Minority shareholders ask Supreme Court to revive Jindal Poly class action lawsuit
NEW DELHI: A group of 29 minority shareholders has moved the Supreme Court to recall its order directing the Jindal Poly Films dispute to arbitration, arguing that India’s first corporate class action case cannot be resolved without hearing the shareholders represented at the hearing.
Defense reviewed by MintThe application was filed on June 19 by shareholders led by Sohag Nanavati, a minority shareholder of Jindal Poly Films.
This appeal was filed by Jindal Poly Films vs. proxy petitioner Monet Securities Pvt. It comes weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that it had acted on the consent terms between . Ltd referred the dispute to arbitration and set aside the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The move effectively ended a lawsuit that focused on multiple allegations. ₹2,500 crore was siphoned off from the company through transactions involving entities linked to the promoter.
Emails seeking comment sent on Monday to law firm Saraf and Partners, which represents 29 shareholders Jindal Poly Films and market regulator Sebi, remained unanswered by press time.
Shareholders requested to join the lawsuit and asked the court to withdraw its June 8 decision.
“Rejecting such participation would result in a situation in which the fate of a representative trial is decided without hearing those who will be most directly affected by its outcome,” the defense said.
The applicants argued that a class action under Section 245 of the Companies Act is a representative action on behalf of all minority shareholders and therefore cannot be resolved between Jindal Poly Films and Monet Securities without hearing the remaining shareholders forming part of the group.
Monet Securities had replaced minority shareholder Ankit Jain, who had initiated the lawsuit in 2024. Jain later withdrew from the case by selling his stake in the company.
Allegedly, after the NCLT accepted the petition and issued a public notice, all the eligible minority shareholders became part of the group, if they did not opt out. The applicants argued that the amended petitioner could not unilaterally resolve the case on behalf of all shareholders.
The plea stated that around 48 intervention applications, including one filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), were pending before the NCLT when the matter was referred for arbitration.
Sebi had moved the intervention application before the NCLT in November 2025. The regulator told the court that the investigation into Jindal Poly Films had revealed prima facie evidence of financial mismanagement, governance failures, inadequate disclosures and undervaluation of related party transactions. Sebi had alleged violations of securities laws and estimated losses of more than 100,000. ₹760 crore is seeking to put its findings on record to assist the court in deciding the class action petition.
The applicants also alleged that the Supreme Court was not informed of the representative nature of the proceedings and the interests of other minority shareholders before the consent decree was made. They sought resumption of class action proceedings before the NCLT and an opportunity to be heard.
Case history
The dispute began in March 2024, when minority shareholder Ankit Jain, who holds about 4.99% of Jindal Poly Films, and his family members alleged that the company had incurred losses in excess of 2020. ₹2,500 crore through related party transactions involving investor-related entities and undervalued sales of investments.
The case attracted attention as the first corporate class action petition to clear the sustainability stage before the NCLT under Section 245 of the Companies Act.
After nearly two years of hearings, the NCLT accepted the petition on February 5, 2026; This decision was approved by NCLAT on February 26, 2026.
The proceedings took a new turn with Jain withdrawing from the case and Monet Securities being replaced as the petitioner. Jindal Poly Films and Monet Securities subsequently agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration.
Acting on the consent terms, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders and appointed Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, former chief justice of the Madras high court, as the sole arbitrator to decide the dispute.
