A group of 29 minority shareholders has moved the Supreme Court seeking recall of its order referring the Jindal Poly Films dispute to arbitration. According to reports from The Hindu BusinessLine, the plea was filed on 19 June by shareholders led by Sohag Nanavati, a minority shareholder in Jindal Poly Films. The challenge comes weeks after the Supreme Court, acting on consent terms between Jindal Poly Films and substitute petitioner Monet Securities Pvt. Ltd, referred the dispute to arbitration and set aside orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The affected shareholders have now written to the Chief Justice of India and plead to implead in the case and recall the applications, raising concerns about how a representative proceeding affecting public investors was concluded without hearing the very class it was meant to protect.
The dispute began in March 2024 when minority shareholder Ankit Jain and his family members, who together held about 4.99% of Jindal Poly Films, alleged that the company had suffered losses exceeding ₹2,500 crore through undervalued sales of investments and related-party transactions involving promoter-linked entities. As reported by Mint, the case drew attention as the first corporate class action petition to clear the maintainability stage before the NCLT under Section 245 of the Companies Act. After nearly two years of hearings, the NCLT admitted the petition on 5 February 2026, a decision upheld by the NCLAT on 26 February 2026.
According to the plea filed by the 29 shareholders, nearly 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 to arbitration. As reported by Mint, Sebi had moved its intervention application before the NCLT in November 2025, alleging that its investigation into Jindal Poly Films had uncovered prima facie evidence of financial mismanagement, governance lapses, inadequate disclosures and undervalued related-party transactions. The regulator estimated losses of more than ₹760 crore and sought to place its findings on record to assist the tribunal in adjudicating the class action petition. The representation highlights that the underlying proceedings arose from an admitted shareholder class action concerning alleged large-scale diversion of corporate value and its impact on public shareholders of a listed company.
The proceedings took a new turn after Jain exited the litigation and Monet Securities was substituted as petitioner. According to Mint, Jindal Poly Films and Monet Securities subsequently agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration. Acting on the consent terms, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders and appointed former chief justice of Madras high court Manindra Mohan Shrivastava as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. The shareholders pointed out that during court vacation, the appeal was mentioned and disposed of on the same day by the consent of only two parties, resulting in the dispute being referred to arbitration, without notice to or participation of the broader shareholder class or other stakeholders. The statutory remedy designed to protect minority investors should not be effectively extinguished without the Court being apprised of the full factual context, including the representative character of the proceedings and the existence of multiple affected parties.
Sohil Shah, Partner at Pioneer Legal, explained that given that class action proceedings under Section 245 of the Companies Act are representative in nature and possess in rem characteristics, they affect the rights of the entire class of shareholders collectively. As reported by The Hindu BusinessLine, he stated that the Supreme Court is obligated to entertain objections from any affected shareholder, and the Court cannot mandate recourse to an arbitral tribunal as arbitration is a private, in personam forum, lacking the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate matters that are in rem in nature and impact the wider shareholder class. The minority shareholders formally approached the Supreme Court seeking to implead as parties to the proceedings, so that the class of minority shareholders, for the first time, has a direct voice before the Court in a matter affecting their rights.
