NCLT Ahmedabad Directs Return Of 5 EVs To Gensol EV Lease, Bars Arbitration During Moratorium

The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 15 June held that leased vehicles forming part of a corporate debtor's assets must be returned to the Resolution Professional during insolvency proceedings. Further, that rival monetary claims cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma partly allowed the applications filed by the Resolution Professional of Gensol EV Lease Ltd and directed EC Wheels India Private Limited to return the remaining five vehicles. The Tribunal left the Rs. 1.79 crore claim open for adjudication, holding:

“The record discloses existence of rival monetary claims and counterclaims arising out of the contractual relationship between the parties.

While this Adjudicating Authority possesses jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Code, the present dispute involves competing monetary claims and counterclaims requiring detailed reconciliation of accounts and evidentiary examination. Hence, though jurisdiction exists, this Tribunal is not inclined to adjudicate such disputed monetary claims in the present proceedings.”

Gensol EV Lease Ltd had entered into a Master Lease Agreement dated 6 August 2024 with EC Wheels India Pvt. Ltd. for leasing 83 electric vehicles, with ownership retained by the corporate debtor. After commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 13 June 2025, a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC came into effect and Keshav Khaneja was appointed Resolution Professional.

EC Wheels terminated the lease on 4 August 2025. The Resolution Professional then sought return of the vehicles and claimed Rs. 1.79 crore in dues under the agreement. It stated it was ready to hand over the vehicles since April 2025 but alleged delays due to coordination issues. It also claimed operational losses of Rs. 85,000 per day and raised a counterclaim after adjusting the security deposit.

The Tribunal noted that 78 out of 83 vehicles had already been returned and only five remained with EC Wheels. It held that the Resolution Professional was entitled to recover the assets under Sections 18 and 25 of the IBC. It further held that arbitration proceedings could not continue during the moratorium period.

It refused to decide the monetary claims, stating that detailed examination of accounts and evidence was required, which falls outside the scope of Section 60(5) proceedings.

Accordingly, the NCLT partly allowed the applications. It directed EC Wheels to return the remaining vehicles and complete formalities, while it left the monetary dispute open for appropriate proceedings.