NCLT Ahmedabad Rejects Movemate's Insolvency Plea Against OYO Over Disputed Logistics Dues

On 29 September the Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr VG Venkata Chalapathy rejected an insolvency petition filed by Movemate Logistics Private Limited against OYO Hotels Private Limited over alleged unpaid dues for warehousing, logistics and allied services.

Movemate Logistics, registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and the MSME Act, 2006, provided warehousing, logistics, transportation and allied services to OYO under three agreements: the Vehicle Rental Agreement, the Warehouse Agreement and the Warehouse Operations & Logistics Agreement. It operated warehouses in Gurugram, Kolkata and Thane for providing these services.

It claimed that invoices raised from 1 April 2024 remained unpaid, resulting in alleged dues of Rs. 2.10 crore along with interest of Rs. 35.25 lakh at 18.75% per annum. OYO terminated the agreements on 9 September 2024 with effect from 30 September 2024.

The company also claimed that OYO's goods continued to remain in its warehouses, resulting in continuing storage charges. It issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on 15 April 2025. OYO replied on 30 April 2025, disputing its liability.

OYO submitted that it had found discrepancies in inventory records, CFT measurements and stock movement and that clarifications sought from Movemate remained unresolved. It further claimed that an inspection in August 2024 revealed that some goods were damaged and unusable. It valued the inventory at Rs. 8.18 crore.

It also submitted that Movemate did not permit it to inspect and verify the goods after termination of the agreements. It disputed invoices raised from October 2024 onwards, including pre-termination dues of Rs. 69.50 lakh and post-termination claims of Rs. 34.10 lakh. OYO denied liability in the absence of inspection and reconciliation.

Further, it initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Delhi High Court. On 29 May 2026, the High Court restrained Movemate from disposing of OYO's goods pending adjudication.

OYO argued that the claim was disputed, unverified and uncrystallised and involved contractual claims requiring reconciliation and adjudication. It also raised preliminary objections regarding compliance with IBC requirements, including the absence of a NeSL Record of Default certificate. OYO submitted that the disputes were subject to arbitration.

Movemate denied obstructing inspection or damaging OYO's goods. It submitted that it had facilitated inspections and that the photographs relied upon by OYO showed cleaning exercises. It further argued that OYO raised the disputes only after receiving the Section 8 demand notice. Movemate also pointed out that two of the three agreements did not contain arbitration clauses.

The Tribunal noted that the parties had terminated the agreements by mutual consent on 9 September 2024 and that the disputed invoices had been raised after termination. It also noted that OYO had invoked arbitration and that the Delhi High Court had granted interim protection concerning its goods.

It further noted that nearly two years had elapsed and OYO remained unaware of the precise location of its goods. It found that the invoices raised after termination lacked binding effect. The Bench also held that the disputes required adjudication through arbitration rather than insolvency proceedings.

Accordingly, the NCLT rejected the insolvency petition.

For Applicants: Advocates Karunesh Tandon, Abhishek Singh, Sarthak Mittal, Prabin Mohan,