- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC seeks Chinese banks' view in Anil Ambani's bankruptcy case
Delhi HC seeks Chinese banks' view in Anil Ambani's bankruptcyIn the personal bankruptcy case against Anil Ambani, the Delhi High Court has reached out to a group of Chinese banks that are trying to recover money from Anil Ambani. After the Chinese lenders won a ruling in a London court in May for more than $700 million that Ambani owes them over defaulted loans, Ambani has requested that...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi HC seeks Chinese banks' view in Anil Ambani's bankruptcy
In the personal bankruptcy case against Anil Ambani, the Delhi High Court has reached out to a group of Chinese banks that are trying to recover money from Anil Ambani.
After the Chinese lenders won a ruling in a London court in May for more than $700 million that Ambani owes them over defaulted loans, Ambani has requested that the banks be included in his challenge to a separate bankruptcy case against him in India, and the Delhi High Court has sought their views on that.
The Delhi High Court sought the Centre and State Bank of India's (SBI's) reply to former Reliance Communications (RCom) chairman Anil Ambani's plea to include the Chinese banks, which have got a decree of $717 million against him from a court in United Kingdom, in the proceedings here related to recovery of Rs. 1200 crore loan granted to two of his companies.
In the London case, the Chinese lenders argued that they provided funding to Ambani's Reliance Communications Ltd. in 2012 with the condition that he personally guarantee the debt. According to them, despite winning that ruling they have not received any funds from Ambani.
The Delhi High Court also ordered a moratorium on recoveries from any sale of Ambani's personal assets. State Bank of India (SBI) had earlier this year filed a bankruptcy case against Ambani and had requested the moratorium, saying Indian lenders might not get anything if Chinese banks execute the U.K. court's orders.
According to spokesperson for Anil Ambani, the moratorium will protect SBI's interest and the court has issued notices to three Chinese Banks — Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Export Import Bank of China, and China Development Bank — since the Indian lender based its application on apprehension that the Chinese lenders may attempt to execute the U.K. Court's order.
The bankruptcy case in India against Ambani remains halted by court order that also directed Ambani to not sell his assets.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Madhavi Diwan is representing IBBI and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in the case, while Anil Ambani is being represented by Senior Counsels Harish Salve and JJ Bhatt. SBI is being represented by Senior Counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul along with Nirav Shah and Ryan Dsouza of DSK Legal.