Ireda files 2nd insolvency plea against Gensol Engineering for ₹219 cr default

Two days after state-owned renewable energy NBFC Ireda filed an insolvency plea against Gensol Engineering over ₹510 crore default, the company has filed another insolvency application against Gensol EV Lease Ltd, a Gensol Engineering subsidiary, for the default of ₹218.95 crore.

"The company has filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on May 15, 2025, against Gensol EV Lease Ltd, which is a subsidiary of Gensol Engineering Limited (Listed company) for an amount of default of Rs. 218.95 Crore," Ireda says in an exchange filing.

Ireda, on May 14, filed an application seeking insolvency proceedings against embattled Gensol Engineering over a default of ₹510 crore. Before that, the state-run PSU filed a complaint against Gensol, its promoters Anmol Singh Jaggi and Puneet Singh Jaggi, and associated companies for alleged falsification of documents and dilution of promoter holding without lender approval on April 24.

Business Standard

The latest development comes around a week after the promoters of Gensol Engineering, Anmol Singh Jaggi and Puneet Singh Jaggi, resigned from the company following an interim order issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) that barred both from holding key managerial positions at Gensol. In parallel, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has also initiated a separate probe into the affairs of Gensol and its affiliate, BluSmart Mobility, for alleged violations of the Companies Act.

The market regulator had barred the Jaggi brothers from accessing the securities market and from holding any directorship or key managerial role in the company until further notice. Gensol’s appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) failed to secure a stay on Sebi’s April 15 order. However, SAT directed the company to respond to Sebi’s show-cause notice within two weeks, with a confirmatory order expected in four weeks.

Sebi’s 29-page interim order outlined serious findings, including fund diversion and submission of forged documents. The promoters allegedly misused company funds for personal gain and treated the listed company as a private enterprise.