The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has turned down settlement applications filed by Reliance Infrastructure Limited and its promoter Anil Ambani in connection with an enforcement case involving the company's exposure of ₹6,526 crore to engineering contractor CLE Private Limited (CLE). The rejection was communicated last Friday, 20 June 2026, with SEBI citing active parallel investigations being conducted by other law enforcement and financial crime agencies as the primary ground for refusing the settlement requests, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.
With the settlement route now closed, the matter will move ahead through SEBI's standard adjudication process. Formal hearings are expected to be scheduled before the regulator issues a final order on the alleged violations.
The enforcement proceedings stem from Reliance Infrastructure's long-standing financial exposure to CLE. According to persons familiar with the show-cause notice that SEBI issued to the company in September 2025, the regulator has alleged violations of the listing obligations and disclosure requirements (LODR) Regulations, the prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices (PFUTP) Regulations, and provisions governing related-party transactions. SEBI has alleged that the company's funds were misused through the arrangement with CLE and has sought the restoration of ₹6,526 crore to Reliance Infrastructure, along with applicable interest accruing from 2018 — the year the dues became doubtful and remained unrecovered. While SEBI has not explicitly stated the interest amount, people familiar with the matter indicate it could nearly double the total recovery figure.
SEBI's show-cause notice goes considerably further than Reliance Infrastructure's own public disclosures, alleging that the actual quantum of funds routed to CLE over nearly a decade was far larger. As Reuters earlier reported, the regulator alleged that a total of ₹17,670 crore (approximately US$ 1.9bn- billion) was diverted to CLE, of which at least ₹ 11,200 crore was subsequently invested in entities linked to the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani (ADA) Group. The documents reviewed by Reuters further show that SEBI determined CLE, despite being described by Reliance Infrastructure as an independent entity in prior stock exchange filings, effectively functioned as a Reliance ADA group company and was indirectly controlled by Anil Ambani along with a small number of other officials. SEBI characterised the transactions as a misutilisation of company funds, as they could potentially amount to personal enrichment rather than serving a corporate purpose for public shareholders.
Reliance Infrastructure had first publicly acknowledged the SEBI show-cause notice in an October 2025 exchange filing, noting that the proceedings related to its financial exposure to a connected entity, without disclosing further specifics. Earlier in 2026, the company informed stock exchanges that it had entered into consent terms with CLE before the Bombay High Court mediation centre to resolve commercial disputes arising from the exposure. The settlement, the company said, resolved dues of approximately ₹6,503 crore through a combination of asset transfers and the conversion of a portion of the outstanding amount into a secured loan.
This is the second time SEBI has rejected a settlement application from Anil Ambani. The regulator had previously declined his application to settle a separate case related to investments in Yes Bank Limited. Reuters also noted that Ambani, the younger brother of billionaire Mukesh Ambani, has faced growing scrutiny from regulators and enforcement agencies over the past 18 months, with several group executives arrested on fraud charges and some of Anil Ambani's properties frozen. The executives have denied wrongdoing and the cases remain before the courts.
Under SEBI's settlement framework, companies and individuals may resolve enforcement proceedings by paying a specified sum without admitting or denying the findings. Where SEBI declines a settlement application, it typically proceeds to adjudication and may issue a public order outlining the alleged violations. Consequences can range from monetary penalties to restrictions on accessing capital markets, and affected parties retain the right to challenge such orders in court.
Reliance Infrastructure is currently seeking to raise up to ₹3,000 crore from public markets, having secured board approval for the fundraise. The rejection of the settlement applications adds regulatory uncertainty to that effort.
Queries sent to SEBI and Reliance Infrastructure remained unanswered at the time of going to press. A spokesperson for the Anil Ambani group stated that the allegations are categorically denied, that the matters are sub judice, and that the group will continue to defend its position as legally advised.
Will the Supreme Court Finally Rein in Rogue ARC Practices?
Sucheta Dalal,
26 June 2026
The core job of an asset reconstruction company (ARC) is to buy troubled assets, recover maximum value from bad loans, clean up bank balance sheets and restore financial stability. They fulfil the first function efficiently, but their...
SEBI Imposes ₹20 Lakh Penalty on Exfinity Venture Partners, Vistra ITCL over AIF Compliance Lapses
Moneylife Digital Team
26 June 2026
Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh each on Exfinity Venture Partners LLP and Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd for multiple violations of the alternative investment fund (AIF)...
RBI Fines Three Cooperative Banks ₹5 Lakh for KYC, Exposure Norm and CRAR Lapses
Moneylife Digital Team
26 June 2026
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed penalties totalling ₹5 lakh on three cooperative banks for non-compliance with various regulatory directions issued by the banking regulator. The highest penalty of ₹3 lakh has been imposed on...
SEBI Eases Certification Burden for Sales Staff at Investment Advisory Firms
Moneylife Digital Team
25 June 2026
Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has relaxed qualification norms for non-advisory employees at registered investment advisers, creating a lighter certification pathway for sales and relationship...
27626.jpg)
The recent reports highlight diversion of over 12,000 crores from reliance infra to CLE alone. We don’t know how many more CLEs and its poor cousins exist who may have been beneficiaries of just a few hundred crores.
The empire led by a Wharton alumni and his 3 group MD’s, CAs of great repute has shown a common trend. The CAs : Amitabh Jhubjhunwala, Sateesh Seth and Gautam Doshi were all toppers of their batches. All knew the accounting as well as banking norms very well; and all had over 25-30 years of practicing experience before they became group MDs, or shud we say Yes Men of Anil Ambani. Gautam Doshi has barely salvaged his ICAI membership 5 years back after the 2G scam. Now all 3 face scrutiny if they are fit to practice the profession by the governing body.
While Anmol and Anshul took claim of the debt free status of RInfra; aren’t they also responsible for the alleged siphoning that SEBI order notes. The order is well reasoned for anyone to dispute its findings. Investments came from companies in Singapore where the infamous global fund manager had his son stationed to run the show.
All 3 are in custody and cannot give excuses of health and pre occupation to evade agency interrogation. What is needed is a deep thorough interrogation of the trio, the 3 experienced CAs who were the Group MDs when bank loans were being used for promoters personal benefit. And once that happens, a face to face confrontation with Anil Ambani and his sons will automatically result in unveiling the whole conspiracy and its mastermind /s. Else the cases will take decades to be heard before they fall flat for lack of clinching evidence, as we are just 3 weeks away from the anniversary of the day Anil Ambani made contact with a South based ally, to stage the biggest coup in political history of worlds largest democracy. And we have the global fund manager in custody trying to be moved to DDU hospital (or Indian spinal injury institute), who may be willing to give enough not to implicate himself, but still hand over evidence that books the main culprit. Jhunjhunwala’s calculated move to just implicate Sateesh Seth and Gautam Doshi is not enough. The main beneficiary needs to be nailed, and either of the 3 CAs are capable of doing it, if interrogated properly.