New Delhi, Industrialist Anil Ambani has approached the appellate tribunal NCLAT, filing an appeal against the initiation of personal insolvency against him by the NCLT over the petition filed by public sector lender SBI.
The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal had on June 11, admitted a plea filed by the State Bank of India, seeking personal insolvency against Ambani over default of loans by his group firms – Reliance Communications (RCOM) and Reliance Infratel Ltd (RITL).
He was the personal guarantor of the loans extended to his group firms.
Ambani’s petition came for a hearing before a two-member bench comprising Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Barun Mitra. However, it was adjourned following the request from his lawyer.
“Having regard to the request made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant, list this matter on July 10, 2026, before the appropriate bench,” said the NCLAT order dated June 24, 2026.
SBI had moved an application under section 95 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code before the NCLT, which allows creditors to start insolvency proceedings against debtors, including personal guarantors and partnership firms.
The leading public sector lender had claimed a default of about Rs 853.25 crore as of March 1, 2019, arising from personal guarantees executed by Anil Ambani for facilities extended to RCOM and RITL.
SBI had argued that despite approval of resolution plans for RCOM and RITL, its rights against the personal guarantor remained intact and enforceable.
Moreover, Resolution Professional (RP) in his Section 99 report, concluded that debt and default were established and that the personal guarantee continued to remain enforceable.
However, Ambani challenged the RP’s report, arguing that the guarantee stood discharged after approval of the RCOM resolution plan. Moreover, he also alleged the report violated principles of natural justice.
The NCLT rejected Ambani’s argument that the guarantee was void because it was executed after the loan account had become an NPA, noting that the NPA classification was retrospective and followed a restructuring process.
The tribunal in its order also noted SBI’s contention that Ambani had filed multiple applications over the years, which delayed the progression of the insolvency proceedings.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Ambani said: “The order dated June 11 2026, passed by the NCLT, Mumbai, relates to a disputed personal guarantee allegedly extended by Ambani to the State Bank of India in 2016 – that is ten years ago – even before the promulgation of personal insolvency laws”.
The underlying facility had been availed by Reliance Communications for the repayment of its borrowings from Chinese lenders, and Ambani derived no personal benefit from the said funds, he added.
