The case involves multiple applications related to the insolvency resolution of Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (FGIL). The Corporate Debtor (FGIL) was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on an application by an operational creditor. Several applications were filed concerning the approval of the resolution plan, the validity of trademark assignments, and objections from various stakeholders including financial creditors, operational creditors, and workmen. The key dispute revolves around the approval of the resolution plan submitted by Gloster Limited, the validity of trademark 'Gloster' ownership claimed by Gloster Cables Limited (GCL), and objections raised by other resolution applicants and creditors.
Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (FGIL) underwent CIRP after an application by an operational creditor. Gloster Cables Limited (GCL) claimed ownership of the trademark 'Gloster' based on assignments from FGIL. FGIL was referred to BIFR in 2001, and BIFR issued injunctions against asset disposal. GCL participated in the bidding for FGIL's assets but was unsuccessful. The resolution plan submitted by Gloster Limited was approved by the CoC with 73.21% voting share. Several creditors, including Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) and West Coast Paper Mills Limited, raised objections. The resolution professional received two resolution plans, one from Gloster Limited and another from Hooghly Infrastructure Private Limited. The resolution professional also received a
…Sign in to view the parties.
The CP (IB) No. 61/KB/2018 was admitted by…
Mr. Manish Jain was…
The case involves multiple applications related to the insolvency resolution of Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (FGIL). The Corporate Debtor (FGIL) was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on an application by an operational creditor. Several applications were filed concerning the approval of the resolution plan, the validity of trademark assignments, and objections from various stakeholders including financial creditors, operational creditors, and workmen. The key dispute revolves around the approval of the resolution plan submitted by Gloster Limited, the validity of trademark 'Gloster' ownership claimed by Gloster Cables Limited (GCL), and objections raised by other resolution applicants and creditors.
Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (FGIL) underwent CIRP after an application by an operational creditor. Gloster Cables Limited (GCL) claimed ownership of the trademark 'Gloster' based on assignments from FGIL. FGIL was referred to BIFR in 2001, and BIFR issued injunctions against asset disposal. GCL participated in the bidding for FGIL's assets but was unsuccessful. The resolution plan submitted by Gloster Limited was approved by the CoC with 73.21% voting share. Several creditors, including Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) and West Coast Paper Mills Limited, raised objections. The resolution professional received two resolution plans, one from Gloster Limited and another from Hooghly Infrastructure Private Limited. The resolution professional also received a
…The CP (IB) No. 61/KB/2018 was admitted by…
Mr. Manish Jain was…