9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pass any direction with respect to registered trademark RATHI is not an asset of the Corporate Debtor. The applicant further sought the direction that usage of the registered trademark RATHI by the corporate debtor through resolution professional in any manner is illegal and beyond his authority under the provisions of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, to which it is submitted by the respondent that usage of the trademark cannot be restricted by the applicant as the license was granted to the corporate debtor without any condition for usage and furthermore, similar relief is sought by the applicant in civil suit (Comm) No. 151 of 2020 and same is pending for adjudication before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is pertinent to menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 9 petition and CIR Process initiated of Corporate Debtor and Mr. Anshul Gupta was appointed as IRP and was later confirmed as Resolution Professional, it is stated that by virtue of section 17(1)(b) of IBC, 2016 the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor vested in the IRP/RP and by virtue the aforesaid section the members of group C1 of the Rathi Foundation ceased to have any control over the affairs of the Corporate debtor. Therefore, as per clause 10.3(b) of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the corporate debtor ceased to have any right to use the trademark RATHI w.e.f., 10.04.2019 and the applicant also emphasised on section 18 of IBC, 2016 explanation of which says as follows: Explanation. - For the purposes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vests with the person/company holding such percentage of shareholding.... c. It is averred that vide letter dated 07.12.2019 issued by Shri Rajkumar Rathi confirmed that upon appointment of resolution professional by the Hon'ble NCLT, the trademark RATHI stand automatically revoked and same is admitted by Shri Rajkumar Rathi on oath before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in civil suit (Comm) No. 603/2019. It is further argued that on 01.06.2020, Civil Suit (Comm) No. 151 of 2020 was lodged by the Applicant pleading that the Trademark RATHI was not an asset of the Corporate Debtor, therefore, is not covered by the applicability of moratorium declared by this Hon'ble Tribunal. It was specifically pleaded that Section 14 of IBC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be allowed for forum shopping as the same subject matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is stated that 'RATHP is a well-known trademark in the business of Steel and Saria and has been used by the Corporate Debtor since its inception. It is stated as on date of appointment of Liquidator as Resolution Professional, the said trademark was being used, without any objection from the Applicant. It is stated that as per Section 25 of the I B Code, 2016 the Resolution Professional was duty bound to maintain the Respondent/Corporate Debtor as a going concern and take such steps which are necessary in continuing the business operations of the Corporate Debtor and even during the liquidation of the same. Furthermore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his authority under the provisions of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, to which it is submitted by the respondent that usage of the trademark cannot be restricted by the applicant as the license was granted to the corporate debtor without any condition for usage and furthermore, similar relief is sought by the applicant in civil suit (Comm) No. 151 of 2020 and same is pending for adjudication before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 5. It is pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Delhi High Court only gave suggestion that while dealing with the matter concerning corporate debtor, the NCLT should take into account the submissions of the parties given before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In fact, there is no direction/order of the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
