the appellant/original respondent before us. In other words, once there was a default in complying with the initial consent arrangement of 11-9-2017, the later order of the learned single Judge of 14-2-2019 and the order of the Division Bench of 20-3-2019 in this Appeal, the appellant/original respondent in the Company Petition should not be visited with the consequence, particularly of winding up. Now, by a self-operative order, in default, the Company Petition was to stand admitted, duly advertised and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was to step in as Provisional Liquidator. All that has not happened simply because this Court allowed the applicant/appellant before us to deposit some amount and pay the balance by post-dated cheques. Now the post-dated cheques are in possession of the original petitioner/respondent to this Appeal but they have not encashed these cheques. If they present the same for encashment, that is permissible for they have waited till today (14-8-2019). Mr. Kamat, appearing for the applicant/appellant in support of this notice of motion, however, says that the appellant is trying his best to dispose of one
