AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[Per: Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)]
The present Appeal is filed challenging Order dated 23rd August 2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Chandigarh Bench ("NCLT") by and under which C & A Farm Fresh Private Limited ("Corporate Debtor/CD") was admitted to CIRP process under Section 9, Petition bearing CP (IB) No. 226/CHD/2020 of the IBC for debt and default of Rs. 20,66,028.76/- (rupees twenty lakhs, sixty-six thousand and twenty-eight and seventy-six paise only), which is above the threshold limit of Rs. 1 lakh being applicable threshold at the time of filing of Petition on 17.02.2020.
Submissions made by the Appellant- Suspended Management:
The Impugned Order should be set aside because OC's Form-5 was incomplete and defective, warranting the dismissal of the Application under Section 9. The Impugned Order should be set aside under Section 9(5)(b) of the IBC, which mandates rejection of incomplete applications. OC falsely affirmed in an affidavit that it did not receive a Reply to the Demand Notice.
The Demand Notice dated 15.01.2020 was posted on 22.01.2020 and received by the CD on 28.01.2020, as confirmed by the postal receipts and tracking report. The CD sent its Reply dated 07.02.2020 via speed post on 08.02.2020 to the same address from which the Demand Notice was sent. The Reply was returned from two of the three addresses with the note "left." The envelopes sent to the remaining addresses, including that of the OC’s counsel, Mr. Vijay Shinde’s, are presumed delivered, though tracking reports are unavailable on the postal department's website. Although the Notice was posted on 22.01.2020 and delivered on 28.01.2020, the Section 9 Application was prepared on 07.02.2020, before the 10-day statutory period expired. The Petition was filed with the Tribunal on 17.02.2020 and re-filed on 03.03.2020.The above contentions show that the CD sent a Reply to the Demand Notice within the 10-day statutory period and raised a dispute over the claimed amount. No demand was made by the OC prior to this, so there was no opportunity to dispute it earlier. The Appellant maintains that no amount was due, but the OC has concealed this fact by filing false affidavits. The OC has not acknowledged the dispute raised by the CD in the Application or affidavits, instead filing false affidavits and misstating facts. The Appellant has clearly disputed the debt, which is not due, making the Petition liable for dismissal. The Notice was properly replied to, and the OC has made false statements under oath.
Since the response was sent to the correct address, the Order violates Section 9(5)(b) and should be annulled by this Tribunal. The CD had properly replied to the Demand Notice, with postal receipts submitted as evidence. The tracking reports were unavailable due to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, the Authority made an adverse finding against the Corporate Debtor without addressing this issue appropriately.
The Application is time-barred and should have been dismissed. OC’s Petition, citing defaults on 26.10.2016 and 30.12.2016, was filed on 17.02.2020, well beyond the limitation period. Therefore, it should have been dismissed on this ground alone. OC maliciously added a third default date in its Section 9 Application, while only two dates (26.10.2016 and 31.12.2016) were mentioned in the Demand Notice. This was a deliberate attempt to bring the Application within the limitation period.
The bank statement cannot be considered valid as it doesn't identify the account holder, lacks bank authentication, and has no certificate confirming its authenticity. Therefore, it should not have been relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority, making Form-5 defective.
OC, being an unregistered partnership firm, was not eligible to file an Application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932.
The calculation of the alleged debt and interest is fabricated and should not have been relied upon. The invoices, supposedly due from 29.06.2016 to 30.11.2016, incorrectly include GST at 18%, which was introduced only on 01.07.2017.
The OC initially supplied boxes that met the required specifications and quality, for which the CD made payments. However, the quality of the boxes later declined, causing damage to the packed fruits and resulting in financial loss to the CD. The CD repeatedly raised concerns about the inferior quality of boxes with the Company. In 2016, Arvind Gulsia, the Appellant's Managing Director, visited the OC’s Mumbai office several times to address the issue. Other representatives of the CD also followed up regularly. During these discussions, the OC admitted to the poor quality of the boxes, apologised, and promised to improve future supplies. To avoid legal issues and based on their long relationship, the OC and CD mutually agreed to a deferred payment schedule for the remaining balance, starting from May 2018 to September 2019, with payments to be made without interest. From 03.05.2018 to 27.02.2019, the CD paid the OC Rs 11,69,948/- (rupees eleven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and forty eight only) in cash. This amount, which the OC claims is still due, is reflected in the CD’s books for FY 2018-2019. However, despite receiving this payment, the OC issued a Notice under Section 8 of the IBC, claiming an amount that is not due and has already been paid. Thus CD claims to have paid the amount due to OC as per an Agreement for deferred payments from May 2018 to 31.03.2019, without interest, and this payment has been made by the Corporate Debtor.
The Application dated 15.02.2020 was initially filed on 17.02.2020 and re-filed on 03.04.2020. Even if the affidavits were replaced after being found defective (dated 28.02.2020 and 03.04.2020), the Respondent did not amend the statements regarding the Reply to the Demand Notice or the raised dispute to ensure the Application was filed and admitted.
The Demand Notice lacks an authority letter showing on whose behalf it was issued to the Corporate Debtor. The Petition is signed by Manoj Rajendra Singh, who claims authority from a letter dated 07.02.2020. However, the partnership deed dated 03.12.2015 does not grant him authority to initiate IBC proceedings. Therefore, the Petition is defective and should be dismissed.
Submissions made by the OC-Om Sai Boxes-Respondent No. 1:
OC-Respondent No. 1/ Om Sai Boxes denies all these and contends that the Appellant, Mr. Arvind Gulsia, Suspended Director of the CD, has filed the Appeal on several grounds, each of which is devoid of any merit. With respect to multiples dates of default and inconsistency between dates of default mentioned in Demand Notice and Form-5 Petition it is claimed that there were total 13 invoices raised which were in default for an amount aggregating to Rs 11,69,999/- (rupees eleven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine only) being principal amount of debt. First of those 13 invoices was invoice dated 26.09.2016 for amount of Rs 1,12,360/- (rupees one lakh, twelve thousand, three hundred and sixty only), which, after credit period of 30 days, became due and payable and, thus, default occurred on 26.10.2016. Last of 13 invoices is invoice dated 30.11.2016 for an amount of Rs 74,495/- (rupees seventy-four thousand, four hundred and ninety-five only), which became due and, consequentially, default occurred on 30.12.2016. The Demand Notice at Page No. 76 of Appeal Memo at Column 1 and 2 as well as the Form-5 Petition at Page No. 68 refers to the same dates of default with respect to first and last of the 13 invoices raised. The details of due and default date of each of the 13 invoices was annexed to the Petition as well as Demand Notice in a tabular chart which is at Page No. 161 of the Appeal Memo. The third date of default mentioned on Page No. 68 in the Form-5 Petition is 18.02.2017, which is mentioned since it is relevant for computation of period of limitation as there was running account between parties and last payment of Rs 1,34,892/-(rupees one lakh, thirty-four thousand, eight hundred and ninety-two only) was made by the CD on 17.02.2017 and, hence, as specified therein, the date was referred to for the purposes of computing period of limitation of 3 years from 18.02.2017 as such payment extends limitation under Sections 18 and 19 of Limitation Act, 1963. With respect to the issue that whether the Petition was filed within limitation or not since, last part payment was made by CD on 17.02.2017 which is not disputed by the CD, the period of limitation once again stood extended for 3 years from 18.02.2017 as per Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act read with Rule 3 of NCLT Rules which provides that in computing limitation period, the day from which such period is to be reckoned stands excluded. Hence, period of 3 years would expire on 17.02.2020 and present Petition admitted filed on 17.02.2020 was well within the period of limitation. Even without prejudice, for the sake of argument, even if limitation is reckoned as contended by the Appellant from 17.02.2017 itself, then period of 3 years would expire on 16.02.2020, which was a Sunday and the Tribunal and its registry were. Even otherwise, as per Section 4 of the Limitation Act, read with Rule 3 of NCLT Rules, the Petition could be filed on the next working day, that is, 17.02.2017 when it was actually filed, hence the Petition is within limitation without prejudice to the fact that in the ledger statement of CD at Page 158 of Appeal Memo, CD itself has acknowledged principal amount of debt payable on 01.04.2018.
With respect to pre-existing dispute the Appellant has not relied upon a single document/letter to establish the fact that prior to the issuance of Demand Notice dated 15.01.2020, a pre-existing dispute existed. The Reply of the CD to Section 9 Petition starting from Page No. 146 of Appeal read with findings of the NCLT in Para 11 of Page No. 47 of Appeal establishes the fact that there was nothing placed on record by CD to establish a pre-existing dispute. It was only after service of Demand Notice and filing of Petition by Respondent No. 1 did CD aver to dispute. It is settled law that CD must raise dispute prior to issuance of Demand Notice.
Further, on the one hand, the Appellant contends a pre-existing dispute, while, on the other hand, assumes an entirely contradictory position that the entire debt amount is paid by way of cash in instalments during the period of 03.05.2018 to 27.02.2019 and passes bogus entries of cash payments in its ledger annexed from Page No. 158 to 160 of Appeal Memo while acknowledging debt payable by the CD for principal debt amount of Rs 11,69,948/- (rupees eleven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and forty-eight only) as on 01.04.2018. The said cash payments are entirely denied and disputed by Respondent No. 1 without prejudice to the fact that no iota of evidence is produced to demonstrate the same including any cash receipts. Hence, the CD has admitted the entire factum of transaction and principal amount in default of Rs 11,69,948/- (rupees eleven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and forty-eight only) as on 01.04.2018 without prejudice to the fact that supplies made in each invoice were backed by delivery challans and are acknowledged by the CD.
The Appellant has made baseless claims and grounds for challenging the Impugned Order, questioning genuineness of the invoices trying to mislead that GST is levied on invoices raised during period of 29.06.2016 to 30.11.2016, while GST regime was introduced on 01.07.2017 as stated in Page No. 29 of Appeal Memo. The same is an entirely false statement being made and an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal is evident from bare perusal of invoices from Page No. 84 to 107 of Appeal Memo wherein VAT, CENVAT is levied and not GST. The CD itself has acknowledged the receipt of goods under the said invoices. GST is claimed while filing Form-5 Petition in the year 2020 when GST regime was implemented and GST Act provided on levy of it on interest charged on the delayed payments as evident from computation of default annexed at Page 161 of Appeal Memo. Even otherwise, the principal amount as well as interest amount in default levied as per terms of invoice being an amount of Rs 11,69,999/- (rupees eleven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine only) and Rs 8,96,029.76/- (rupees eight lakhs, ninety-six thousand and twenty-nine and seventy-six paise only) are more than the threshold limit of Rs. 1 lakh.
The Appellant has raised ground to challenge maintainability of the Section 9 Petition and Impugned Order on the basis that OC-Respondent No. 1/ Om Sai Boxes, being unregistered partnership firm, is not entitled to maintain Petition considering bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Respondent No. 1 submits that said issue is already settled by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal in the case of Rourkela Steel Syndicate vs Metistech Fabricators Private Limited in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 924 of 2022 vide order dated 06.02.2023 annexed at Page No. 34 to the Reply of Respondent No. 1 that bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act applies only to suits and not to Application for Initiation of Insolvency Process which are not suits relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr [2019] 13 SCR 224.
Hence, in view of aforesaid, is it submitted by Respondent No. 1 that the present Appeal may be dismissed with costs.
Appraisal:
Heard Counsels for both sides and perused materials on record. There are many issues raised by the Appellant, mainly relating to maintainability, pre-existing dispute and non-maintainability of the Petition. They have been discussed in the following paragraphs.
Firstly, we look into the issue of maintainability on the grounds of limitation as the Appellant claims that multiples dates of default have been mentioned and there is inconsistency between dates of default mentioned in the Demand Notice and Form-5 within Section 9 petition. It is contended by the Appellant that the Application is barred by the Limitation Act and should have been dismissed. OC’s Petition, which cites defaults on 26.10.2016 and 30.12.2016 and 18.02.2017, was filed on 17.02.2020, well beyond the applicable limitation period. As such, it should have been dismissed on this ground alone. OC falsely included a third default in its Section 9 Application, despite only two dates (26.10.2016 and 31.12.2016) being referenced in the Demand Notice. This was a deliberate attempt to bring the Application within the limitation period.
Regarding the multiple dates of default and the inconsistency between the dates mentioned in the Demand Notice and Form-5 Petition, it is noted from the materials on record that a total of 13 invoices, aggregating to a principal debt amount of ₹11,69,999/- (rupees eleven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine only) were raised and defaulted upon. The first invoice, dated 26.09.2016, was for ₹1,12,360/- (rupees one lakh, twelve thousand, three hundred and sixty only). After the 30-day credit period, the payment became due, and default occurred on 26.10.2016. The last invoice, dated 30.11.2016, was for ₹74,495/- (rupees seventy-four thousand, four hundred and ninety-five only) and became due on 30.12.2016. The Demand Notice (Page 76 of the Appeal Memo) and Form-5 Petition (Page 68) both reference these same default dates for the first and last invoices. Additionally, the details of the due and default dates for all 13 invoices were annexed to the Petition and the Demand Notice in a tabular chart found at Page 161 of the Appeal Memo. The third date of default mentioned on Page 68 of the Form-5 Petition is 18.02.2017. This date is significant for the computation of the limitation period, as there was a running account between the parties, and the CD made a last payment of ₹1,34,892/- (rupees one lakh, thirty-four thousand, eight hundred and ninety-two only) on 17.02.2017. Under Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, this payment extended the limitation period by 3 years from 18.02.2017. On the question whether the Petition was filed within the limitation period, it is pertinent to note that the last part payment made by the CD on 17.02.2017 is undisputed. Accordingly, the limitation period was extended for 3 years from 18.02.2017, expiring on 17.02.2020. The Petition was admitted and filed on 17.02.2020, making it well within the limitation period.
Even assuming, without prejudice, that the limitation period is reckoned from 17.02.2017 (the date of the last payment), the 3-year period would expire on 16.02.2020, which was a Sunday and a non-working day for the Tribunal and its registry. As per Section 41 of the Limitation Act, read with Rule 32 of the NCLT Rules, the Petition could be validly filed on the next working day, i.e., 17.02.2020, which is when it was indeed filed. Hence, the Petition is still within the limitation period.
Further, it is noted that the ledger statement of the CD, annexed at Page 158 of the Appeal Memo, acknowledges the principal debt amount as payable as of 01.04.2018. This acknowledgment also reinforces the validity of the Petition's filing within the limitation period. Therefore, on the grounds of limitation the arguments of the Appellant cannot be accepted. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly concluded that:
“The other issue for consideration is whether this application is filed within limitation. A demand notice issued dated 15.01.2020 in Form 3 attached as (Annexure l) was duly served on the corporate debtor. However, the period of limitation would begin from the date of default i.e. 17.02.2017 i.e. date on which last payment was made by the corporate debtor. This application was filed vide Diary No. 1271 on 17.02.2020 and was refiled on 03.03.2020 vide Diary
1 Section 4. Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed:
Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court re-opens.
Explanation.-A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day.
2 3. Computation of time period.- Where a period is prescribed by the Act and these rules or under any other law or is fixed by the Appellate Tribunal for doing any act, in computing the time, the day from which the said period is to be reckoned shall be excluded, and if the last day expires on a day when the office of the Appellate Tribunal is closed, that day and any succeeding day on which the Appellate Tribunal remains closed shall also be excluded
No.1733. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority finds that this application is filed within limitation” Appellant’s grounds on limitation cannot be therefore accepted and the application is very much maintainable on this ground.
On the issue of whether the Demand Notice in Form-3 dated 15.01.2020 was properly served or not, the AA has concluded that:
“The demand notice delivered to the corporate debtor vide registered post as the postal receipt and tracking reports are attached at Annexure-l of the petition. The corporate debtor did not reply to the demand notice till date. Therefore, a demand notice was duly served.”
CD claims that the OC falsely asserted in its affidavit that it did not receive a Reply to the Demand Notice. The CD claims that it duly responded to the Demand Notice, with supporting postal receipts provided as evidence. The tracking reports were unavailable due to the operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is claimed that CD replied to the Demand Notice within the statutory period and raised a legitimate dispute regarding the claimed amount. Consequently, the Order violates Section 9(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), as the application is incomplete and OC has not received the reply to the demand notice and for that reason should be set aside by this Tribunal. Adjudicating Authority has concluded that:
“…
The first issue for consideration is whether the demand notice in Form-3 dated 15.01.2020 was properly served. The demand notice delivered to the corporate debtor vide registered post as the postal receipt and tracking reports are attached at Annexure- I of the petition. The corporate debtor did not reply to the demand notice till date. Therefore, a demand notice was duly served.”
We do not find any infirmity in the conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority on this hyper-technical ground raised by the Appellant.
Now we go onto examine the contention of the Appellant that the Section 9 Petition and the Impugned Order are not maintainable on the grounds that OC-Respondent No. 1, being an unregistered partnership firm, is barred from maintaining the Petition under Section 69(2)3 of the Indian Partnership Act. OC-Respondent No. 1 has relied upon this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Rourkela Steel Syndicate vs. Metistech Fabricators Private Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 924 of 2022], vide order dated 06.02.2023. In the said judgment, this Hon’ble Tribunal held that the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act applies exclusively to suits and does not extend to applications for initiating the Insolvency Process under the IBC. The relevant extracts judgment are as follows:
“…
We have considered the submissions of the Counsel of the parties and perused the records. The IBC provides for filing of the Application under Sections 7 & 9 and it is now settled position of law that for limitation for filing Application under Sections 7,9 & 10 are Article
3 Section 69. Effect of non-registration.
(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be institutes in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.
(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.
137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is attracted. Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides for filing of Application, where no period of limitation is provided. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court- (2019) 10 SCC 572 titled “Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr.’ where Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the provision of Limitation Act, 1963 as well as Application under Section 7 of IBC. In paragraph-6 of the Judgment, following have been laid down:
“…
Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, what is apparent is that Article 62 is out of the way on the ground that it would only apply to suits. The present case being ‘an application’ which is filed under Section 7, would fall only within the residuary Article 137. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, time, therefore, begins to run on 21-7-2011, as a result of which the application filed under Section 7 would clearly be time-barred. So far as Mr Banerjee’s reliance on para 11 of B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd., suffice it to say that the Report of the Insolvency Law Committee itself stated that the intent of the Code could not have been to give a new lease of life to debts which are already time-barred.”
An application under Section 9 of IBC cannot be said to be a suit and analogy of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Hargovindbhai Dave’s case, supra, is fully applicable to the application filed under Section 9 IBC also. Further, also it is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 633 that provision of Section 5 Limitation Act are also fully applicable in Section 7 & 9 IBC applications. Section 5 Limitation Act is not applicable in a suit which is also a clear indication that Application under Section 7 & 9 are not a suit.
The Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied by the Adjudicating Authority regarding bar of Section 69(2) is not attracted in the present case since the application under Section 9 cannot be treated as suit.
We are thus of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has committed error in rejecting Section 7 Application on the ground that it is barred by 69(2) of the Partnership Act. We are thus in view that the order impugned cannot be sustained and deserves to the set aside.”
[emphasis supplied]
In view of the above, the Appellant’s argument challenging the maintainability of the Petition under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act is devoid of merit.
Now we delve into the Appellant’s claim challenging the genuineness of the invoices and alleging that GST was improperly levied during the period from 29.06.2016 to 30.11.2016 as GST could not have been applied as the GST regime was introduced only on 01.07.2017, as stated on Page 29 of the Appeal Memo. A plain examination of the invoices from Pages 84 to 107 of the Appeal Memo clearly shows that VAT and CENVAT were levied during the stated period, not GST. This directly refutes the Appellant’s allegation. Furthermore, the CD itself acknowledged the receipt of goods under these invoices, leaving no room for dispute regarding their validity. GST has been claimed while filing the Form-5 Petition in 2020, a period when the GST regime was in effect. Under the GST Act, GST is applicable on the interest charged for delayed payments, as evident from the computation of default annexed on Page 161 of the Appeal Memo. We, therefore, agree with the submissions of the OC and the Appellant’s assertion is demonstrably false. Additionally, the principal amount of ₹11,69,999/- (rupees eleven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine only) and the interest amount of ₹8,96,029.76/- (rupees eight lakhs, ninety-six thousand and twenty-nine and seventy-six paise only) both levied as per the terms of the invoices—are well above the statutory threshold of ₹1 lakh, existing at that point of time, required to initiate proceedings.
In fact, the real issue before us is whether we could rely on the issue of dispute raised by the Appellant and whether it is not a moonshine dispute and whether to treat that as a pre-existing dispute and accept this dispute for setting aside the Section 9 Order. This issue is delved into by us in subsequent paragraphs.
The Reply of the CD to Section 9 Petition starting from Page No. 146 of APB read with finding of Ld. NCLT in Para 11 of Page No. 47 of APB has been gone into. It was claimed by the CD that the quality of boxes was not as per specifications leading to damage of fruits packed in boxes leading to financial loss to the respondent. However, there is no material placed on record to show that the dispute existed between the parties much before the issuance of the Demand Notice. There is no correspondence between the parties to that effect. Further only after the service of Demand Notice and filing of Petition by OC, CD disputed it. Further, on the one hand, the Appellant contends pre-existing dispute, while on other hand, assumes an entirely contradictory position that the entire debt amount was paid by way of cash in instalments during the period of 03.05.2018 to 27.02.2019. Further, the CD claims to have passed entries of cash payments in its ledger annexed at Page No. 158 to 160 of APB while acknowledging debt payable by the CD for principal debt amount of Rs 11,69,948/- (rupees eleven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and forty-eight only) as on 01.04.2018. These are self-serving accounts of OC. Except for CD’s ledger account, with large number of small value cash entries, without producing any evidence, including any cash receipts – nothing else has been placed on record. The assertions of the Appellant cannot be, therefore, relied upon basis such material record. Hence, it can be safely concluded that there is no pre-existing dispute regarding the claim in hand.
In light of the above-mentioned facts, it is evident that all the arguments of the Appellant lack merit and are intended to obfuscate the matter rather than present a genuine basis for challenging the Impugned Order.
Order:
The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed and Section 9 proceedings against the CD must go on. No orders as to costs.