GLOSTER LIMITED Vs. GLOSTER CABLES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [for short "NCLAT "], Principal Bench, New Delhi dtd. 25/1/2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1343 of 2019. While Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2024 is filed by Gloster Limited - the Successful Resolution Applicant (hereinafter called the "SRA "), Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2024 is filed by Respondent No.1-Gloster Cables Limited (hereinafter called "GCL "), challenging the findings in the impugned judgment insofar as it held that the Adjudicating Authority had the jurisdiction to declare on the aspect of title to the trademark "Gloster ".

(2.) It must be pointed out that the National Company Law Tribunal [for short "NCLT "], Kolkata Bench, Kolkata while dealing with C.A. (IB) No. 713/KB/2019, incidentally filed by GCL, recorded the conclusion that though the application filed by GCL is liable to be dismissed, the trademark "Gloster " was the asset of the Corporate Debtor. The consequence of the holding was that the appellant-herein who was the SRA having taken over the Corporate Debtor became entitled to the said trademark "Gloster ".

(3.) On an appeal filed by GCL to NCLAT, the NCLAT, after ruling on the jurisdiction of the NCLT/Adjudicating Authority to go into title ultimately held in favour of GCL and against the SRA. It was held that the finding recorded by NCLT about the trademark "Gloster " being the asset of the Corporate Debtor was not in accordance with law. It is in this scenario that both the parties are before us. While the SRA is aggrieved by the negation of the findings recorded by the NCLT to the effect that the trademark was the property of the Corporate Debtor and, in turn, of the SRA, the GCL is aggrieved by the pronouncement on the issue of jurisdiction. There was no necessity to issue separate notice in the crossappeal as both parties have advanced comprehensive arguments covering all aspects in both the appeals.