NCLT Ahmedabad Declines Gensol EV Lease RP's Plea To Repossess 70 EVs From Minder

The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 7 September declined the plea by the Resolution Professional of Gensol EV Lease Ltd. to immediately repossess 70 electric vehicles (EVs) leased to Minder EV Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and recover outstanding dues of Rs. 1.29 crore.

A Bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma held that the validity of the alleged termination of the lease agreements and the parties' competing contractual claims could not be conclusively determined under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). It observed:

“...whether the agreements stood validly terminated and whether Respondent No.1's contractual right of possession consequently came to an end cannot be conclusively determined without adjudicating the disputed contractual obligations, notices and cure period. In the facts of the present case, such adjudication would travel beyond the limited determination necessary for protection of the insolvency process and is accordingly left open for determination in accordance with the contractual terms and applicable law.”

Gensol EV Lease Ltd. was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 13 June 2025. Keshav Khaneja was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional and was later confirmed as Resolution Professional.

It had entered into Master Lease Agreements dated 24 August 2023 and 2 August 2024 with Minder EV Logistics, under which 70 EVs were leased for fleet operations. The agreements provided for monthly rentals, fleet management charges, maintenance obligations and return of the vehicles upon termination.

The Resolution Professional claimed that Minder EV Logistics made payments only until January 2025 and defaulted thereafter. Despite demands, the company allegedly neither cleared the dues nor returned the vehicles. The Resolution Professional quantified the outstanding amount at Rs. 1,29,57,183 up to February 2026 and sought return of the vehicles to discharge his duties under Sections 18(f) and 25(2)(a) of the IBC.

Minder EV Logistics denied wilful default and alleged that Gensol failed to provide maintenance support from March 2025. It claimed that several vehicles were defective, uninsured or non-operational, resulting in operational losses.

The company also claimed to have incurred maintenance expenditure and sought reconciliation and adjustment of those expenses against the Resolution Professional's claim. It contended that Gensol had not served a valid termination notice as required under Articles 2.1 and 10 of the agreements.

Further, Minder EV Logistics relied on the 48-month lock-in period and argued that repossession would cripple its business. It also pointed to the arbitration clauses in the agreements, submitting that the parties' contractual claims should be resolved through arbitration.

The Tribunal noted that Gensol retained ownership of the vehicles while Minder EV Logistics remained in possession. It also noted that the Rs. 1.29 crore claim was disputed, with competing assertions regarding maintenance expenditure, insurance liabilities and set-off.

It found that the communications relied upon by the Resolution Professional did not conclusively establish valid termination, as determining the issue required examination of the contractual notice and cure mechanism.

The Bench further held that although Section 60(5) covers matters connected with insolvency, it cannot be expanded into a general forum for adjudicating every contractual dispute. It observed:

“The existence of a contractual element does not, by itself, exclude such jurisdiction; however, the statutory jurisdiction cannot be enlarged into a general forum for adjudication of every contractual dispute between the parties.”

The Tribunal also noted that disputes over lease rentals, maintenance expenditure, insurance liabilities, penalties, damages and adjustment or set-off did not involve an admitted or crystallised liability and required determination of the parties' contractual obligations.

It directed Minder EV Logistics to furnish, within seven days, a vehicle-wise statement setting out the location, registration, condition and custody of each vehicle and to permit physical verification by the Resolution Professional upon prior notice.

The Bench also declined the prayers for immediate repossession of the vehicles and recovery of the outstanding dues, leaving the parties free to pursue their remedies in accordance with law. It absolved Respondents 2 and 3 were of personal liability, with the directions applying to them only if any of the vehicles were in their custody.

Accordingly, the NCLT disposed of the application without costs.

For the Applicants: Advocate Rishi Singhal