Ola Electric faces 2026 NCLT pleas over ₹40 crore dues

What the NCLT petitions are about

Two key suppliers to Ola Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the operating arm of listed Ola Electric Mobility Ltd., have approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking insolvency proceedings over alleged unpaid operational dues of more than ₹40 crore, as per media reports and court filings. The petitions have been filed by Sterling E-Mobility Solutions Ltd. and Anevolve Mando eMobility Pvt. Ltd. Both vendors claim they supplied components to Ola Electric Technologies but did not receive payments within the period they consider contractually due. The matter is being pursued under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which allows operational creditors to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings when conditions are met. Ola Electric Technologies is contesting both petitions and has filed caveats before the tribunal.

Who the petitioning suppliers are

Sterling E-Mobility Solutions Ltd. is described as the electric-vehicle components arm of Sterling Tools Ltd. Anevolve Mando eMobility Pvt. Ltd. is part of the Anand Group. The filings and reports indicate that both companies supplied EV components to Ola Electric Technologies. In the Hindi report, Sterling E-Mobility is also described as a supplier of key EV parts such as traction motors, motor control units and DC converters. The claims in the petitions centre on non-payment for supplied goods, which the suppliers argue constitutes an operational debt under the IBC framework.

The alleged dues: supplier-wise breakup

As per filings with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs referenced in the reports, Ola Electric Technologies allegedly owes ₹29.8 crore to Sterling E-Mobility Solutions and ₹10.8 crore to Anevolve Mando eMobility. Put together, the reported unpaid amount exceeds ₹40 crore. Separately, an NCLT hearing note cited in the provided material refers to an Anevolve petition over an alleged operational debt of ₹9.84 crore arising from the supply of motors. The existence of different figures for Anevolve across reports indicates that readers should track the amounts stated in specific petitions and orders. Ola Electric has not issued an exchange filing on these supplier cases yet, according to the filings referenced.

Why the vendors invoked IBC Section 9

Both suppliers have filed petitions under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Section 9 is used by operational creditors to seek initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) in cases of alleged default. The reports say the dues remained unpaid for more than 45 days, which triggered the decision to move the tribunal. In the Anevolve matter, the tribunal record also notes that Anevolve issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC before filing the petition, which is a procedural step commonly cited in such cases.

Ola Electric’s defence: caveats and ‘pre-existing dispute’

Ola Electric Technologies is contesting both petitions and has filed caveats before the NCLT. In the Anevolve proceedings described in the NCLT hearing account, Ola Electric’s counsel opposed issuance of notice and argued that no case arose under Section 9 due to a “pre-existing dispute” between the parties. The broader dispute is reported to involve payment disagreements as well as Ola Electric’s concerns about the quality of some components supplied by the vendors. These are relevant because the IBC framework typically considers whether a dispute existed before the demand notice when deciding whether an insolvency petition should proceed. The company has not shared a public statement on the supplier disputes so far, according to the provided material.

What happened in the Anevolve hearing

According to the NCLT account included in the material, the Bengaluru Bench heard Anevolve Mando Emobility Pvt. Ltd.’s petition against Ola Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on Monday, 6 April. The bench included Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada. The tribunal observed that it would like a detailed hearing, after which Ola Electric stated it would accept notice. The NCLT granted four weeks to Ola Electric to file objections and a further four weeks to Anevolve to file a rejoinder. The matter was posted for further hearing on 12 June 2026, and the caveat was discharged. The case title and number cited were Anevolve Mando Emobility Pvt. Ltd. vs Ola Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd., CP(IB) No. 70/BB/2026.

How this compares with the earlier Rosmerta insolvency episode

The supplier petitions come against the backdrop of a separate insolvency plea involving vehicle registration service provider Rosmerta Group. Ola Electric Mobility informed stock exchanges earlier that Ola Electric Technologies had amicably settled all outstanding dues with Rosmerta, following which Rosmerta filed a memo to withdraw its petitions from the NCLT, Bengaluru. One report quoted Rosmerta as saying it received ₹26.75 crore, consisting of the entire claim raised before the NCLT, prompting the withdrawal. Ola Electric stated in its filing that there were no further claims or disputes pending in that matter and that it remained committed to fulfilling obligations and maintaining professional relationships with stakeholders. The Rosmerta petition had alleged default in payment for services rendered and sought CIRP initiation under Section 9.

Stock moves cited around NCLT-related disclosures

The provided material also references market reactions linked to the NCLT matters. Following the disclosure about Rosmerta Digital Services filing an insolvency plea against Ola Electric Technologies, Ola Electric Mobility shares fell over 7% in morning trade to an all-time low of INR 46.40 on the BSE and later closed 7.18% lower at INR 46.91. In a later update, shares climbed 5% in Tuesday’s trade after the company said Rosmerta Group filed the memo to withdraw petitions following settlement. Another datapoint cited is that the stock closed 2.82% lower at INR 54.15 on the BSE on March 25 in the context of the Rosmerta settlement coverage. These figures underline how insolvency-related filings, even at the subsidiary level, can move sentiment in the listed parent.

Key facts at a glance

Why these petitions matter for operations and investors

Ola Electric Technologies is described as the operating arm that accounts for nearly all of the listed company’s revenue, which makes supplier disputes more closely watched than routine litigation at peripheral entities. Insolvency petitions by operational creditors can also raise questions about payment cycles and vendor management, even when the company disputes the claim. At the same time, the existence of alleged quality-related disputes, as reported, suggests the matter may not be only about delayed payments and could involve contractual performance disagreements. For investors, the key near-term signals will likely come from tribunal proceedings, the company’s formal disclosures (if and when made), and whether the petitions proceed past preliminary stages.

Conclusion

Two component suppliers have moved the NCLT seeking insolvency proceedings against Ola Electric Technologies over alleged unpaid dues exceeding ₹40 crore, while Ola Electric contests the claims and points to disputes including component quality concerns. In the Anevolve case, the NCLT has already set a schedule for objections, rejoinder, and a further hearing on 12 June 2026, as per the hearing account cited. Separately, Ola Electric Technologies recently settled and closed an earlier NCLT matter with Rosmerta Group after dues were paid and the petitions were withdrawn. The next milestones on the supplier cases will be driven by NCLT hearings and any subsequent regulatory filings by the listed parent.