New Delhi: Corporate dispute appellate tribunal NCLAT has rejected an appeal of Log 9 Mobility’s two suspended directors challenging an NCLT order that directed them to assist in the recovery of 100 electric vehicles taken on lease by their debt-ridden company from Gensol EV Lease Ltd as part of the latter’s insolvency resolution process.
On July 21, the Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) directed the two suspended directors of Log 9 Mobility to be present in the office of Gensol EV Lease and take all necessary steps for identification and recovery of 100 EVs from Log 9 Mobility’s Faridabad site.
Log 9 Mobility’s suspended directors moved NCLAT, contending that the tribunal’s order was not sustainable as they had no privity of contract with Gensol, and the NCLT was not empowered to issue such directions to executives who were part of a suspended management of another corporate debtor which is already under insolvency.
A three-member bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejected the plea, saying that the NCLT, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), has wide powers to issue such directions.
The appellate tribunal noted that the appellants, as part of Log 9’s suspended management, could not absolve themselves of the responsibility to assist in identifying and handing over the vehicles merely because the company had entered CIRP.
“Since the appellants were part of the suspended management of Log 9, to which the EVs had been leased out by Gensol, the Appellants cannot wash their hands off in providing assistance to the Respondent No.1-RP for identification and handing over of the vehicles simply because Log 9 had been admitted into the rigours of CIRP,” the NCLAT said.
The management of Log 9 Mobility was suspended after it entered into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on September 15, 2025.
Gensol EV Lease is also undergoing an insolvency process. The EV fleet leasing company’s resolution professional had moved an application before the NCLT seeking the return of leased vehicles after information provided by Log 9’s RP proved insufficient for their recovery.
The NCLAT, in its order, pointed out that the appellants’ stand was inconsistent with their own submissions dated July 4, 2026, before the NCLT, in which they had acknowledged providing detailed information on the vehicles, including inventory, recovery status and location details, to Log 9’s resolution professional.
“We find no merit in the appeal and do not find any cogent ground which warrants any sort of interference with the impugned order,” said NCLAT while dismissing the appeal.
