Resolution plan finality limits later trademark ownership declarations beyond approved insolvency terms.

After approval and sanction of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the adjudicating authority cannot use a later application to alter the plan's substance. Where the approved plan granted only a perpetual exclusive right to use the corporate debtor's trademarks, a subsequent declaration that the trademarks belonged to the corporate debtor went beyond the sanctioned terms and changed the legal position from use to ownership. Such substantive modification was impermissible under the insolvency framework, and the adjudicating authority could not travel outside the plan or its statutory jurisdiction. The declaration of ownership was therefore rightly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority, while deciding the application concerning the corporate debtor's trademarks, could declare ownership over the trademarks after approval of the resolution plan, or whether such declaration amounted to an impermissible modification of the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The resolution plan, approved by the committee of creditors and sanctioned under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, expressly dealt with the corporate debtor's brands only by conferring a perpetual exclusive right to use them for running the business. The approval order of the adjudicating authority also recorded that entitlement to use the brand name was subject to the outcome of the pending application. On a later application, the adjudicating authority not only recognised the right to use the trademarks but also declared that the trademarks belonged to the corporate debtor. That additional declaration went beyond the plan as approved and altered the legal position from a right of use to ownership. Under the insolvency framework, once a resolution plan is approved, substantive modification is not permissible through later judicial orders, and the adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond the plan's terms or the jurisdiction conferred by the Code.

Conclusion: The declaration of ownership over the trademarks was impermissible and was rightly set aside; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: After approval of a resolution plan, the adjudicating authority cannot, under its residual or incidental powers, alter the substance of the plan by granting rights not contemplated by the approved terms.

---