As per case facts, Fort Gloster Industries Limited (FGIL), the Corporate Debtor, underwent CIRP. Gloster Cables Limited (GCL) filed an application seeking to exclude the trademark "Gloster" from FGIL's assets, ... claiming ownership through various agreements and assignment. The Resolution Professional (RP) and Gloster Limited (SRA) contended that the assignment was invalid due to prior restrictions and was a preferential/undervalued transaction. The NCLT declared the trademark an asset of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT, while affirming NCLT's jurisdiction, reversed the NCLT's finding on title, stating it vested with GCL after BIFR restrictions ceased. This led to appeals by both the SRA and GCL to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the Adjudicating Authority could, during the resolution process, declare the trademark an asset of the Corporate Debtor and, consequently, the SRA. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCLT could not declare title to the trademark in favor of the SRA. The issue of title was not "in relation to the insolvency proceedings" given the acknowledged rival claims and the lack of proper avoidance applications by the RP. NCLT's findings on preferential/undervalued transactions were perverse. The Court clarified its ruling is limited to setting aside the NCLT's declaration, without prejudice to title disputes in other competent fora.