logo
BluSmart follows Gensol group firms into insolvency after ₹1.28 cr default

BluSmart follows Gensol group firms into insolvency after ₹1.28 cr default

Minta day ago
The wheels have come off the fraud-hit BluSmart Mobility, once hailed as a pioneer in India's electric ride-hailing startup, as the company has been formally admitted into insolvency by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Ahmedabad.
The move follows payment defaults totalling over ₹ 1.28 crore and adds BluSmart to a growing list of Gensol-linked entities now undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, including its parent Gensol Engineering Ltd and sister concern Gensol EV Leasing Pvt Ltd.
In an order dated 28 July, a two-member bench comprising Justice Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Sanjeev Sharma (Technical Member) admitted BluSmart into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
'In light of the above findings, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Financial Creditor is entitled to the relief as sought. The Corporate Debtor's default justifies the admission of the petition and the initiation of CIRP under the Code,' the tribunal said in its order, reviewed by Mint.
The dispute with the financial creditor began after BluSmart Mobility raised ₹ 15 crore through 15 non-convertible debentures (NCDs) on 20 April 2023, with Catalyst Trusteeship as the debenture trustee.
Under the agreement, BluSmart was to start repaying the principal by 30 April 2023, but unilaterally deferred it to 31 May, which Catalyst viewed as a breach. In early 2025, BluSmart defaulted on payments due in February, March, and April—totalling ₹ 1.28 crore, prompting Catalyst Trusteeship to seek insolvency proceedings against the company.
Supporting documents included default notices, bank records, and an email from co-founder Anmol Singh Jaggi admitting liability that led to the admission of insolvency plea.
BluSmart opposed the insolvency plea, arguing that the defaults were temporary, the petition was premature and motivated and that procedural issues such as missing IRP details and vague timelines weakened the creditor's case.
The company also pointed to the 15 April Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) order against Gensol Engineering and its promoters as background pressure behind the filing.
However, the tribunal rejected all objections, holding that the defaults were material and proven, the promoter had admitted liability, and procedural gaps had been corrected.
It also stated that the Sebi order had no bearing on BluSmart's contractual obligations to repay its lenders.
The tribunal appointed NPV Insolvency Professionals Pvt Ltd as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), which will now take control of BluSmart's management, issue public notices and invite claims from creditors.
A moratorium has also been imposed, halting all ongoing or new legal actions, asset transfers and recovery proceedings against the company.
Under IBC timelines, the IRP must invite claims within three days and constitute a Committee of Creditors (CoC) within 30 days.
The entire resolution process must be completed in 180 days, extendable by another 90 days. If no viable resolution plan is approved within that time, BluSmart may face liquidation.
With BluSmart joining Gensol Engineering and Gensol EV Leasing in insolvency, legal experts believe the case may become a landmark test for group insolvency in India—a concept not yet formally codified in law.
Courts have, however, allowed consolidated proceedings in rare cases like Videocon, where 13 related companies were treated as a single economic entity.
'This could set the stage for group insolvency. If operational and financial links between these firms are clearly established, it may prompt courts to adopt a similar approach,' said Raheel Patel, partner at Gandhi Law Associates.
'The real challenge ahead is determining whether their assets and debts should be resolved jointly or separately, and whether overlapping creditors and related-party transactions will be prioritized for scrutiny,' Sonam Chandwani, managing partner at KS Legal & Associates, said.
When BluSmart defaulted and suspended operations, those same vehicles used as collateral for Gensol loans became value at risk. Power Finance Corporation Ltd and the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd (Ireda) were thus exposed to defaults arising from both entities, effectively making them overlapping creditors, she added.
Parth Contractor, founder, Chambers of Parth Contractor, said, "When one entity has a financial crunch, its ripple effects are noticed in sister concerns or associated entities. But the decision to admit a company into insolvency, does not depend on the position of the sister concerns or the group company, but solely on the transaction/issue between the specific debtor and the specific creditor, which in this case was BluSmart and Catalyst Trusteeship".
BluSmart's insolvency is the latest and perhaps the most visible blow to the Gensol Group, which has been under intense regulatory scrutiny.
In June, Ireda revealed that Gensol Engineering had defaulted on loans worth ₹ 510 crore.
On 15 April, the Sebi issued an interim order accusing Anmol and Puneet Jaggi of diverting investor funds meant for electric vehicle purchases towards personal luxuries, including a $5 million apartment and high-end golf equipment.
Sebi also found that Gensol had procured only 4,704 electric vehicles despite claiming funding for 6,400.
Both promoters resigned from Gensol's board on 6 May. The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), on 7 May, declined to stay Sebi's order and asked the company to respond, with the market regulator expected to issue a final decision thereafter.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sebi confirms ban on Gensol, Jaggi brothers in fund diversion case
Sebi confirms ban on Gensol, Jaggi brothers in fund diversion case

Business Standard

time3 hours ago

  • Business Standard

Sebi confirms ban on Gensol, Jaggi brothers in fund diversion case

Markets regulator Sebi on Wednesday upheld its interim order restraining Gensol Engineering and its former top executives Anmol Singh Jaggi and Puneet Singh Jaggi from the securities markets on concerns over fund diversion and corporate governance failures. Additionally, the regulator said Jaggi brothers, also co-founders of EV ride-hailing firm BluSmart Mobikity, would continue to be debarred from holding the position of a director or key managerial personnel in Gensol. The final order comes as the company undergoes insolvency proceedings under the supervision of a court-appointed professional. The brothers have been accused by Sebi of siphoning off loan funds from their publicly-listed company Gensol for personal use, raising concerns over corporate governance and financial misconduct. In a detailed confirmatory order, Sebi stated that the prima facie findings of misappropriation of funds and falsification of conduct letters to CRAs -- initially highlighted in its April 2025 interim order-- remain unrebutted by the company's promoters. "... prima facie findings regarding diversion / mis-utilisation of funds of Gensol have not been successfully rebutted by Noticees. I also note that a detailed investigation into this matter is being carried out. Further, a forensic auditor has already been appointed to examine the books of accounts of Gensol and its related parties. "The concrete findings of the investigation and the forensic auditor are yet to emerge. As has been submitted by Noticees themselves, the findings of the forensic audit will serve to corroborate the factual position and provide greater clarity on the matters under scrutiny," Sebi Whole Time Member Kamlesh C Varshney said in his order. Given these developments, Sebi said it finds no reason to lift or modify the restrictions imposed earlier and accordingly confirmed the directions of its interim order. However, the regulator clarified that the directions concerning Gensol will remain subject to any further orders from the competent tribunal or court overseeing the insolvency process.

Kerala HC junks plea to quash vigilance case related to Kudumbashree Mission fund misappropriation
Kerala HC junks plea to quash vigilance case related to Kudumbashree Mission fund misappropriation

Time of India

time3 hours ago

  • Time of India

Kerala HC junks plea to quash vigilance case related to Kudumbashree Mission fund misappropriation

Kochi: High court has dismissed the petition seeking to quash the vigilance case related to the alleged misappropriation of Rs 2.16 crore allocated by the State Kudumbashree Mission to the High Range Rural Development Society (HRDS), which had been appointed as the project implementing agency (PIA) for projects aimed at supporting underprivileged youth. Justice A Badharudeen dismissed the plea filed by G Sreeraj of Kottarakkara, who was serving as the state programme manager (finance) of Kudumbashree Mission and is the third accused in the case. The prosecution alleged that all three accused — HRDS secretary Aji Krishnan, HRDS employee Praise Pious and Sreeraj — entered into a criminal conspiracy and abused their official positions, thereby misappropriating Rs 2.16 crore out of the Rs 5.63 crore granted by the State Kudumbashree Mission to HRDS for implementing skill development courses and providing placement assistance to economically disadvantaged youth. As programme manager (finance), Sreeraj was responsible for scrutinising financial statements and audit reports submitted by the PIA in connection with the projects. However, he allegedly failed to report the diversion of funds, despite being aware of it, thereby facilitating the misappropriation. In his defence, Sreeraj argued that he was the last in the hierarchy involved in processing fund release requests and that such applications from the PIA were routed through five other senior officers, including director (finance) and chief operating officer, before reaching him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Undo Rejecting this defence, HC observed that the FIR contains specific allegations against all three accused and held that an effective investigation is necessary. The court ruled that the petition to quash the FIR cannot be entertained at this stage and directed that the investigation proceed.

HC upholds husband's conviction in 34-year-old dowry death case
HC upholds husband's conviction in 34-year-old dowry death case

Hindustan Times

time4 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

HC upholds husband's conviction in 34-year-old dowry death case

Rejecting the defence that a woman could have sustained burns while sprinkling seasoning for vegetables during the cooking process, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has upheld the conviction of her husband in a 34-year-old dowry death case dating back to June 1991. The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court passes judgment on July 25. (FILE PHOTO) Noting that the signs of the woman saving herself had not been found, Justice Rajnish Kumar passed the judgment on July 25. The high court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant Jai Shankar Shukla (the husband) of Unnao district against the verdict of the trial court, which had convicted him under Section 304-B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The court observed, 'Thus, considering the material also, which includes the recovery memo, in which no sign or material of sprinkling of seasoning (chhaunk lagana) for vegetables has been found, because the wok (karahi) and vegetables were found kept separately near the clay stove (chulha) and burn thatch. It is also noticed that signs of saving herself by the deceased has also not been found because if she would have caught fire during sprinkling seasoning for vegetables, then she would have cried and tried to save her and the family members present at home or the neighbours could have reached to save her.' According to the prosecution, the appellant got married about a year prior to the date of the incident and dowry was given in the marriage. The woman's husband and mother-in-law had been demanding ₹5,000 two months prior to the incident, the prosecution added. During a visit to his daughter's house, the complainant told the husband and the mother-in-law that he was not in a position to give ₹5,000 upon which he was threatened and not allowed even to meet his daughter. On June 11, 1991, the father was informed that his daughter had been burnt. In the FIR, the woman's father-in-law stated that his daughter-in-law had died due to burns sustained from a fire in the thatch when she was preparing food clad in a nylon saree. As per the post-mortem report, the death was caused by asphyxia and shock resulting from ante-mortem injuries. In light of the fact that the presumption of dowry death had rightly been drawn and the same could not be rebutted by the appellant by any cogent evidence, the high court dismissed the appeal.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store