The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a contempt petition filed against electric vehicle manufacturers BluSmart, Gensol and others, alleging wilful disobedience of a May 7 interim order restraining the transfer of 10 Tata Tigor EVs..The notice was issued by Justice Jyoti Singh, who had on May 7, passed an interim order in the Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by Shefasteq (OPC). The Court had appointed an advocate as court receiver to locate and preserve the 10 EVs. The order restrained the respondents from transferring or dealing with the vehicles and directed them to assist the receiver in identifying their location within two days..In its contempt plea, Shefasteq has alleged that the respondents failed to comply with the Court's directions and frustrated the receiver’s efforts. It submits that:The respondents did not provide the receiver with any vehicle details or access to premises where the vehicles were supposed to be housed.Go Auto, despite being the seller and having received full payment, refused to disclose registration or chassis numbers of the 10 vehicles.The receiver’s inspection reports show that BluSmart’s offices were vacated, Go Auto’s service centres were locked and no trace of the EVs could be found.Shefasteq claimed that the conduct of the respondents amounted to deliberate non-compliance, with the intent to obstruct the administration of justice. The plea also notes that repeated requests for vehicle information, including through legal notices and email, went unanswered..It thus sought initiation of contempt proceedings and urged the Court to direct the respondents to disclose the location of the EVs or, in the alternative, deposit the amount of ₹1.24 crore - representing the full value of the vehicles..On May 23, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Delhi directed Gensol Engineering and Gensol EV Lease to maintain status quo on secured assets and vehicles. This, after recovery proceedings were initiated by Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA) and Power Finance Corporation (PFC) for a combined amount of approximately ₹992 crore..The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad on May 16 issued notice in IREDA's insolvency plea against Gensol Engineering over a loan default exceeding ₹510 crore..Gensol's troubles began with an April 15 interim order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) alleging that Gensol diverted hundreds of crores of rupees through related parties, used public and borrowed funds for unrelated luxury purchases - including a high-end apartment - and submitted forged “No Objection Certificates” and conduct letters to credit rating agencies. The markets regulator also found that the company misled investors with inflated EV procurement claims, while actual plant activity was negligible.Based on these findings, SEBI barred the company and its promoters - Anmol Singh Jaggi and Puneet Singh Jaggi - from accessing the securities market and restrained them from holding directorship or key managerial positions.On May 7, Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) refused to stay SEBI's interim order. SAT directed Gensol to file its reply to the interim order passed by SEBI and further directed the markets regulator to pass a final order within four weeks of hearing Gensol.Meanwhile, a bunch of lessors have been moving the Delhi High Court time and again seeking to protect their interests in the EVs they had leased to Gensol's subsidiary BluSmart..Shefasteq was represented by Advocates Saurabh Seth, Surendra Dube, Sonia Dube, Neelampreet, Abhiroop Rathore, Kanchan Yadav and Tanishq Sharma.