Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, AOR Mr. Rongon Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Karan Bhootra, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. Chander M Lall, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alok Dhir, Adv. Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Adv. Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Misra, Adv. Ms. Nancy Roy, Adv. Ms. Prakriti Varshney, Adv. Ms. Annanya Mehan, Adv. Mr. Akash Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Adwait Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karan Batura, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. Chander M Lall, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alok Dhir, Adv. Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Adv. Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Misra, Adv. Ms. Nancy Roy, Adv. Ms. Prakriti Varshney, Adv. Ms. Annanya Mehan, Adv. Mr. Akash Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Adwait Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karan Batura, AOR Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The dispute concerns the ownership rights of the trademark "Gloster" within the context of insolvency proceedings involving Fort Gloster Industries Limited (FGIL), which was under CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) (!) (!) .

2. The NCLT and NCLAT had differing views on whether the trademark "Gloster" was an asset of the Corporate Debtor, FGIL, and whether the NCLT had jurisdiction to declare ownership of the trademark during insolvency proceedings (!) (!) .

3. The appellant, Gloster Limited, as the Successful Resolution Applicant, believed that the trademark belonged to FGIL and that any transfer or assignment of the trademark during the insolvency process was either invalid or mala fide (!) (!) .

4. The respondent, GCL, claimed that it was the lawful owner of the trademark "Gloster" based on various agreements, including a supplemental agreement and a deed of assignment, and that the registration of the trademark in its name was valid and prior to the CIRP (!) (!) .

5. The courts scrutinized the validity of the agreements, especially the supplemental agreement of 15.07.2008 and the deed of assignment of 20.09.2017, considering whether they were in breach of statutory orders or laws, such as the BIFR restraint order and the IBC provisions (!) (!) (!) .

6. The courts emphasized that the resolution plan, once approved, is a binding document that governs stakeholder rights, and any declaration of ownership or rights outside the plan would amount to a modification or alteration of the approved plan, which is impermissible (!) (!) .

7. The jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the IBC is limited to questions arising "in relation to" the insolvency or liquidation proceedings. The courts clarified that this jurisdiction does not extend to matters outside the scope of insolvency, such as disputes over ownership rights of assets that are not directly part of the insolvency estate (!) (!) (!) (!) .

8. The courts held that the NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared the trademark "Gloster" as an asset of FGIL during the insolvency proceedings, as the issue of ownership was not "in relation to" the insolvency but involved separate legal rights and claims (!) (!) .

9. The registration of the trademark in GCL's name during CIRP was also found to be invalid because it was registered after the commencement of the insolvency process, and thus, the ownership rights remained with FGIL or were subject to dispute (!) (!) .

10. The courts reaffirmed that the finality and sanctity of the approved resolution plan must be maintained, and any attempt to modify or modify the rights granted therein, especially regarding ownership of trademarks, is impermissible (!) (!) .

11. The courts highlighted that rights granted under the resolution plan relate to the right to use or manage assets, not ownership rights, which require specific legal procedures for transfer or declaration (!) (!) .

12. The courts also noted that the issue of ownership rights over trademarks or assets outside the scope of the insolvency proceedings should be addressed through appropriate civil or statutory remedies, not through the insolvency resolution process (!) (!) (!) .

13. The appeal and cross-appeal were disposed of, with the courts emphasizing that the NCLT's declaration of ownership in favor of the appellant was beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to the terms of the approved resolution plan (!) .

14. Overall, the decision underscores the limited scope of the insolvency courts' jurisdiction concerning ownership rights of assets that are not directly part of the insolvency estate and affirms the importance of following statutory procedures for asset transfer and ownership claims (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.