The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with the February 23, 2026 order of the Bombay High Court allowing bank loan fraud classification proceedings against Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group head Anil Ambani, initiated by a consortium of banks — Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank and IDBI Bank. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had set aside a single judge’s order that had, in December 2025, halted the proceedings.
While refusing the plea filed by Anil Ambani against the High Court order, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi said it saw no ground to interfere with the High Court judgment. However, the Court recorded Ambani’s statement that he wished to settle the matter with the banks.
The Court also ordered expediting of the trial in the case, leaving it open to Ambani to exercise whatever remedies are available under the law.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the consortium of lender banks, opposed the recording of Ambani’s statement that he wanted to settle the matter, stating that it may have repercussions and could be used in other ongoing proceedings, including investigations.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan and Narender Hooda appeared for Anil Ambani in his petitions against Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank and IDBI Bank, respectively. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the consortium of the three banks — BoB, IOB and IDBI.
Stating that the interim relief granted by the single judge could not have been reversed by the Division Bench, Sibal argued that the fraud classification of the loan amounted to “civil death” as no financial institution would lend money to Ambani thereafter. He also questioned the lender banks’ reliance on the audit carried out by BDO LLP, which, according to him, was not a qualified audit entity under the RBI’s Master Directions 2024.
Contesting this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the report was prepared by a reputed auditor with global recognition and was selected through a tender process by the consortium of lender banks.
As Sibal argued that the stay ordered by the single judge could not have been reversed, Justice Bagchi observed that the single judge, who stayed the classification, had “put form over substance”. He also noted that the single judge had not questioned the competence of BDO LLP to undertake the audit.
Pointing out that the matter involved thousands of crores of public money, Chief Justice Surya Kant said that public sector banks had engaged the services of BDO LLP, and the Court could not substitute the lender banks’ wisdom in tracking money that had allegedly been siphoned off.