Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court-I, Ahmedabad

Order Date: 23 June 2026

Case Overview

This application was filed by Mr. Keshav Khaneja, the Resolution Professional (RP) of Gensol EV Lease Limited (Corporate Debtor), against Omega Seiki Mobility Private Limited (now known as Unoexpress Mobility Pvt. Ltd.) and its directors Mr. Sanjeev Verma and Mr. Uday Narang. The RP sought directions for the return of 150 electric vehicles leased to the respondent and payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 1,14,21,876/- along with late payment charges.

The Corporate Debtor, engaged in EV leasing, had entered into Master Lease Agreements dated 28.12.2023 and 30.07.2024 with Omega Seiki. The RP was appointed in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Gensol EV Lease Limited and informed the respondent of his appointment on 01.08.2025, demanding payment of outstanding lease rentals and fleet management service charges for May and June 2025. While the respondent acknowledged the dues and sought time, it failed to make payments despite repeated reminders and a legal notice dated 31.10.2025.

The respondent contested the application, claiming that the agreements were either not acted upon or had expired, and that the dispute was purely contractual and should be referred to arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the agreements. The respondent also raised issues regarding adjustment of a security deposit of Rs. 37,83,600/-, reciprocal claims of approximately Rs. 1 crore against the Corporate Debtor, and disputed the computation of lease rentals and other charges. During proceedings, the respondent disclosed that 30 vehicles were in possession of M/s Reinvent Agrochain Private Limited, which had become untraceable, and a police complaint had been lodged for their recovery.

The tribunal examined three main issues: (1) whether the RP is entitled to seek return of the leased vehicles; (2) whether the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,14,21,876/- can be adjudicated; and (3) whether the disputes regarding lease agreements and security deposit can be resolved in these proceedings.

Final Outcome

The NCLT partly allowed the application with the following directions:

  • Respondent No. 1 (Omega Seiki/Unoexpress) must hand over possession of all remaining leased EV vehicles in its possession, custody, or control, along with all associated documents, chargers, accessories, and keys to the RP within 15 days.
  • Respondent No. 1 must furnish a complete inventory of all unrecovered vehicles within 7 days, indicating vehicle numbers, chassis numbers, present location, physical condition, and status.
  • For vehicles with M/s Reinvent Agrochain or other third parties, Respondent No. 1 must continue legal and police efforts for recovery and immediately hand them over upon recovery.
  • Respondent No. 1 must provide periodic updates on unrecovered vehicles and is restrained from alienating, transferring, or creating third-party rights over the vehicles.
  • The prayer for recovery of Rs. 1,14,21,876/- was not adjudicated, and all rights regarding monetary claims, counterclaims, damages, adjustments, and security deposits are left open to be pursued in accordance with law.

The tribunal emphasized the RP's statutory duty under Sections 18 and 25 of the IBC to take control and custody of the Corporate Debtor's assets but declined to adjudicate the disputed monetary claims, noting they require detailed evidentiary examination and reconciliation of accounts.

Topics: Insolvency Resolution, Asset Recovery, Contractual Dispute