Industrial Anil Ambani. File | Photo Credit: PTI
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition of industrialist Anila D. Ambani, who challenged the decision of the state bank of India on the classification of Reliance Communications Ltd. (RCOM) as “fraud” and reported his name to the Indian Reserve Bank (RBI).
JUSTICES REVATI MOHITE DR. Neela Gokhale regulations SBI 13. June noted: “The attacked command is justified and as such can not find any weakness.”
“Given the above, there is no deserve in the above -mentioned petition. The petition is therefore rejected and destroyed,” the court noted.
The bench rejected Mr. Ambani’s petition on October 3; The order of the order was made available on October 7.
Darius Khambata’s leader, Mr. Ambani, claimed that the announcement of the cause issued on December 20, 2023 was invalid because he relied on the 2016 replaced instructions and that he was denied personal hearing.
Mr. Ambani claimed that he was rejected by personal hearing, violated the principles of natural justice, and stated that the announcement lacks a particular accusation or timeline, which makes it impossible to react effectively. Mr. Ambani stressed that he was an inefficient director and was not involved in the daily RCOM operations, and claimed that he should not be responsible for the alleged discrepancies of the company.
Senior Advocate, Aspi Chinoy for SBI, faced that Mr. Ambani had no right to personal hearing under the main guidelines of RBI or the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Agarwal. The bank argued that natural justice only requires the opportunity to perform the written representation, which was given by Mr. Ambani but did not use it. He claimed that the 2024 instructions from 2024 did not damage the cause of the cause and stated: “The release of the main instructions 2024 does not deprive SCN issued before the instructions, the SBI process continues to be replaced by SCN.
SBI also emphasized that promoters and directors who have control of the company are responsible if its account is declared fraud, “as soon as the company’s account is classified or declared a fraudster, promoters/directors who have been under control of the company are responsible for criminal measures and reporting as fraud.”
The bench that refused Mr. Ambani’s argument noted: “We do not tend to accept the arguments of Mr. Khambaty that the Bank’s conduct according to SCN of 20 December 2023 issued before the main instructions of 2024 are invalid.”
As regards personal hearing, the bench noted: “The supposed law is a representation, not necessarily personal hearing. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in the Straitjacket pattern; their application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The judges also stressed that promoters and directors who have control of the company are automatically responsible when the company’s account is declared fraudulent.
“Once the company’s account is classified or declared fraud, organizers/directors who had control of the company are subject to criminal measures and reporting as fraud,” the court said.
The petition was rejected without the cost of the cost: “Due to the above costs, there is no merit in the above -mentioned petition. Therefore, the petition is rejected and destroyed.”
Published – October 7, 2025 23:04
