Facts
The Appellant challenged an interim order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the NCLT Ahmedabad in IA No. 1511(AHM) 2025.
Source reference: para. 2The Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor had filed the said application seeking the return of 150 EV vehicles and payment of outstanding lease dues amounting to ₹1,14,21,876/- based on a master lease agreement.
Source reference: para. 2The NCLT directed the Appellant to ensure the complete handover of vehicles by the next hearing date (17.03.2026) and clear outstanding rentals.
Source reference: para. 3The Appellant contended that the NCLT passed these directions without considering the merits of its reply.
Source reference: para. 4Issues
1. Whether the interim directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority for the handover of assets and clearance of dues warranted appellate interference while the main application was still pending.
Source reference: para. 6Law Applied
The court operated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Source reference: no citationThe court applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding interlocutory or interim orders.
Source reference: no citationIt emphasized that when an Adjudicating Authority schedules a matter for "further consideration," the aggrieved party maintains the right to raise all factual and legal pleas before that forum rather than seeking a merits-based adjudication from the Appellate Tribunal at an intermediate stage.
Source reference: para. 6-7Reasoning
The NCLAT observed that the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 was essentially "interim in nature".
Source reference: para. 6The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had already scheduled the matter for further consideration on 17.03.2026.
Source reference: para. 6Consequently, the NCLAT found that the Appellant’s grievance—that its reply and claims were not property adverted to—could be remedied by raising those specific submissions and pleas before the NCLT on the scheduled hearing date.
Source reference: para. 6The Tribunal declined to delve into the substantive merits of the lease dispute or the handover of vehicles, as the primary proceedings were still active.
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The NCLAT declined to interfere with the interim order or enter into the issues raised by the parties.
It held that it is open for the Appellant to raise all its pleas and submissions before the Adjudicating Authority on the next date of hearing, i.e., 17.03.2026.
Source reference: para. 6The Appeal was disposed of with these observations.
Source reference: para. 7Original Court PDF
Unoxpress Mobility Pvt. Ltd. v. Keshav Khaneja, Resolution Professional of Gensol EV Lease Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 471 of 2026
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in