⚖️ LEGAL LEARNING | IBC JURISPRUDENCE 📚 Shri Ganpati Jurists
🔍 Key Supreme Court Ruling on NCLT Jurisdiction
In Gloster Cables Ltd. v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd., the Supreme Court of India has clearly demarcated the limits of NCLT’s powers under Section 60(5) of the IBC.
📌 Important Takeaways
👉 NCLT cannot decide disputed title issues
• Especially intellectual property disputes like trademarks
• When such disputes go beyond the approved Resolution Plan
👉 Section 60(5) IBC is not unlimited
• Jurisdiction exists only if the dispute
✔ arises solely from insolvency, or
✔ has a direct & proximate nexus with CIRP
👉 No usurpation of other forums
• NCLT must not encroach upon the jurisdiction of
✔ Civil Courts
✔ IP Authorities
✔ Other statutory tribunals
👉 IBC is not a shortcut remedy
• Insolvency proceedings cannot be used to bypass regular civil/IP litigation
⚖️ Legal Essence
📍 Insolvency jurisdiction is contextual, not plenary
📍 Title disputes ≠ insolvency disputes
📍 Institutional balance must be preserved
🔖 A landmark reminder that IBC is a resolution mechanism — not a substitute for civil adjudication
— Shri Ganpati Jurists
#IBC #NCLT #SupremeCourt #InsolvencyLaw #IPRights #TrademarkLaw #LegalLearning#AdvocatesOfIndia #PunjabLaw #ChandigarhLawyers #ChandigarhAdvocates #ChandigarhLegal #BathindaLawyers #BathindaAdvocates #LawStudents #Advocates #CorporateLaw
