Anil Ambani Appeals NCLT Order Admitting SBI's Personal Guarantor Insolvency Plea
Sandhra Suresh
26 Jun 2026 9:51 AM IST

On Wednesday, Industrialist Anil Ambani approached the Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the personal insolvency proceedings initiated by the the State Bank of India (SBI).
The matter was taken up in the bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Barun Mitra. However, the bench adjourned the matter after a request came from his Counsel.
“Having regard to the request made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant, list this matter on 10.07.2026 before the appropriate bench." the bench noted.
The appeal was preferred against an order of the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 11 June 2026. By the order, the NCLT had admitted the personal insolvency proceedings against him over guarantees furnished for loans extended to Reliance Communications Ltd (RCOM) and Reliance Infratel Ltd (RITL), involving a default of ₹853.25 crore.
The dispute arose from credit facilities of ₹565 crore extended to RCOM and ₹635 crore extended to RITL in 2016. Ambani executed a personal guarantee in favour of SBI on September 23, 2016. After the borrower companies defaulted, SBI invoked the guarantee on January 31, 2019. The bank claimed an outstanding default of ₹853.25 crore as of March 1, 2019.
The bench had rejected Ambani's contention that the debt stood discharged under RCOM's resolution plan. It observed that recoveries for lenders remained dependent on future asset monetisation, spectrum-related litigation, and other uncertain events. SBI had not received any cash recovery till date and had already taken a substantial haircut.
The Tribunal further rejected Ambani's challenge to the validity of the guarantee. Ambani had argued that the guarantee was unenforceable because the borrowers were already in default when it was executed. it found that the borrowers' accounts were classified as non-performing assets with retrospective effect only after the guarantee had been furnished and after restructuring efforts had failed.
