Blu-Smart Charge Insolvency: NCLT Refuses Lessor's Plea To Recover Premises, Remove Assets During Moratorium

The Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has refused to direct the Resolution Professional (RP) of Blu-Smart Charge Pvt. Ltd. to remove the company's assets from the licensed premises or hand over possession to Eldeco Infrastructure and Properties Limited.

The order was passed by Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma.

Eldeco had entered into a Leave and Licence Agreement with Blu-Smart Charge on July 11, 2023. The agreement was terminated on April 19, 2025, after which Civil Suit No. 3979 of 2025 was instituted before the Civil Judge, Faridabad. On December 8, 2025, the civil court directed the parties to maintain status quo. The suit is stated to be pending.

Blu-Smart Charge was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) on January 16, 2026, and a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was declared.

Under Section 14(1)(d), an owner or lessor cannot recover property that is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor during the moratorium.

Eldeco subsequently issued communications dated May 14 and June 23, 2026, seeking removal of Blu-Smart Charge's assets and handing over of possession of the premises.

It also sought occupation/licence charges of Rs 7.56 lakh per month, besides applicable common area maintenance (CAM) charges and electricity dues, from January 16, 2026 until the premises were actually vacated and handed over. Eldeco sought to treat these amounts as insolvency resolution process costs under Section 5(13)(e) of the IBC read with Regulation 31(b) of the CIRP Regulations.

The court noted that the licensed premises were in the possession of Blu-Smart Charge when the insolvency process began, with the company's assets lying there.

Referring to Section 14(1)(d), the court observed that recovery of possession of the licensed premises could not be directed during the moratorium. It also considered earlier National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) decisions on recovery of possession and treatment of amounts payable for such occupation during CIRP.

The court particularly referred to a 2026 NCLAT decision holding that Section 14(1)(d) applies where the corporate debtor remains in possession of the property on the insolvency commencement date, even if the underlying arrangement had been terminated before the CIRP began.

The court also declined to determine the contractual consequences of the April 19, 2025, termination. It observed that the issue was already pending adjudication before the civil court and could not be determined in the present proceedings.

The court consequently refused to order recovery of the premises or removal of Blu-Smart Charge's assets during the moratorium.

The occupation-charge claim was not rejected outright. The court left the claim to be dealt with under Section 5(13)(e) of the IBC read with Regulation 31(b), if the amounts were otherwise payable in accordance with the Code.

The application was dismissed as framed.