# Gloster Limited v. Gloster Cables Limited & Others

> SC judgment dated 2026-01-22. Citation: TCN-2026-SC-00083. Gloster Limited (Successful Resolution Applicant - SRA) and Gloster Cables Limited (GCL) are…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 22 Jan 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-SC-00083
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/gloster-limited-vs-gloster-cables-limited-ors-mvnzs

## Summary

### Background

Gloster Limited (Successful Resolution Applicant - SRA) and Gloster Cables Limited (GCL) are embroiled in a dispute over the ownership of the trademark "Gloster" during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Fort Gloster Industries Limited (FGIL), the Corporate Debtor. GCL, claiming ownership through various agreements and assignments, filed an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC seeking to exclude the trademark from FGIL's assets in the resolution plan. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) initially declared the trademark an asset of the Corporate Debtor, but the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) reversed this, holding in favor of GCL on the jurisdiction aspect. Both parties subsequently filed appeals before the Supreme Court.

## Facts

Two appeals arise from the NCLAT judgment dated 25.01.2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1343 of 2019.

Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2024 is filed by Gloster Limited (Successful Resolution Applicant - SRA).

Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2024 is filed by Respondent No.1-Gloster Cables Limited (GCL), challenging NCLAT's findings on the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction regarding the trademark "Gloster".

The NCLT, Kolkata Bench, concluded that the trademark "Gloster" was an asset of the Corporate Debtor, entitling the SRA to it.

The NCLAT, on appeal by GCL, ruled on NCLT's jurisdiction and ultimately held in favour of GCL, finding that the trademark "Gloster" was not an asset of the Corporate Debtor.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority could have, on the facts of the present case, in the process of …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority, while approving a resolution plan that recognizes rival

…

**Reasoning:** The approved resolution plan itself acknowledged rival claims over the trademark

…

**Interpretation:** Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, while broad, requires a direct nexus with the

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLT's declaration of title in the trademark

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** K.V. VISWA…; J.B. PARD…
- **Appellants:** Gloster L…
- **Respondents:** Fort Gloster…; Gloster Cables…; +2 more
- **Other parties:** 8th Edition…; Trade…; +13 more
- **Advocates:** Shyam D…; Ranjit…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **1995-05-02 — Technical Collaboration…**: Gloster Cables Limited (GCL) entered into a Technical Collaboration Agreement with Fort…
- **2001-08-10 — BIFR Restrain…**: BIFR passed a restraint order, which was a condition for the Supplemental Trademark…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

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/supreme-court-of-india/gloster-limited-vs-gloster-cables-limited-ors-mvnzs