&w=3840&q=100)
Delhi HC orders seizure of another 129 EVs tied to Gensol and BluSmart loan
The Delhi High Court on Thursday ordered the seizure and relocation of 129 electric vehicles (EVs) hypothecated by Gensol Engineering and ride-hailing startup BluSmart to lender STCI Finance.
Hypothecation refers to using an asset, like a car or stock, as collateral for a loan without transferring ownership or possession to the lender.
STCI alleged Gensol and BluSmart had defaulted on a ₹15 crore loan and were seeking to unlawfully dispose of the vehicles. The application, filed by STCI, under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, sought exemption from instituting preinstitution mediation.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in her order dated May 8, barred Gensol and BluSmart from creating any third-party rights over the vehicles. Citing an urgent risk of asset dissipation, the court-appointed receivers took custody of the vehicles and authorised them to arrange for their maintenance and charging.
'Further the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff (STCI) considering that the plaintiff may suffer loss if the possession of the vehicles is not secured and the defendant no.1(Gensol) goes on to dispose of the said vehicles in favour of third parties,' the order said.
Gensol had obtained a ₹15 crore equipment term loan from STCI under a loan facility agreement on October 19, 2023 to acquire the 129 vehicles.
The loan was secured through a hypothecation deed and personal guarantees from promoter brothers Puneet and Anmol Singh Jaggi.
This is the fifth such petition in under two weeks seeking to restrain Gensol and BluSmart from creating third-party rights over its EVs. As of now, the court has restricted them from creating third-party rights over 619 EVs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC tells GHMC to decide regularisation plea before demolition of Begumpet building
Hyderabad: Justice T Vinod Kumar of the Telangana high court has directed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation ( ) to consider an application filed by a woman and her son seeking regularisation of their Begumpet property—constructed in violation of approved building norms—before initiating any demolition. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The dispute pertains to property bearing Nos. 6-3-1177/A/120 and 6-3-1177/A/104 in BS Maktha, Begumpet, where the petitioners, Cheguri Lakshmi and her son Cheguri Eswar Sai Kishore, constructed a building. The GHMC had granted permission in 2022 for a stilt and two upper floors. However, the petitioners allegedly constructed a ground+4 upper floors along with an additional fifth floor, citing structural stability and Vastu considerations. The matter surfaced after a local resident, P Narender, filed a writ petition alleging illegal construction. In response, the high court, in an order (dated April 18, 2024), directed the GHMC to act against the unauthorised structure. Lakshmi later filed a separate writ petition, arguing that she was not made a party in the earlier case and that she had submitted a regularisation application under section 455A of the GHMC Act, 1955, on June 1, 2024. The GHMC countered that the structure violated the sanctioned plan, setback norms, and other building regulations, and therefore was ineligible for regularisation. While dismissing Lakshmi's plea to set aside the earlier court order, Justice Vinod Kumar held that the petitioners had no legal basis to challenge a previous judicial direction through a fresh writ without first seeking review. He ruled that the earlier high court order remains valid. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now However, the judge directed GHMC to process the petitioner's section 455A application in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the high court's judgment in A Praveen Kumar vs State of Telangana (2023), which held that only constructions adhering to building rules are eligible for regularisation. The court declined to stay demolition but made it clear that no coercive action should be taken until the GHMC decides the pending application. Justice Vinod Kumar also observed that the petitioners had clubbed two plots totalling 400 square yards and constructed well beyond permissible limits, in clear violation of the Telangana Building Rules. The GHMC had earlier issued a speaking order on Oct 3, 2023, declaring the construction illegal—an order the petitioners failed to challenge. The judge concluded by stating that equity does not favour those who openly flout the law.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Time of India
Karnataka high court calls for review of law for clearer classification of vehicles
Bengaluru: The high court has called for a review of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988, to address ambiguities in vehicle classifications. Justice M Nagaprasanna, while dismissing a petition filed by the Karavali Bus Owners Association, suggested that the union surface transport ministry revisit and clarify existing definitions in the backdrop of modern vehicular categories and toll collection complexities. The petitioners, who operate stage carriages in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts, had challenged toll charges levied at the Hejamadi and Sastana toll plazas. They argued that their vehicles, which have gross weights between 7,500kg and 12,000kg, should be categorised as minibuses and not as full-sized buses. As per the concession agreement, minibuses attract tolls at 50% of the rate applicable to buses. The petitioners also raised concerns over the deduction of additional amounts from their FASTag accounts by Udupi Sasthana Tollway Pvt Ltd through a "chargeback process." Their previous representation to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the alleged excess toll collection was rejected. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that vehicles below 7,500kg are categorised as light motor vehicles and those above 12,000 kg as heavy passenger vehicles. However, the classification of vehicles weighing between 7,501kg and 12,000kg—often referred to as medium passenger vehicles—remains unclear, particularly when they are described as "buses" for toll purposes. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 5 Wealth Management Firms in The United States SmartAsset Learn More Undo The court clarified that tolls are governed by the National Highways Fee Rules and the terms of concession agreements, not by the MV Act alone. Concluding that the deductions were lawful and aligned with the registration certificates and relevant rules, the court dismissed the petition but emphasised the need for legislative clarity on vehicle categorisation. ——————— Blurb Justice Nagaprasanna said the classification of vehicles weighing between 7,501kg and 12,000kg, often referred to as medium passenger vehicles, remains unclear, particularly when they are described as buses for toll purposes
The Hindu
21 hours ago
- The Hindu
Make appropriate changes in MV Act to avoid mismatch of vehicles during toll collection: Karnataka HC advises MoRTH
The High Court of Karnataka has advised the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to review the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and make appropriate changes to address the issue of mismatch of vehicle type that crops up during collection of toll due to variance in vehicular classifications, particularly buses, under the MV Act, and the rules framed under the National Highways Act, 1956. Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by Karavali Bus Owners' Association, Udupi, and several individual owners of private buses. The petitioners had questioned deduction of extra toll amount later in addition to the amount deducted from FASTag account instantly when their buses pass through two plazas between Mangaluru and Kundapur due to mismatch in vehicle type. The Court noted that the variance in classification of vehicles in the MV Act and the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 framed under the NH Act is the cause for this litigation and hence the MV Act requires statutory refinement. Background of case The petitioners had registered information of their vehicles in FASTag system as 'minibus' even though the registration certificate of the vehicles issued by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) classified their vehicles as 'bus' with seating capacity of 38. The argument of the petitioner was that the provision of the MV Act states that vehicles with unladen weight of less than 12,000 kgs are classified as Light Motor Commercial Vehicles (LMCVs), which include 'minibus'. However, toll collecting authorities were collecting extra amount, which applicable for 'bus/truck' later as FASTag was deducting lower toll applicable to LMCVs at toll plazas. The toll collecting had relied on the RTO data of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners as the norms framed under the fee collection rules of 2008 describes a light motor commercial passenger vehicle with seating capacity up to 32 as a 'minibus' and as 'bus/truck' if the seating capacity is more than 32 and/or unladen weight of the vehicle is above 12,000 kg. The court pointed out that MV Act describes a vehicle with unladen weight up to 7,500 kg as a light motor vehicle and beyond 12,000 kg as a heavy passenger motor vehicle but there is 'vacuum' in the Act with respect to classification of vehicles between 7,500 kg and 12,000 kg. Registering as minibus The bus owners were registering their vehicle under the category of 'minibus' in FASTag by taking advantage of the MV Act as many of their buses were under 12,000 kg even though the seating capacity exceeded 32, the court noted while pointing out that base rate of toll for LMVCs/minibus is ₹1.05 per km and for bus/truck is ₹2.2 per km. Though the MV Act defines a medium passenger vehicle, the weight of such vehicles is left undefined, and the definition of a 'bus' is nowhere found in the MV Act, the court said. Also, the court noted a clarification given by the RTO to the petitioner-association that irrespective of the unladen weight of the vehicles, all stage carriage vehicles are mentioned as 'bus' in the registration certificates. Since the toll collection is governed by the NH Act and the fee collection rules, and not under the MV Act, the court upheld the action of the authorities in recovering differential toll amount from the FASTag accounts.
