IDBI Bank challenges HC order granting relief to Anil Ambani

A single-judge bench of justice Milind Jadhav had granted Ambani interim relief, stating that forensic audits under RBI directions must meet statutory audit qualification standards.

MUMBAI: IDBI Bank has challenged a Bombay High Court order that granted interim relief to industrialist Anil Ambani by staying coercive action by three banks seeking to classify the loan accounts of his companies as “fraud”.

IDBI Bank challenges HC order granting relief to Anil Ambani

The banks—IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and Bank of Baroda—had issued show-cause notices to Ambani between January and December 2024, based on a forensic audit report (FAR) from October 2020. The notices proposed declaring the accounts of three companies—Reliance Communications Ltd (RCom), Reliance Telecom Limited (RTL) and Reliance Infratel Limited (RITL)—as fraudulent.

Ambani, the former non-executive director of RCom, had filed separate cases against the three banks, urging the high court to restrain them from acting on the notices. He argued that the FAR, prepared by external auditor BDO India LLP, could not be relied upon as it was not signed by a duly qualified chartered accountant, as required under the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) Master Directions.

On December 24, a single-judge bench of justice Milind Jadhav had accepted Ambani’s argument and granted interim relief, stating that forensic audits under RBI directions must meet statutory audit qualification standards.

The plea, filed through advocate Rishi Thakur, states that the court “erred in staying the show cause notice on the basis of the author or signatory of the audit report”. It clarified that the FAR cannot be challenged, and only the action taken by banks on the basis of the report can be questioned.

“BDO India was supposed to identify fraudulent transactions and report them to the banks, which it did. The forensic report is not required to make any determination about the fraud. The banks have to draw their independent conclusion. Simply because the report has disclaimers or qualifications, it cannot be discredited,” the plea said.

During the hearing, IDBI’s counsel argued that the court failed to appreciate the fact that forensic audits are carried out by a group of expert officials, and not by a single individual who might have signed the final report in their capacity as team leader. “Doubting and questioning the capability of a person who has signed the final forensic audit report is not legally tenable,” the bank’s counsel said.

IDBI also objected to certain observations in the order, including remarks that the banks had not followed the rule of law or RBI timelines. “The observations have no basis and are completely contrary to the records,” it said. It urged the court to set aside the order, claiming it violated principles of natural justice and was based on “a wrong interpretation of the law”.

After hearing the arguments, a division bench of chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and justice Gautam Ankhad posted the matter for further hearing on January 14.