NCLT Ahmedabad Initiates Insolvency Proceedings Against Gensol Co-founder Puneet Singh Jaggi

This follows a petition by Equentia Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. over an alleged default of  ₹9.91 crore

The order was passed by a coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma. The tribunal found that there was a debt and a default, which was sufficient under Sections 95 and 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, to initiate insolvency proceedings.

“In view of the above, the Company Petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 is complete. The existence of financial debt and default stands established and there is no evidence of repayment or dispute under Section 99(3). The requirements under Sections 95 and 99 are met, warranting admission under Section 100(1) for Insolvency Resolution Process against the Personal Guarantor Puneet Singh Jaggi,” the tribunal held.

It appointed Ativ Hasmukhbhai Patel as the Resolution Professional (RP). A moratorium under Section 101 has also commenced. During the 180 day window, no legal action can be sustained against Jaggi's assets. 

Equentia had given a ₹15 crore invoice discounting facility to Gensol Engineering on August 22, 2023, backed by personal guarantees from Puneet Singh Jaggi and his brother, Anmol Singh Jaggi. The company defaulted in March 2025, and a cheque issued in April was dishonoured. Equentia adjusted ₹3 crore from cash collateral, leaving ₹9.91 crore unpaid. A loan recall and demand notice were issued before filing the insolvency petition under Section 95 of the IBC.

In response, Jaggi claimed the petition was premature and that a repayment plan had been communicated via WhatsApp. He also argued that since the account was marked as a Special Mention Account (SMA) and not a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), insolvency action was unwarranted.

He challenged the maintainability of parallel proceedings, pointing to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) already underway against Gensol Engineering Ltd., where Equentia's claim was admitted. He alleged the current proceedings were a pressure tactic following SEBI and court actions.

The tribunal rejected these arguments. It ruled that the guarantor's liability is independent and co-extensive, and parallel insolvency proceedings are allowed under law. It found the IRP's report satisfactory and noted that Jaggi failed to submit a net worth certificate or any credible repayment evidence.