New Delhi, January 13, 2026 – In a latest development in the ongoing legal battle involving industrialist Anil Ambani’s son Jai Anmol Ambani, the Delhi High Court has questioned the validity of a fresh show-cause notice issued by Union Bank of India but declined to stay or quash the proceedings.
The matter pertains to allegations of fraud in the bank account of Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL), where Jai Anmol Ambani served as a director. Union Bank (formerly Andhra Bank) had accused RHFL of availing substantial loans, defaulting on repayments, and diverting funds, resulting in a wrongful loss of approximately ₹228 crore to the bank. A forensic audit reportedly confirmed misuse of funds, leading to the account being classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) and later declared fraudulent. This prompted the bank to file a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which registered cases alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, and misconduct. The CBI’s broader probe into Anil Ambani group companies involves alleged frauds totaling nearly ₹14,853 crore.
Earlier Court Intervention
On December 19, 2025, the Delhi High Court (Justice Jyoti Singh) quashed Union Bank’s initial declaration of the account as fraudulent. The court ruled that the bank violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue a valid show-cause notice or provide an opportunity for a hearing. Notably, the original notice had been sent to an outdated address vacated by RHFL in 2020. However, the court permitted the bank to issue a fresh notice, supply all relevant documents, consider any response from Jai Anmol Ambani, and pass a reasoned order.
January 12, 2026 Hearing
The bank issued a new show-cause notice on December 22, 2025. Jai Anmol Ambani challenged it through a writ petition, with his counsel arguing that the notice was “inherently flawed.” Senior counsel highlighted that RHFL had already undergone insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), with a resolution plan approved by lenders—including Union Bank—and upheld by the Supreme Court. This, they contended, made further fraud allegations untenable.
On January 12, 2026, Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court expressed doubts about the bank’s rationale for pursuing the matter post-resolution. The court questioned the logic of the notice in light of the completed IBC process. Despite these concerns, the bench refused to interfere with or stay the show-cause proceedings.
The court directed Jai Anmol Ambani to submit his response to the notice within 10 days and required Union Bank to grant a fair personal hearing (to Ambani or his authorized representative) and pass a “speaking order” (a detailed, reasoned decision). Any final order by the bank will remain subject to judicial review, with the writ petition kept pending for further consideration. The next hearing is scheduled for February 27, 2026.
This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness in fraud classifications, drawing from Supreme Court precedents such as State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, which mandates prior notice and hearing before declaring a borrower’s account fraudulent.
The case highlights the complex interplay between insolvency resolutions, banking regulations, and criminal investigations in high-profile corporate disputes. As proceedings continue, the outcome could have significant implications for accountability in India’s financial sector. For the most current developments, refer to trusted legal and business news sources.
About The Author
