# In the matter of Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. CA (IB) No. 584,647,650,712,713,736,887,1100,1122 & 1168-KB-2019 in CP(IB) No. 61-KB-2018

> NCLT judgment dated 2019-09-27. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLT-01217. The case involves multiple applications related to the insolvency resolution of Fort Gloster…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 27 Sept 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLT-01217
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/fort-gloster-industries-ltd-ca-ib-no-58464765071271373688711001122-1168-kb-2019-e7ec8f2c

## Summary

### Background

The case involves multiple applications related to the insolvency resolution of Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (FGIL). The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated following an application by an operational creditor, Jayanta Panja. Several applications were filed concerning the approval of the resolution plan, claims by various creditors including financial and operational creditors, and disputes over the ownership and valuation of the trademark 'Gloster'. The resolution plan submitted by Gloster Limited was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 73.21% vote share. However, several objections were raised by dissenting creditors, including Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), and other stakeholders regarding the distribution

…

## Facts

1. Jayanta Panja, an operational creditor, initiated CIRP against Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (FGIL).
2. Gloster Limited submitted a resolution plan that was approved by the CoC with 73.21% vote share.
3. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), a dissenting financial creditor, objected to the resolution plan, alleging discrimination and undervaluation of assets.
4. A dispute arose regarding the ownership of the trademark 'Gloster', with Gloster Cables Limited (GCL) claiming exclusive rights based on prior agreements with FGIL.
5. The BIFR had previously issued orders restricting FGIL from disposing of assets without consent.
6. The resolution plan included a distribution methodology that was challenged by dissenting creditors.
7. The RP was accused of failing to include

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the resolution plan unfairly discriminated …

**Ratio:** The distribution of funds to creditors must be fair and equitable, but the CoC has the

…

**Reasoning:** The AA found that the distribution methodology was approved by the CoC after deliberation

…

**Interpretation:** The AA interpreted the provisions of the IBC to allow the CoC significant

…

**Application:** The AA applied the ratio to the facts by finding that the distribution

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Jinan…; Harish Chander…
- **Appellants:** Jayanta…
- **Respondents:** Fort Gloster…

## Timeline

- **2018-08-09 — CIRP Init…**: CP (IB) No. 61/KB/2018 was admitted, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution…
- **2018-09-15 — Trademark Registration…**: Application for trademark…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 43 — Preferential transactions and relevant time](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-43)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/fort-gloster-industries-ltd-ca-ib-no-58464765071271373688711001122-1168-kb-2019-e7ec8f2c