- 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
- AI
- 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
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]An irregularity in companies owned by Anil Ambani reflects his conduct since he is fully involved in running their operations, a London court has ruled.The British court took note of allegations of irregularities as well as the departure of PwC as auditor of Reliance Capital, after it stated that it did not get satisfactory answers to its queries.The order by Justice...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
An irregularity in companies owned by Anil Ambani reflects his conduct since he is fully involved in running their operations, a London court has ruled.
The British court took note of allegations of irregularities as well as the departure of PwC as auditor of Reliance Capital, after it stated that it did not get satisfactory answers to its queries.
The order by Justice Waksman in the case between Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, Mumbai Branch and Anil Dhirubhai Ambani, stated that he was actively involved in running his companies.
“It is perfectly clear through all the evidence we have seen that Mister Ambani is not some form of titular chairman who really has nothing to do with these companies. He is extensively and actively involved in them. To suggest that if there were any serious deficiencies in the companies’ corporate governance he was not aware of it is wholly unrealistic in my view,” the order stated.
Earlier, Anil’s lawyers told the UK court that he was not in a position to pay dues worth USD 680 million to top Chinese banks since his net worth is zero.
The court did not believe Ambani’s assertion that his family would not help him. “I do not accept that the true position now is that all the other members of the family have firmly and irrevocably pulled the shutters down so that no funding would be available from them in the event that monies had to be paid into court,”Just8ice Waksman’s order stated.
The court mentioned a public statement which stated, “My sincere and heartfelt thanks to my respected elder brother, Mukesh, and Nita, for standing by me during these trying times and demonstrating the importance of staying true to our strong family values by extending this timely support. I and my family are grateful we have moved beyond the past and are deeply touched with this gesture”.