Is there injustice with Anil Ambani by SBI and Canara banks? FRAUD classification withdrawn without any condition, legal counsel says…
The recent actions of State Bank of India (SBI) and Canara Bank against industrialist Anil Ambani and his company Reliance Communications (RCOM) have raised serious questions about the decision-making practices of these banks. The conditional withdrawal of such actions points weather there is lack of transparency and credibility in their processes.
The Legal counsel representing Anil Ambani has said that State Bank of India's action against RCom chairman and managing director Anil Ambani does not follow principles of natural justice as laid down by the Supreme Court.
'SBI's ex-parte action against Ambani is in violation of the principles laid down by the top court, according to the counsel. SBI must reconsider its actions in this matter, as it has already withdrawn show-cause notices issued against five other non-executive directors', stated the counsel, highlighting that no personal hearing is allowed to the Anil Ambani. SBI And Canara Bank's Approach Towards Anil Ambani
SBI India's largest public sector bank has withdrawn the show-cause notices issued against five non-executive directors of RCOM. Earlier, on July 10, 2025, Canara Bank, one of RCOM's consortium lenders, had also unconditionally withdrawn its decision to classify Reliance Communications' accounts and Anil Ambani as fraud before the Bombay High Court.
These back-and-forth moves have raised allegations of arbitrary and discriminatory functioning within the banking system. They directly question the fairness and impartiality of the banks' decision-making processes.
One of the major allegations is that SBI never gave Anil Ambani a chance to present his side of the case before linking him with these classifications. According to a media report, this can be seen as a clear violation of the Supreme Court's 'Principles of Natural Justice.'
The recent actions of SBI linked to RCom and Ambani, have raised serious concerns about the transparency, fairness, and impartiality of the bank's decision-making process, according to RCom's counsel.
'SBI's order was passed ex-parte, without giving Mr. Anil D. Ambani a chance to present his case. This denial of a fair hearing clearly shows that the Principles of Natural Justice as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court were not followed. Such one-sided decisions not only weaken confidence in the bank's credibility but also set a troubling precedent for how financial institutions treat stakeholders, especially when the reputational and financial impact is severe,' said the counsel. What Is Judicial And Regulatory Framework?
The denial of a personal hearing to Anil Ambani goes against fundamental principles of fairness. More importantly, it shows that both SBI and Canara Bank bypassed established judicial and regulatory frameworks.
Several landmark cases have already established precedence in such matters, including: SBI vs. Rajesh Agarwal (2023)
T. Takano vs. SEBI (2022)
Ankit Bhuwalka vs. IDBI Bank (2025)
Milind Patel vs. Union Bank of India (2024)
In all these cases, courts had stated that an account cannot be classified as fraud unless full documentation (complete disclosure) supports the claim, and the affected individual is given an opportunity to be heard. According to a media report, in Anil Ambani's case, these precedents were ignored. What Are Current Actions By SBI And Canara Bank?
The Reserve Bank of India's guidelines mandate that banks must strictly adhere to principles of fairness and due process. By bypassing these binding rules, SBI appears to have acted in violation of the rule of law.
Canara Bank, which earlier declared RCOM's accounts and Anil Ambani as 'fraud,' withdrew its classification unconditionally in the Bombay High Court on July 10, 2025. This reversal raised questions about the bank's decision.
SBI also withdrew notices issued against five non-executive directors of RCOM, who had no role in the company's day-to-day operations. The 5 Non-Executive Directors Named in SBI's Notice Mr. Arun Kumar Purwar – Former Chairman, State Bank of India Mr. Raj Narain Murari L. Bhardwaj – Former Chairman & Managing Director, LIC Mrs. Manjari Ashok Kacker – Former Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes Mr. Deepak Haridev Shourie – Former Director, BBC Worldwide Media Prof. Jayaraman Ramachandran – Former Professor, Corporate Strategy, IIM Bangalore
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Debt collection agencies driving UPI transactions with 12.8% value share
MUMBAI: Debt collection agencies are driving the massive jump in UPI transactions, a new study has found. According to the research, daily UPI transactions have increased from Rs 75,743 crore in January 2025 to Rs 80,919 crore in July and further to Rs 90,446 crore so far in August. Significantly, 12.8% of this is being controlled by debt agencies even as their volume contribution is a low 1.3%. The second slot is with groceries. The debt collection agencies' transaction value has increased to Rs 93,857 crore in July 2025 from Rs 80,789 crore in April 2025, while their average ticket size has declined to Rs 5817 from Rs 5952, it was found. The top 15-merchant categories account for 70% in terms of volume and 47% in terms of value in July 2025. Groceries account for 24.3% of the transactions and 8.8% in value, it added. According to the NPCI data tabulated by SBI Research, the largest lender SBI is the top remitter member with 5.2 billion transactions, almost 3.4x larger than the second biggest remitter that was HDFC Bank while Yes Bank was the top beneficiary member with 8 billion transactions. In terms of states, Maharashtra leads with 9.8% share, followed by Karnataka (5.5%) and UP (5.3%). "Debt collection agencies top the UPI chart in value terms with 12.8% of the total UPI transaction value (with the average monthly of Rs 24,55,400 crore), which rose to Rs 90,446 crore so far in August while their volume contribution is a low 1.3%," SBI Research said on Monday.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
CM Stalin hands over SBI insurance claim cheques to families of deceased government employees
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin, handed over insurance claim settlement cheques worth a total of ₹4.28 crore to the families of four deceased State Government employees at the Secretariat. The settlement, made under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the State Bank of India for Salary Package accounts, includes personal accident insurance of up to ₹1 crore and add-on benefits of up to ₹20 lakh for State Government Salary Package and Police Salary Package employees. The CM was joined on the occasion by Shri Vivekanand Choubey, Chief General Manager of SBI, Chennai Circle, and Shri Joby Jose, General Manager. The gesture reflects SBI's commitment to standing with bereaved families, providing timely financial relief and is a message of solidarity in their time of loss. (This is a Press release by the SBI.)
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Ericsson misusing insolvency code for coercion and debt recovery, RCom tells NCLT
The insolvent Reliance Communications (RCom) has alleged that Swedish Telecom company Ericsson has been using India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 as a tool for coercion and debt recovery, and to seek 'preference' in repayments over other creditors. Gaurav Joshi, senior counsel appearing for RCom, argued before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT),'IBC is not to be used as a tool for coercion and debt recovery by individual creditors. [This is] exactly what Ericsson was doing – improperly using IBC to include insolvency as a substitute for debt enforcement or attempting to obtain preferential payments by coercing the debtor using insolvency proceedings.' A bench led by Justices Prabhat Kumar and Sushil M Kochey of the Mumbai NCLT was hearing RCom's petition seeking a refund of ₹ 550 crore of dues paid to Ericsson plus interest. At the heart of the matter is a condition imposed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in its order of 2018, which said the amount paid under the settlement could be refunded if RCom's insolvency appeals were dismissed. Ericsson had later challenged this condition before the Supreme Court, but the Swedish company withdrew its petition, Joshi told the bench. 'You cannot take the benefit of an order and then not comply with it,' Joshi argued, pointing out that Ericsson had accepted the conditional settlement and given undertakings, but later attempted to challenge the very conditions. 'Having withdrawn the petition, they cannot now agitate this issue before NCLT. Their understanding was clear—they would have to bring back the money if the appeals failed.' After a thorough hearing, the bench posted the matter for 18 September. Senior advocates PS Modi and Anil Kher represented Ericsson. At an earlier hearing, senior advocate Anil Kher, representing Ericsson, maintained that the demand for a refund was an 'abuse of process', stressing that the Supreme Court had directed the settlement under Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the apex court to pass orders to secure complete justice. In September 2017, Ericsson initiated insolvency proceedings against RCom and its subsidiaries Reliance Infratel and Reliance Telecom over unpaid dues exceeding ₹ 1,500 crore. The NCLT admitted Ericsson's plea in May 2018. Rcom, along with certain financial creditors under the joint lenders' forum, then approached the NCLAT, seeking a stay on the insolvency proceedings on the grounds that they could hamper the firm's recovery. On 30 May 2018, the NCLAT halted the insolvency proceedings until 30 September 2018 to allow RCom to pay Ericsson ₹ 550 crore (of the ₹ 1,150 crore due) and settle the matter. However, it imposed a condition. If insolvency proceedings against RCom were dismissed, Ericsson would have to refund the money. In 2019, a bench led by Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya vacated the stay and send the matter back to NCLT, directing lenders to restart insolvency proceedings against the bankrupt firm. Joshi argued, 'The 2018 NCLAT order had explicitly recorded the payment ( ₹ 550 crore) as 'subject to the outcome of appeals', and mandated that Ericsson would refund the amount if the appeals were dismissed. This was not an unconditional payment; it was akin to securing Ericsson's dues pending the appeal. With the appeals dismissed and insolvency revived, the money must revert to the debtor." Joshi added that in the Byju's insolvency case, the Supreme Court of India had clarified that once insolvency proceedings were admitted, they became 'in rem' proceedings, impacting all stakeholders and requiring a structured process for any withdrawal or settlement, not just a private agreement between the initial parties.
