Reliance Communications: NCLT flags RCIL plan in 2026

What the latest NCLT order says

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench-I, has held that the approved resolution plan of Reliance Communications Infrastructure Limited (RCIL) is non-implementable in its present form. The order was passed on August 21, 2026, in the matter of RCIL, which is a subsidiary of Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM). The company disclosure cites Regulation 30 of SEBI’s LODR Regulations, 2015, in relation to the NCLT order.

RCOM clarified that the order pertains to its subsidiary RCIL. It also stated that no specific violation or contravention has been alleged against RCOM in this context. The company added that the financial and operational impact on RCOM, if any, is presently not quantifiable.

Why “non-implementable” matters under CIRP

In insolvency proceedings, a resolution plan is central to how creditors recover dues and how a business may be restructured. When a tribunal holds a plan “non-implementable,” it signals that the plan, as approved earlier, cannot be executed in its current form. The disclosure does not provide details of what parts of the plan were found non-implementable, but it places the RCIL process under renewed uncertainty.

For investors and creditors tracking the wider Reliance Communications group’s insolvency-related developments, the RCIL order adds another legal milestone. It also comes amid a broader set of lender actions and investigative steps disclosed by or reported in relation to RCOM and its subsidiaries.

RCOM’s clarification to exchanges

RCOM’s disclosure emphasised three points. First, the NCLT order is about RCIL rather than the listed parent directly. Second, the company stated that no specific violation or contravention has been alleged against RCOM. Third, it said any financial or operational impact on RCOM cannot currently be quantified.

That framing is important because RCOM has faced multiple lender-led “fraud” classifications and investigative actions across different periods and entities. The RCIL order, however, is presented as a tribunal finding on implementability of a plan rather than a finding of wrongdoing by the parent company.

Canara Bank’s “fraud” classification for RTL facilities

Separately, RCOM disclosed that it received a letter from Canara Bank stating that credit facilities extended to Reliance Telecom Limited (RTL), a subsidiary of RCOM, have been classified as “fraud.” The bank also communicated that it has ordered reporting of RCOM to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) so that it is reflected in the Central Fraud Registry.

The disclosure states the classification relates to credit facilities extended to RTL. The text provided does not quantify the Canara Bank exposure in the same section, but it establishes the action and the intended reporting process.

Central Bank of India declares RTL loan accounts “fraud” worth ₹18.40 crore

Central Bank of India has declared loan accounts of RTL as fraudulent, involving ₹18.40 crore. The declaration is based on a forensic audit report by BDO India LLP. The findings cited include fund diversion, complex transaction structures, and round-tripping transactions.

The same context notes that the bank had extended credit facilities totaling ₹400 crore to Reliance group entities. It also states that both RTL and RCOM are under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), and their resolution plans are awaiting NCLT approval. Central Bank of India’s Empowered Committee made the fraud declaration based on the forensic audit report submitted by BDO India LLP on October 15, 2020.

Union Bank and Bank of Maharashtra actions cited in disclosures

The text also references that Union Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra classified accounts of RCOM and RTL as fraudulent accounts. Forensic audits cited misutilization of bank loans, unauthorised payments to connected parties, and circular routing of funds. Union Bank of India identified misuse of ₹1,324.86 crore, while Bank of Maharashtra found misuse of Letter of Credit discounting.

In a separate disclosure, RCOM stated that Bank of Maharashtra classified the company’s loan account as ‘fraud’. RCOM received the formal letter dated October 4, 2025, on October 24, 2025, and the classification relates to credit facilities extended by the bank’s Fort Branch in Mumbai. The disclosure mentions a debit balance in a current account with an outstanding of ₹488.78 crore as of September 30, 2025 (excluding interest), and a Letter of Credit facility with a limit of ₹500.00 crore and an outstanding balance of ₹0.00. The decision was linked to findings of misappropriation of funds and criminal breach of trust.

Bank of Baroda and Bank of India: additional “fraud” tags

RCOM and its former non-executive director Anil Ambani have been classified as ‘fraud’ accounts by Bank of Baroda, alongside similar actions already taken by State Bank of India and Bank of India. According to the account shared in the text, Bank of Baroda’s order dated September 2 followed a show-cause process that began in January 2024 based on irregularities highlighted in a forensic audit by BDO India LLP.

As of August 28, 2025, Bank of Baroda’s exposure was ₹1,656.07 crore against a sanctioned limit of ₹2,462.50 crore. The text also states that the fraud tag bars the company and Ambani from raising fresh credit and can pave the way for further regulatory and investigative action.

Separately, RCOM disclosed that it received a letter from Bank of India informing it that the bank decided to treat RCOM’s loan account as fraudulent along with those of Anil Ambani and former director Manjari Ashok Kacker. Bank of India stated that RCOM’s loan account turned non-performing on June 30, 2017 with an outstanding balance of ₹724.78 crore. Bank of India also issued a separate order against RTL, classifying its loan account as fraud with an outstanding of ₹51.77 crore.

SFIO probe ordered for 2008-09 to 2023-24

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has ordered a comprehensive investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) into RCOM and its wholly-owned subsidiary RCIL. The probe covers financial years 2008-09 to 2023-24, and the companies are required to provide extensive financial and operational information by November 28, 2025.

This SFIO probe sits alongside lender-led actions and forensic audit references that are already part of disclosures and reporting around the group. While the NCLT order on RCIL is a separate legal development, the overall context includes multiple parallel tracks of scrutiny.

Key facts at a glance

Market and governance implications

The NCLT’s finding on RCIL’s resolution plan introduces another process-related development for stakeholders monitoring group insolvency proceedings. RCOM’s statement that the impact is “not quantifiable” indicates the company is not providing financial guidance linked to this order at this stage.

At the same time, the series of lender actions described across RTL and RCOM underscore continuing governance and credit-risk concerns. Multiple banks have referenced forensic audits and have indicated reporting steps to the RBI, including for Central Fraud Registry reflection in at least one case. These actions can affect a company’s ability to access fresh credit, a point explicitly referenced in relation to Bank of Baroda’s fraud tag.

Conclusion

The latest NCLT order holds RCIL’s approved resolution plan to be non-implementable in its present form, and RCOM says the impact on the parent cannot currently be quantified. Alongside this, the disclosures and reported actions show several banks have classified RCOM and/or RTL loan accounts as “fraud” based on forensic audit findings and related reviews, while an SFIO investigation has been ordered covering FY2008-09 to FY2023-24. The next concrete milestones will depend on further NCLT proceedings on resolution plans and the timelines of ongoing investigations and bank-led regulatory reporting.