidavit that it has been resolved by the Petitioner-Company as well as the Respondent-Company that the Petitioner-Company shall forthwith withdraw the legal notice dated 6.1.2001 and also the present Winding- up Company Petition No. 32 of 2001 filed by the Petitioner-Company against the Respondent-Company before this Court; and that the Petitioner-Company has further agreed that it shall withdraw as well as shall not press any proceedings against the Respondent-Company.

9. It is, interalia, further stated in the said Joint Affidavit that the Petitioner-Company and the Respondent-Company request this Court to dismiss the above-noted Company Petition No. 32 of 2001.

10. Sri Jitendra Kumar holding brief for Sri Kushal Kant learned counsel for the Petitioner-Company states that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the averments made in the said Joint Affidavit, the Petitioner-Company does not want to press the above noted Company Petition No. 32 of 2001, and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the statement made by Sri Jitendra Kumar, holding brief for Sri Kushal Kant, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Company ,the above-noted Company Petition No. 32 of 2001 is dismissed as not pressed.

12. It is made clear that no liberty is being granted to the Petitioner-Company to file a fresh Company Petition on the same cause of action.