National Company Law Tribunal to verify SBI claim against Anil Ambani

The State Bank of India (SBI) has claimed that Anil Ambani offered about $160 million of personal guarantees while seeking loans for now insolvent Reliance Communication Ltd in the year in 2016.

The National Company Law Tribunal, or NCLT, in Mumbai has agreed to hear the petition filed by SBI against Anil Ambani after he failed to repay the debt. A two-member panel of the NCLT has appointed a bankruptcy administrator to verify SBI’s claim. The tribunal can admit Ambani into bankruptcy process or reject the case based on the report.

“The NCLT order directing appointment of the resolution professional does not constitute an admission of SBI’s insolvency application,” Ambani’s spokesperson said in an emailed response to NDTV. Besides, the court rejected “SBI’s request for a restriction on Ambani from dealing or appropriating his assets,” the spokesperson said.

Related news: SBI takes Anil Ambani to NCLT; seeks to recover ₹1,200 crore from him

The State Bank of India filed the latest petition on concerns that the Chinese banks will attempt to seize Ambani’s assets after a U.K. court ruling asked him to pay them $717 million. On the other hand, the high-profile insolvency case against Reliance Communication Ltd in the Mumbai tribunal (NCLT) puts a moratorium on attempts to recover dues from Ambani, which disallows the group of Chinese banks from recovering their dues as per the London court order.

Ambani is taking advice on challenging the NCLT verdict in an appellate court, his RCom spokesperson said. “The order of the NCLT will have no bearing on the operations of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Reliance Power Ltd. and Reliance Capital Ltd.,” Ambani’s spokesperson added.

Suppose the Mumbai tribunal admits Ambani into the bankruptcy process, a list of all claims against him will be compiled and a repayment plan will be worked out. Lenders can jointly agree on a plan that may include payouts from his businesses or monetizing his assets.

The tribunal’s ruling can be challenged in an appellate court and then the Supreme Court.