Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors vs Mr. Keshav Khaneja Resolution ...

MRS. NEERAJA KARTIK Resolution Professional of Log 9 Mobility Private Limited Address: 202, Padmasani Apartments, 58/2, Shivaji Nagar, Near Shivaji Park, Nagpur, Maharashtra - 440010 Email: neerajakartikip@gmail.com; cirp.log9mobility@gmail.com Mobile: 9922508850 ...Respondent No. 2 Present: For Appellant : Mr. Jatin Kumar, Aashray Chaudhary, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Rishi Singhal, Adv. for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present appeal has been preferred under Section 61 of

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the

Appellants which arises out of the order dated 21.07.2026

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Court-I,

Ahmedabad) in I.A./510(AHM)2026 in CP (IB) No. 199 of 2025. By

the said Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed

the prayer contained in I.A No. 510 of 2026 and inter alia directed

the present Appellants to be present in the office of the Respondent

No. 1-Resolution Professional of Gensol EV Lease Ltd. and take all

necessary steps for identification and recovery of the EV vehicles

from Faridabad location. Aggrieved by the said impugned order,

the Appellants have preferred the present appeal.

2. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants, giving a factual over-view

of the matter at hand, submitted that the Appellants are

suspended directors of Log 9 Mobility Pvt. Ltd. ('Log 9' in short)

Page 2 of 9 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026 which was admitted into CIRP on 15.09.2025 following which a

Resolution Professional-Respondent No. 2 was appointed. It was

further submitted that Log 9 had entered into a Lease Agreement

as 'Lessee' with Gensol EV Lease Ltd. ('Gensol' in short) as the

'Lessor' for the lease of Electric Vehicles ('EV' in short). It was

further submitted that Gensol was also undergoing CIRP and the

Resolution Professional-Respondent No. 1 appointed to conduct

the CIRP had filed I.A No. 510 of 2026 under Section 60(5) of the

IBC in which the Appellants and the Respondent No. 2 had been

arrayed as parties wherein direction was sought for return of the

EVs including EVs in Faridabad jurisdiction to the Respondent No.

1.

3. It is the contention of the Appellants that they had also co-

operated in the past on a bonafide and voluntary basis giving

detailed vehicle wise information regarding EVs. However, the

directions contained in the impugned order for the Appellants to

be present before the Respondent No. 1 for identification and

recovery of vehicles was not sustainable in the eyes of law as it

amounts to be coercive relief against the Appellants who had no

privity of contract with Gensol. The impugned order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority against them in their individual capacity

Page 3 of 9 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026 had caused grave prejudice to them. It was also contended that the

Adjudicating Authority was not empowered to issue personal

directions to the Appellants being suspended directors of a

different Corporate Debtor.

4. Making submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-RP of

Gensol, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that repeated requests

were made by the Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 and the

present Appellants to provide information on the location of the

vehicles leased to Log 9 so as to facilitate its recovery. Since the

Respondent No. 2 and the Appellants had failed to facilitate access

to the requisite information and render effective assistance in the

identification and recovery of the EVs, this had obstructed the RP

in performing his functions of taking control and custody of the

assets of the Corporate Debtor, thus, undermining and frustrating

the objective of CIRP. It was asserted that the directions issued by

the Adjudicating Authority was well within the jurisdiction of the

Adjudicating Authority in terms of Section 60(5) of the IBC.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records

carefully.

Page 4 of 9 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026

6. When we look at the prayers contained in I.A No. 510 of 2026,

we find that the same is reproduced at para 5 of the impugned

order which is as extracted below:

"(1) To allow the present application;

(ii) To direct the Respondents to forthwith return the 100 EV vehicles to the Applicant, as detailed in Annexure A-

13 to the application;

(iii) To pass such other or further order(s) as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

7. When we look at the impugned order, we find that the

Adjudicating Authority having noticed that the information

furnished by the Respondent No. 2-RP of Log 9 having not proved

useful for recovery of the vehicles, it directed that the Authorized

Representative of the RP of Log 9 alongwith the present Appellants

would make themselves present in the office of Respondent No. 1-

RP of Gensol and take all necessary steps for identification and

recovery of the vehicles from the Faridabad location. The relevant

paras of the impugned order are as reproduced below:

"7. Since the information furnished by Respondent No. 1 has not proved useful for recovery of the vehicles, the RP of Respondent No. 1 is directed to nominate an authorised representative to assist in the recovery process. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall also accompany

Page 5 of 9 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026 the authorised representative to the Faridabad location for identification and handing over of the vehicles, if are found.

8. Accordingly, the authorised representative of Respondent No. 1, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and the authorised representative of the Applicant/RP shall meet on 31.07.2026 at 11:00 A.M. at the office of the Applicant/RP and take all necessary steps for identification and recovery of the vehicles from the Faridabad location in terms of this order."

8. There is no dispute over the fact that the RP-Respondent No.

1 was statutorily empowered under IBC to take custody and

control of the EV's which admittedly belonged to the Corporate

Debtor. 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. We are not persuaded by the

argument of the Appellants that the directions contained in the

impugned order to the Appellants was impermissible as they were

no longer part of the management of Log 9 and that the

Adjudicating Authority could not have issued directions to them in

their individual capacity as this stance is in contradiction to the

Appellants own pleadings dated 04.07.2026 before the

Page 6 of 9 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026 Adjudicating Authority wherein they had conceded and accepted

their responsibility to provide information concerning the EVs and

their recovery as placed at page 331 of the Appeal Paper Book

which is as reproduced below:

"7. In this regard, the Applicants respectfully submit that whenever Respondent No.2 or the members of her team sought any clarification, information, records or assistance pertaining to the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, the Applicants and their officers responded with promptitude and diligence. Detailed information concerning vehicles, inventory, recovery status, operational records, location details, contact particulars of various stakeholders and other information relevant to the CIRP, as far as available and accessible to the Applicants, was furnished from time to time by the Applicants and their team. The extensive correspondence exchanged between the Applicants' organisation and the office of Respondent No.2 would demonstrate beyond doubt that the Applicants have, throughout the CIRP, acted in a transparent manner and have consistently cooperated with Respondent No.2 in discharge of her statutory functions."

9. It would also be useful at this stage to glance at Section 60(5)

of the IBC which is as extracted below:

Section 60: Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons.

5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of--

Page 7 of 9 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026

a) any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person;

b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and

c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code.

10. Section 60(5) of the IBC vests a wide jurisdiction on the

Adjudicating Authority to decide any application by or against the

Corporate Debtor on any question of priorities or any question of

law or facts 'arising out of' or 'in relation to' the insolvency

resolution of the Corporate Debtor. The expressions "relating to"

and "arising out of" has to be interpreted to mean that it facilitates

resolution of the Corporate Debtor in a manner that speedy

resolution is not undermined nor the objective of preserving the

maximum value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor is frustrated.

The ambit and scope of the Adjudicating Authority in terms of

Section 60(5) of the IBC is wide enough for the Adjudicating

Authority to have issued the directions to the Appellants to

continue to cooperate in the identification and recovery of EVs with

the Respondent No. 1 in the discharge of his duties for taking

control and custody of assets over which the Corporate Debtor had

Page 8 of 9 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026 ownership rights which directions had clear nexus with the

insolvency resolution proceedings of the Corporate Debtor.

11. In view of the forgoing discussion, we find no merit in the

appeal and do not find any cogent ground which warrants any sort

of interference with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly

dismissed. No costs.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] The Officiating Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) New Delhi 06th August, 2026.

Sheetal

Page 9 of 9 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026