The Supreme Court of Bombay has ratified a decision by the State Bank of India (SBI) to classify the accounts of the Industrial Anil Ambani and his company, Reliance Communications (RCC), as “fraudulent”, noticing that there were no legal shortcomings in it.
A division bench from judges Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale rejected a petition submitted on 3 October by Ambani, in which the SBI Bevel was challenged.
In the judgment made publicly on Tuesday, the court ruled that the SBI’s command of 13 June 2025 was “a reasoned order” without “defects”.
The court considered Ambani’s plea “no merit” and stated that there was no “defects” in the bank’s action.
The main statement of the industrialist was that the SBI Bevel was void because he was denied a personal hearing and he did not have access to the relevant documents.
The court said that Ambani had never requested a personal hearing at all, confirming compliance by the SBI of the legal requirements.
The court explicitly supported the procedure followed by the SBI and noted that the Master Directions of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) only offer the right to make a statement, and not the right to a personal hearing before such a classification is made.
In the order, the court states that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a wandering tube formula and that Ambani has been given sufficient opportunity to submit its objections in the present case.
“That is why the requirement of honesty and compliance with the principle of natural justice was met,” the court said.
Ambani had submitted his reaction to the SBI warning last year, and only when there was no response to the latest communication did the bank order to classify the bill as fraud, according to the court.
“That is why the requirement of honesty and compliance with the principle of natural justice was met,” the court said.
Ambani had challenged the June of the SBI decision in which the account of Reliance Communications and its own account as fraud were classified in terms of the ‘Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management in Commercial Banks (including Regional Rural Banks) and All India Financial Institutions.’
The Supreme Court noted that the bank had sent a Show-Cause Message to Ambani last year. But he did not respond to the notification and continued to look for documents, which led to SBI eventually issued the order.
Ambani also claimed in his plea that he was not the company’s director all the time, and that his account should therefore not have been regarded as fraud.
But the Supreme Court said that as soon as the account of a company is considered fraudulent, the initiators/directors who were in control of the company are also liable for criminal measures. It was clear that Anil Ambani carried out control over reliance communications, the HC said.
SBI claimed for the Supreme Court that, according to the Master Directions Circular of the RBI, did not have to be kept a personal hearing.
After reading the circular and earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, the court said that the principles of natural justice require borrowers to be notified, provided with all documents, and must be given permission to submit their representation.
“The considered right is one of representation, and not necessarily of personal hearing,” said HC.
SBI had accused Reliance Communications of embezzlement of banking fees by entering into transactions that were contrary to the conditions of its loans.
Earlier this year, the bank also filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which searched buildings that were related to Reliance Communications and the home of Ambani.
The central body has filed a complaint after the SBI claimed a loss of ₹ 2,929.05 Crore as a result of alleged embezzlement by Reliance Communications and Anil Ambani.
Published on October 8, 2025
#SBIBevel #Anil #Ambani #Reliance #Communications #Accounts #classifies #fraud #weakness