NCLT Ahmedabad Directs Moeving To Return 124 EVs Owned By Gensol EV Lease During Insolvency Process

The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 10 July held that vehicles owned by a Corporate Debtor cannot be retained by a third party merely because they were handed over under a contractual arrangement.  

A Bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma partly allowed the application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of Gensol EV Lease Limited and directed Moeving Urban Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to return 124 electric vehicles, along with registration certificates, insurance documents, permits, keys, chargers and accessories, within 15 days. It held:

“The 124 EV motor vehicles admittedly belong to the Corporate Debtor and merely remained in possession of the Respondent under the contractual arrangement. Such possession does not divest the ownership rights of the Corporate Debtor. Consequently, the Resolution Professional is under a statutory obligation to secure possession of the said vehicles for preservation of the assets during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.”

Gensol EV Lease Limited, incorporated in May 2023, was engaged in leasing EV fleets and allied infrastructure. It entered into a Master Lease Agreement and Fleet Management Service Agreement with Moeving Urban Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in September 2023. Under the arrangement, Gensol retained ownership of the vehicles, while Moeving was granted usage rights for logistics operations.

Moeving initially complied with its payment obligations until January 2024. However, defaults arose from January 2025. Despite notices dated 18 April 2025 and 10 September 2025, Moeving failed to clear the outstanding dues. In its reply dated 11 November 2025, Moeving did not dispute the existence of outstanding operational debt and furnished a payment schedule acknowledging the liability.

The RP approached the NCLT stating that Moeving had neither returned the EVs nor disclosed their location, custody or condition. It was contended that the vehicles formed part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and that Moeving's failure to hand them over obstructed the RP from performing his statutory duties under the IBC.

Moeving acknowledged the lease arrangement but disputed the monetary claims raised by Gensol. It alleged breaches by the Corporate Debtor and claimed that it had suffered financial losses. Moeving also argued that the vehicles were depreciating assets and sought renegotiation of the contractual terms with the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Alternatively, it expressed willingness to return the vehicles subject to five days' prior notice.

The Bench held that Moeving had failed to pay lease rentals despite receiving notices and had admitted liability in its correspondence. It therefore upheld the RP's decision to terminate the lease agreement. It rejected Moeving's plea for renegotiation, observing that the NCLT could not interfere with the CoC's commercial decision to reject revised terms.

On the issue of ownership, the Tribunal observed that the vehicles belonged to the Corporate Debtor and Moeving's possession was only contractual. It held that Sections 18(1)(f) and 25(2)(a) of the IBC, which require the RP to take control and custody of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, empowered the RP to secure possession of the vehicles from Moeving. The Members observed:

“The objection raised by the Respondent seeking renegotiation of the contractual terms cannot defeat the statutory duties cast upon the Resolution Professional under Sections 18 and 25 of the Code.”

However, the Bench declined to decide the monetary claims, observing that disputed contractual dues, penalties and reconciliation issues required separate proceedings.

Accordingly, the NCLT partly allowed the application and directed Moeving to hand over the 124 EVs along with registration certificates, insurance documents, permits, keys, chargers and accessories within 15 days. It directed the RP to provide five days' prior notice to Moeving regarding the repossession schedule.

For Appellants: Advocate Rishi Singhal

For Respondents: Advocate Vikas Tiwari