Lenders Law

The Supreme Court of India has, in a recent decision in Gloster Limited vs. Gloster Cables Limited & Ors. , delivered an important clarification on the limits of insolvency jurisdiction , particularly where intellectual property ownership disputes intersect with the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The ruling is significant for lenders, resolution applicants and insolvency professionals, as it reinforces that insolvency forums are not substitutes for civil courts in adjudicating complex title disputes. Background:  The dispute arose in the CIRP of Fort Gloster Industries Limited , where competing claims were raised over the ownership of the trademark “Gloster” . The successful resolution applicant asserted that the trademark was a corporate debtor asset , capable of being transferred under an approved resolution plan. Another party (who was assigned the rights over the trademark vide an assignment agreement, and was also an associate company of t...

  In the recent ruling of Home Kraft Avenues vs Jayesh Sanghrajka and Anr . [1] , the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has held that the creditor will be treated as “secured” during corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) despite the charge being unregistered under Section 77 of Companies Act 2013. In this article, the author has tried to analyse the said ruling. Provisions relied upon by NCLAT: The Hon’ble NCLAT relied upon the language stipulated in Section 77(3) of Companies Act 2013, reproduced as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no charge created by a company shall be taken into account by the ‘liquidator’ or any other creditor unless it is duly registered under subsection (1) and a certificate of registration of such charge is given by the Registrar under sub-section (2).” Considering the aforementioned, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal observed that the said section casts an obligation only upon “l...