NCLT Ahmedabad Refuses Blanket Warranty Coverage For Gensol's Tata EV Fleet, Orders Vehicle-Wise Verification

The Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has refused to grant blanket warranty coverage for Gensol Engineering Limited's fleet of Tata electric vehicles (EVs), directing its Resolution Professional and Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited (TMPVL) to coordinate vehicle-wise verification and process eligible warranty claims under the existing terms.

A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed, “The Respondent's stated readiness to undertake vehicle-wise assessment can appropriately be acted upon without altering or enlarging the contractual warranty.”

The application was filed by Keshav Khaneja, Resolution Professional (RP) of Gensol Engineering, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules. He sought warranty documents, confirmation of existing coverage and cooperation in maintaining and servicing the fleet.

Gensol Engineering entered insolvency proceedings on June 13, 2025, following a plea by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency. The company operated around 4,000 Tata electric vehicles, according to its Resolution Professional.

TMPVL, however, placed a list on record showing that Gensol and the BluSmart Group had purchased 7,756 vehicles, subject to reconciliation with dealer records. BluSmart had signed an MoU with TMPVL in June 2022 to facilitate purchases through authorised dealers. The RP also relied on a draft agreement proposing a six-year or 3,00,000-km battery war

The RP could not locate a signed copy of the agreement, while TMPVL disputed that the longer battery warranty had been agreed upon. The relevant Owner's Manuals, relied upon by TMPVL, prescribe shorter warranty periods for the applicable vehicle variants.

The RP said that batteries in several vehicles were malfunctioning or had become defunct, rendering the vehicles unusable.

He argued that uncertainty over warranties was hurting the fleet's value, while battery replacements would add to Gensol's costs. TMPVL said it would honour claims for vehicles still under warranty and meeting the prescribed conditions.

The RP also flagged charging issues with older EVs and sought a report on a May 11, 2026 fire involving a Tata Tigor EV. TMPVL opposed blanket coverage, citing standard warranties of three years or 1,25,000 km. It offered a three-stage vehicle inspection process. The tribunal held that insolvency powers cannot expand contractual rig

The tribunal found that the proposed verification mechanism had substantially addressed the RP's grievance over the absence of a clear process.

The bench therefore found no justification for declaring the entire fleet covered by warranty irrespective of the contractual conditions. It also noted that the RP's statutory duty to preserve and protect Gensol's assets could not be overlooked.

The tribunal directed the RP and TMPVL to cooperate in reconciling and assessing the vehicles using the list placed on record and the verification process proposed by TMPVL. The assessment must determine whether each vehicle falls within the applicable warranty period and satisfies the conditions in its Owner's Manual.

For vehicles found eligible, TMPVL must process the corresponding warranty claims through its authorised service network. The order does not waive contractual exclusions or declare any individual vehicle eligible for warranty coverage in advance. Disputes concerning specific vehicles remain subject to the applicable contractual and legal remedies.

The tribunal did not determine the cause of the May 11 fire or the liability of any party, noting that the technical investigation depended on completion of the insurance-related process. It also declined to adjudicate the request for charging infrastructure, as no contractual or statutory obligation requiring TMPVL to provide such infrastructure or replace the charging technology had been established.

The application was disposed of without an order as to costs.

For Applicant: Advocate Rishi Singhal

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Saurabh Soparkar with Advocates Parth Shah, Khyati Chugh, Sudeep Biswas, Ansh Goyal, Narendra Singh