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. ( 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. . .