NCLT Ahmedabad Mandates Return of 124 Leased EVs to Resolution Professional Under CIRP
In a significant judicial determination concerning the preservation of a Corporate Debtor's assets during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench, Court-I, Ahmedabad, delivered its judgment on 10.07.2026 in the matter of Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited Vs GENSOL EV Lease Limited. The tribunal partly allowed the interlocutory application filed by the Resolution Professional, directing the lessee to return 124 electric vehicles (EVs) belonging to the Corporate Debtor. However, the Adjudicating Authority expressly refrained from adjudicating the disputed contractual monetary claims, citing the limitations of its jurisdiction in conducting complex accounting reconciliations.
This detailed summary explores the factual matrix, the legal arguments presented by both sides, and the comprehensive reasoning adopted by the tribunal in balancing statutory insolvency duties with complex contractual disputes.
Introduction to the Dispute
The core conflict in this matter revolved around a leasing arrangement between Gensol EV Lease Limited (the Corporate Debtor) and Moeving Urban Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent). The application, registered as IA No. 181/(AHM)/2026 in C.P.(I.B.) No.199/(AHM)/2025, was instituted by Mr. Keshav Khaneja, the Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor.
The Resolution Professional invoked Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking two primary reliefs:
- The immediate return of 124 electric vehicles owned by the Corporate Debtor.
- The recovery of outstanding lease rentals, late payment charges, and other contractual dues stemming from the lease agreements.
Factual Matrix of the Case
Execution of the Lease Agreements
The foundational relationship between the parties was established on 01.09.2023, when the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent executed a Master Lease Agreement alongside a Fleet Management Service Agreement. Under these contractual instruments, the Corporate Debtor retained absolute ownership of the electric vehicles as the lessor. The Respondent, acting as the lessee, was granted the specific contractual right to deploy these vehicles for its logistics operations, subject to strict adherence to the payment schedules and operational terms.
Emergence of Payment Defaults
According to the submissions made by the Resolution Professional, the Respondent honored its financial obligations by remitting the monthly lease rentals and fleet management charges up until January 2024. However, a series of defaults commenced from January 2025 onwards. The failure to remit the agreed-upon lease rentals constituted a direct breach of the Master Lease Agreement.
Issuance of Demand Notices and Failed Settlements
In response to the mounting arrears, the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor issued a formal notice on 18.04.2025, raising a demand for Rs. 1,36,57,538 towards the outstanding lease rentals.
In an attempt to resolve the financial impasse, the parties mutually agreed to a repayment framework in February 2025. This arrangement required the Respondent to make weekly payments of Rs. 5 lakhs, culminating in a substantial payment of Rs. 20-25 lakhs scheduled for the last week of February 2025. Despite this structured plan, the Respondent failed to adhere to the agreed timeline, thereby exacerbating the default.
Following the initiation of the CIRP, the Resolution Professional issued legal notices terminating the Master Lease Agreement and demanding the immediate return of the leased vehicles. Furthermore, a statutory Demand Notice dated 10.09.2025 was issued under Rule 5 of the IBBI (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, mandating payment within a ten-day window.