https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785409 Residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC does not permit an adjudicating authority to determine ownership of a trademark when the dispute is not in relation to insolvency proceedings; therefore the Adjudicating Authority erred in declaring title. Findings that the assignment fell within avoidance provisions as preferential or undervalued transactions were set aside for lack of pleaded material and procedural infirmity, and NCLAT restored that such neutralisation required specific applications by the Resolution Professional. Observations made are not binding on other courts deciding trademark title on merits. en-us Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:39:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785409 Residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC does not permit an adjudicating authority to determine ownership of a trademark when the dispute is not in relation to insolvency proceedings; therefore the Adjudicating Authority erred in declaring title. Findings that the assignment fell within avoidance provisions as preferential or undervalued transactions were set aside for lack of pleaded material and procedural infirmity, and NCLAT restored that such neutralisation required specific applications by the Resolution Professional. Observations made are not binding on other courts deciding trademark title on merits. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785409