Banks Challenge Bombay High Court Stay Protecting Anil Ambani from RBI Fraud Actions
Major banks including Bank of Baroda, IDBI Bank, and Indian Overseas Bank have challenged a Bombay High Court interim order protecting Anil Ambani from RBI fraud classification actions. The Division Bench heard arguments on January 12, 2025, with further hearings scheduled for January 14. The banks argue that Ambani's suit is time-barred and warn that the stay could undermine RBI's fraud prevention framework.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Several major banks and an audit firm have moved the Bombay High Court Division Bench to challenge an interim order that currently shields businessman Anil Ambani from actions under the Reserve Bank of India's fraud classification framework. The legal battle centers on compliance requirements for forensic audits under RBI's 2024 Master Directions.
Court Proceedings and Timeline
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad heard the appeal on January 12, 2025. The court has scheduled continuation of arguments for January 14, 2025. The appellants include:
| Institution: | Type |
|---|---|
| Bank of Baroda | Public Sector Bank |
| IDBI Bank | Financial Institution |
| Indian Overseas Bank | Public Sector Bank |
| BDO India LLP | Audit Firm |
Single-Judge Order Under Challenge
The current legal dispute stems from an earlier ruling by Justice Milind Jadhav, who had restrained the banks from proceeding against Ambani. The single-judge order was based on a prima facie view that the forensic audit relied upon did not comply with RBI's 2024 framework requirements.
According to the RBI's framework, forensic audit reports used to classify accounts as fraudulent must be prepared by statutory auditors registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). In Ambani's case, Justice Jadhav observed that the forensic audit report, dated October 2020 and relating to Reliance Communications and group entities, was signed by a person not registered with ICAI.
Banks' Arguments Against the Stay
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the banks, presented several arguments before the Division Bench challenging the interim stay. He contended that Ambani's suit was "hopelessly time-barred" and founded entirely on information obtained through a third-party RTI application seeking BDO's registration details.
Mehta's key arguments included:
- The entire cause of action was premised on the RTI application and the Institute's response
- Ambani had long been aware of the forensic audit and had not disputed its conclusions
- The sole ground of challenge was the auditor's non-membership with the Chartered Accountants Institute
- BDO is an approved forensic auditor by SEBI, not "a nobody picked from the street"
Potential Impact on RBI Framework
The Solicitor General warned that allowing the interim stay to continue could have broader implications for the RBI's regulatory framework. He cautioned that the order could undermine the RBI's Master Directions, which bar individuals classified as fraud from accessing credit markets for five years.
Mehta expressed concerns that the stay could:
- Trigger widespread litigation challenging fraud classifications
- Unsettle earlier fraud classifications based on similar audit reports
- Weaken the effectiveness of RBI's fraud prevention measures
He urged the Division Bench to suspend the single-judge order pending final adjudication of the matter. The case highlights the critical importance of procedural compliance in forensic audits used for fraud classification under RBI guidelines.













































