Legal action against industrialist Anil Ambani
Bombay High Court also slapped Anil Ambani
ED seizes Abode house
Famous industrialist Anil Ambani He has got a big shock. EDhas taken a big action against them. ED has taken provisional seizure action on industrialist Anil Ambani’s Abode house. The price of this house is estimated to be three and a half thousand crores. According to the information that has come to light, the ED is believed to have taken this action under the Money Laundering Act.
Anil Ambani’s house is revealed to be in the Pali Hill area of Mumbai. It has been revealed that the name of his house is Abode and it is a multi-storied building. Although it appears that the ED has taken this action temporarily, Anil Ambani’s problems are increasing. Once again, ED is expected to question Anil Ambani.
Anil Ambani’s troubles increase
Industrialist Anil Ambani has faced a legal setback. The Bombay High Court on Monday delivered a landmark judgment, quashing the interim relief barring banks from taking action against them for fraud. The decision now clears the way for banks to classify their accounts as fraudulent.
ED Raids: ED Raids! Assets worth over 10,000 crores including assets of Anil Ambani group seized
The controversy started when State Bank of India (SBI) and other banks issued ‘show cause’ notices to Anil Ambani’s companies. Based on the errors found in the audit reports, the banks started the process of declaring their accounts fraudulent. Ambani appealed to the court, after which a single bench stayed the banks’ action in December 2025.
Anil Ambani ED Investigation: Ambani couple’s troubles rise; ED summons Anil and Tina Ambani
Anil Ambani’s main contention was that the banks’ actions did not follow the principles of natural justice and that he was not given adequate opportunity to present his case. However, the RBI amended its Master Circular in 2024 to clarify that it is mandatory to give the parties an opportunity of individual hearing before declaring any account fraudulent. However, in the present case, the court declined to continue the relief, considering the technical reasons and the seriousness of the audit report.
Comments are closed.