NCLT Bengaluru Grants Ola Electric Four Weeks to File Objections in Anevolve’s ₹9.84 Crore Section 9 Insolvency Plea

NCLT Bengaluru Grants Ola Electric Four Weeks to File Objections in Anevolve’s ₹9.84 Crore Section 9 Insolvency Plea

Introduction

The Bengaluru Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has granted Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd four weeks to file its objections in a Section 9 insolvency petition filed by Anevolve Mando Emobility Pvt Ltd over an alleged operational debt of ₹9.84 crore arising from the supply of motors. The Tribunal noted the respondent’s plea of a pre-existing dispute, but considered that the matter required a detailed hearing before any further decision.

Factual Background

The petition was filed by Anevolve Mando Emobility Pvt Ltd against Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, alleging an unpaid operational debt of ₹9.84 crore. The dispute arises out of the supply of motors by the operational creditor to Ola Electric. Prior to instituting the petition, Anevolve stated that it had duly issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC, which forms the statutory pre-condition for filing a Section 9 application.

Procedural Background

The matter came up on 6 April 2026 before a Bench comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada. Counsel for Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd, appearing on caveat, initially opposed even the issuance of notice on the ground that the dispute was already covered by a pre-existing dispute defence under Section 9 jurisprudence. However, after the Tribunal indicated that it wished to hear the matter in detail, Ola stated that it would accept notice, whereupon the caveat stood discharged.

Issues

1. Whether the alleged debt of ₹9.84 crore qualifies as an operational debt due and payable under Section 9 of the IBC.

2. Whether the respondent’s plea of pre-existing dispute bars admission of the insolvency petition.

3. Whether notice should issue and the matter proceed to detailed hearing on objections and rejoinder.

Contentions of Parties

The petitioner, Anevolve Mando Emobility Pvt Ltd, submitted that it had supplied motors to the respondent and that the unpaid dues amounting to ₹9.84 crore remained outstanding despite issuance of the statutory demand notice under Section 8. It therefore sought commencement of CIRP against Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd.

On the other hand, counsel for Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd, appearing through caveat, contended that no case under Section 9 arose because there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties, which, if established, would bar admission of the petition.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal did not immediately decide the maintainability of the petition at the threshold. Instead, after hearing both sides, the Bench observed that the issues raised—particularly the respondent’s defence of pre-existing dispute required a more detailed adjudication. The Bench expressly recorded: “We would like to have a detailed hearing.”

Recognising that the respondent had now agreed to accept notice, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to provide a structured timeline for pleadings so that the dispute could be examined on merits. This approach is consistent with the settled position under Section 9 that the Adjudicating Authority must closely scrutinise whether the dispute raised is genuine and pre-existing rather than a mere afterthought.

Decision

The NCLT Bengaluru granted four weeks to Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd to file its objections, and a further four weeks to Anevolve Mando Emobility Pvt Ltd to file its rejoinder. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 12 June 2026, and the caveat stood discharged.

In this case the appellant was represented by Advocates Varsha Iyer, TKA Padmanabhan and Pooja Iyer.