1. {{PAGE MISSED}} only when the respondent companies in their counter-affidavit filed the copies of the plaint and the order of Banking Court allowing the petitioner to withdraw the above suits instituted against the respondents that in the rejoinder some averments have been made in reply to the counter affidavit admitting the fact and complaining that the compromise entered into before the Banking Court by the respondent was not honoured. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the cause of action on which the present winding up petitions are filed is the same as was agitated in the above-referred two suits. There is no allegation in the present petitions that the subsequent arrangement arrived at between the parties has been flouted which could give further cause of action to the petitioner for the present proceedings. Apart from it the petitioners are admittedly a secured creditor and in addition to it the respondents have executed powers of attorneys in favour of petitioners which fully authorised them to dispose of or sell any of the assets of the companies mortgaged with the petitioners in satisfaction of the above loans. Mr. A.A. Zari, learned counsel for the respondents companies unequivocally repeated this stand before me and stated that the companies have neither obstructed nor have any intention to obstruct the sale or disposal of any of the assets of the companies by the petitioner in satisfaction of their claim in accordance with the law. Not only this, after the withdrawal of suits before the Banking Court, the respondents appear to have provided additional securities for these loans in the shape of 55 Lacs sharesof Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd. Which are in the custody of petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents stated before me that the respondents never objected to the sale of these shares by the petitioner for satisfaction of their claim. In these circumstances, the present petitions filed by the petitioners only seem to be a device to coerce the respondents to pay the loan which is not permissible. No case for passing order of winding up is made out. These petitions are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.