NCLT replaces RP in Anil Ambani personal guarantee case
Jul 28, 2025
Synopsis
The NCLT replaced Jitender Kothari with Prashant Jain as the resolution professional in Anil Ambani's insolvency case concerning a ₹1,385-crore SBI loan guarantee. This decision followed concerns that Ambani wasn't given sufficient opportunity to provide information due to Covid-related disruptions. While the NCLT found no misconduct, it emphasized the need for close coordination between the debtor and the RP.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has replaced Jitender Kothari with Prashant Jain as the resolution professional (RP) in the insolvency case linked to Anil Ambani’s personal guarantee for a ₹1,385-crore loan extended by SBI to Reliance Communications, Times of India .
According to the report, Ambani had extended the guarantee in September 2016, which was retrospectively tagged as a non-performing asset from late August that year. Kothari was appointed RP in August 2020 and subsequently sought information from Ambani, including details of proceedings in a UK court.
The process triggered multiple legal challenges, including cases before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. In May 2021, Kothari filed a report recommending admission of the insolvency plea, even as Ambani’s counsel had requested additional time citing Covid-related travel restrictions.
Soon after, Ambani’s legal team argued that the RP was only entitled to seek information from SBI and accused him of seeking unrelated data.
Ambani claimed that the RP was “acting in undue haste and denying him fair and proper opportunity” to furnish information. The RP rejected these allegations. SBI, meanwhile, backed Kothari and said the prolonged pendency of the matter before the NCLT was delaying the resolution.
In its July 15 order, as per TOI, the NCLT said, “In light of Covid-related disruptions, Ambani should have been given a fair opportunity to provide information to the resolution professional.”
It noted that “the RP didn’t even wait for adjudication of his application pending before this Tribunal seeking relaxation of 10 days' timeline and a cross application of the applicant before this Tribunal requiring more time in view of Covid restrictions.”
While ruling out any misconduct, the bench said, “Though, we do not find any negligence or explicit bias on part of the RP in this case, however, we are of considered view since the insolvency resolution process after commencement has to be run in close coordination of debtor and RP.”
(With inputs from TOI)
[The Economic Times]
