ORDER : C.L. SONI, J. 1. It appears that in the present petition for winding up, the consent terms dated 5th February, 2017 were presented before the Court wherein the respondent-company agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of all claims of the petitioner. As stated in the concerned terms, the principal of amount claimed by the petitioner-company was Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) with interest at the rate of 12%. 2. As mentioned in the consent terms, the respondent-company undertook to issue post dated cheque in favour of the petitioner-company for Rs. 18,00,000/-. Based on consent terms, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to revive it in case of difficulty. 3. It appears that the cheque given for Rs. 18,00,000/- to the petitioner-company, when presented for clearance, was not honoured on account of insufficient funds. 4. The petitioner-company, therefore, filed Misc. Civil Application No. 100 of 2017 seeking revival of the present petition. The Court allowed such application and ordered revival of the petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Jaimin Dave for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent-company did not dispute the payment of Rs. 18,00,000/- and agreed to make such payment under the consent terms, dues of Rs. 18,00,000/- could be said to be admitted dues against the respondent-company. Mr. Dave submitted that even after the Court passed order for revival of the present petition, the respondent-company had sufficient time to discharge its liability towards outstanding dues of the petitioner, however, no payment is made by the respondent-company as on today which shows that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts to the petitioner-company. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Gogia appearing for the respondent-company submitted that on account some circumstances, the respondent-company could not make it possible to pay the amount agreed to be paid by it under the consent terms, however, he could not point out any circumstance as to why the agreed amount is not paid by the respondent-company till today though sufficient time was available with it. Therefore, it prima facie, appears that the respondent-company is unable to pay the debts admitted to be paid by it under the consent terms. 7. In view of the above, the Court finds that the petition requires consideration. Hence, Admit. 8. Therefore, it prima facie, appears that the respondent-company is unable to pay the debts admitted to be paid by it under the consent terms. 7. In view of the above, the Court finds that the petition requires consideration. Hence, Admit. 8. The petition shall be advertised as per Rule 96 and as provided in Rule 24 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. The date of hearing of the petition shall be mentioned as 16th January, 2018. The advertisement shall be given on or before 19th December, 2017.