Appeal allowed, order set aside. Parties to approach competent authority.

The appeal is allowed, and the order in I.A. No. 155/2018 in C.P.(IB) No. 41/7/HDB/2017 dated 14th August 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, is set aside. The parties are left to approach the competent Court, authority, or Tribunal at the appropriate stage.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the declaration of ownership over Trademarks after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) amounts to modification or alteration of the approved Resolution Plan.
2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is vested with jurisdiction to decide title, right, or ownership over Trademarks when such jurisdiction is conferred on the District Judge as per the provisions of the Trademarks Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Modification or Alteration of Approved Resolution Plan
The appellants contended that granting relief in I.A. No. 155 of 2018 amounts to the modification of the approved Resolution Plan, which is impermissible under the law. The respondents argued that the Resolution Plan was based on the Information Memorandum issued by the Resolution Professional, which included the Trademarks as assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) did not claim ownership over the Trademarks but only the right to use them, as stated in clause 11.12 of the Resolution Plan. The CoC approved the Resolution Plan based on its commercial wisdom, which cannot be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority or this Tribunal. The Adjudicating Authority allowed I.A. No. 155/2018 without the CoC's approval, which amounts to an alteration of the Resolution Plan. The Supreme Court in "Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd." held that claims not part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished. Therefore, the claim of ownership over the Trademarks, made after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, is deemed extinguished. The Adjudicating Authority's order declaring the Corporate Debtor as the owner of the Trademarks is illegal and transgresses jurisdictional limits.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority
The appellants argued that the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC does not have the jurisdiction to decide the ownership of Trademarks, as such jurisdiction is conferred on the District Judge under the Trademarks Act. The respondents contended that the IBC has a non-obstante clause that overrides the provisions of the Trademarks Act, thus vesting the Adjudicating Authority with the power to decide such issues. However, the Tribunal did not record a finding on this point, given the findings on Issue 1, and left it open for the parties to approach the appropriate authority or Tribunal at the appropriate time.

Conclusion:
The appeal is allowed, and the order in I.A. No. 155/2018 in C.P.(IB) No. 41/7/HDB/2017 dated 14th August 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, is set aside. The parties are left to approach the competent Court, authority, or Tribunal at the appropriate stage.

---