The Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has refused to grant blanket warranty coverage for the fleet of Tata electric vehicles operated by insolvent Gensol Engineering Limited. Instead, the tribunal directed the company’s Resolution Professional (RP) and Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited (TMPVL) to carry out a vehicle-by-vehicle verification and process only those warranty claims that meet the existing contractual terms.

The order, delivered by a bench comprising Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma, comes in response to an application filed by RP Keshav Khaneja under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules. The RP had sought warranty documents, confirmation of coverage, and cooperation from TMPVL in maintaining and servicing the fleet, arguing that uncertainty over warranties was eroding the value of the corporate debtor’s assets.

Gensol Engineering was pushed into insolvency on June 13, 2025, following a petition by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency. At the time of the application, the company operated around 4,000 Tata electric vehicles, though a list placed on record by TMPVL indicated that Gensol and the BluSmart Group had collectively purchased 7,756 vehicles, subject to reconciliation with dealer records. BluSmart had entered into a memorandum of understanding with TMPVL in June 2022 to facilitate purchases through authorised dealers.

Fleet-Wide Warranty Denied

The core dispute centred on the scope of the battery warranty. The RP relied on a draft agreement that proposed a six-year or 3,00,000-kilometre battery warranty, but he could not locate a signed copy of that agreement. TMPVL disputed that the longer warranty had ever been agreed upon and pointed to the Owner’s Manuals for the applicable vehicle variants, which prescribed shorter warranty periods—typically three years or 1,25,000 kilometres.

The RP argued that several vehicles in the fleet had malfunctioning or defunct batteries, rendering them unusable. He contended that without a clear warranty framework, the fleet’s value would continue to decline and that battery replacements would add to Gensol’s costs. TMPVL, however, offered a three-stage vehicle inspection process and stated it would honour claims for vehicles still under warranty and meeting the prescribed conditions.

The tribunal observed that insolvency powers cannot be used to expand contractual rights. “The Respondent's stated readiness to undertake vehicle-wise assessment can appropriately be acted upon without altering or enlarging the contractual warranty,” the bench noted. It found that the proposed verification mechanism substantially addressed the RP’s grievance over the absence of a clear process and saw no justification for declaring the entire fleet covered by warranty irrespective of the contractual conditions.

Verification Mechanism and Next Steps

Under the tribunal’s directive, the RP and TMPVL must cooperate in reconciling and assessing the vehicles using the list already on record and the verification process proposed by TMPVL. The assessment will determine whether each individual vehicle falls within the applicable warranty period and satisfies the conditions set out in its Owner’s Manual. For vehicles found eligible, TMPVL must process the corresponding warranty claims through its authorised service network.

Crucially, the order does not waive any contractual exclusions or declare any specific vehicle eligible for warranty coverage in advance. Disputes concerning individual vehicles remain subject to the applicable contractual and legal remedies. The tribunal also emphasised that the RP’s statutory duty to preserve and protect Gensol’s assets could not be overlooked, but that duty did not extend to rewriting contractual terms.

Fire Incident and Charging Infrastructure Deferred

The RP also flagged charging issues with older EVs and sought a report on a fire involving a Tata Tigor EV that occurred on May 11, 2026. TMPVL opposed blanket coverage, reiterating the standard warranty terms. On the fire incident, the tribunal declined to determine its cause or the liability of any party, noting that the technical investigation depended on completion of the insurance-related process. Similarly, the tribunal refused to adjudicate the request for charging infrastructure, as no contractual or statutory obligation requiring TMPVL to provide such infrastructure or replace the charging technology had been established.

The application was disposed of without an order as to costs. The bench directed both parties to proceed with the vehicle-wise verification expeditiously, ensuring that the insolvency process is not unduly delayed by warranty disputes. For the RP, the immediate task is to coordinate with TMPVL’s authorised service network and present each vehicle for inspection. For the legal community, the ruling reinforces the principle that insolvency proceedings do not automatically override contractual terms—a point the tribunal made clear by refusing to expand warranty coverage through a blanket order.