Class action litigation — combined legal force for widespread harm.
When one company's misconduct harms thousands of consumers, investors, or employees, SIRI Law LLP organises representative action proceedings to hold wrongdoers accountable at scale. Under India's representative suit mechanism, consumer class actions, and the now genuinely tested Section 245 shareholder mechanism, SIRI Law LLP coordinates multi-claimant proceedings that deliver justice at scale.
Getting Section 245's real status right
For a decade, Section 245 was a class action mechanism that existed only on paper. That changed in February 2026.
Some class action content describes Section 245 of the Companies Act as an established, active remedy without noting a crucial fact: for nearly ten years after its 2016 notification, no class action suit had ever been successfully admitted under it. It was, in practical terms, a dormant provision — real on the statute book, untested in the tribunals. That changed decisively on 5 February 2026, when the NCLT admitted India's first major Section 245 shareholder class action, a dispute alleging roughly ₹2,500 crore in value diversion through related-party transactions at Jindal Poly Films Limited. The company challenged the petition's maintainability, arguing the claims really belonged under the oppression and mismanagement provisions of Sections 241–242 instead. The NCLT rejected that characterisation, and on appeal the NCLAT upheld the admission — the ruling now reported as 2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 178.
What the tribunals clarified matters for any future petition. Section 245 is not limited to preventive relief for ongoing or future conduct — it covers past and concluded transactions too, since reading it narrowly would defeat the purpose of the provision. And critically, the availability of oppression and mismanagement relief under Sections 241–242 on overlapping facts does not exclude a Section 245 class action; the NCLT gave the class action mechanism primacy specifically because it avoids the inconsistency and multiplicity that parallel individual proceedings would otherwise create. For general counsel and boards, this genuinely changes the risk calculus: what was a largely theoretical exposure for a decade is now, per current commentary, "a live and growing area of corporate litigation."
The practical lesson for anyone considering a representative proceeding in 2026: Section 245 is now a genuinely credible, tested route for shareholder and depositor claims involving fraud or value diversion, in a way it simply wasn't twelve months ago. A DPDPA-based data breach compensation claim, by contrast, needs to be built on a more honest assessment of which underlying legal theory — not DPDPA compensation alone — actually supports the relief sought.
What we handle
Comprehensive representation across all related matters
From consumer and investor class actions through real estate group claims, product liability, and now-tested shareholder class actions.
Consumer Class Actions
Defective products, fraudulent service practices, data breaches, and mis-selling campaigns affecting large numbers of consumers.
Investor & Securities Class Actions
Market manipulation, IPO fraud, false disclosure, and securities mis-selling affecting large groups of retail investors.
Section 245 Shareholder Class Actions
Petitions before the NCLT under the now-tested Section 245 mechanism, covering fraud, value diversion, and related-party transaction claims, built on the current Jindal Poly Films precedent.
Real Estate Group Claims
Builder fraud, project abandonment, delayed possession, and RERA mass complaint coordination for affected buyers.
Mass Product Liability
Multi-claimant product defect cases — pharmaceutical side effects, vehicle recalls, and industrial disasters.
Environmental & Pollution
Industrial pollution, chemical spill, and environmental contamination affecting communities.
Data Breach Coordinated Claims
Coordinated claims on behalf of individuals whose personal data was compromised, built on the strongest available legal theory given DPDPA's current compensation limits.
Financial Services Mis-selling
Insurance mis-selling, NBFC fraud, and financial product mis-representation affecting groups of retail customers.
Regulatory Enforcement Support
Working alongside SEBI, CCI, or Consumer Affairs investigations to coordinate private claims.
Evidence, not guesswork
Section 245 shareholder claims vs. DPDPA data breach claims
Two very different statutory positions, worth understanding precisely before choosing a route.
| Dimension | Section 245 (Companies Act) | DPDP Act 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Explicit compensation mechanism | Yes — §245(1)(g) expressly allows damages/compensation claims | No express mechanism for individual data principal compensation |
| Where penalties go | Awarded to claimants per tribunal order | Data Protection Board penalties go to the Consolidated Fund of India |
| Tested in practice | Yes — first admission 5 Feb 2026, upheld on appeal | Board enforcement still developing; individual compensation route untested |
| Realistic route to relief | Direct — file under §245 before the NCLT | Indirect — likely requires tort, IT Act, or consumer protection theory alongside DPDPA |
Sources: Companies Act 2013, §245; Jindal Poly Films Ltd v. Ankit Jain, 2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 178; DPDP Act 2023. This is a genuinely developing area of law — confirm current tribunal and Board practice with counsel before relying on either route for a specific claim.
What the numbers actually mean
Four figures that frame class action strategy today
In the landmark Jindal Poly Films Section 245 petition — the case now defining the mechanism's scope.
From 2016 notification to first successful admission in February 2026.
The foundational mechanism underlying most consumer and general representative proceedings.
No confirmed precedent yet for a data principal recovering personal compensation directly under the Act.
How we work
From claimant coordination to distribution
Claimant Coordination
We assess the common issues, coordinate claimants, and organise the evidence base for a representative proceeding.
Lead Case Strategy
We identify the strongest representative claims and structure the litigation to establish liability for all claimants, choosing the statutory route that current law actually supports.
Proceedings Management
Court, NCLT, or arbitration proceedings managed across potentially thousands of individual claimants, with centralised strategy.
Settlement & Distribution
Settlement negotiation, approval, and distribution of proceeds across all claimants, managed transparently and legally.
Case study · Real estate group claim
127 homebuyers coordinate delayed-possession claims against defaulting builder
A residential project in Hyderabad missed its possession deadline by over three years, leaving 127 homebuyers with no clear individual path to relief given the cost of separate proceedings. SIRI Law LLP coordinated a consolidated RERA complaint, appointing lead claimants and centralising the evidence base — construction delay records, builder communications, and payment schedules — across the group.
The coordinated approach produced a settlement covering possession timelines, interest on delayed possession, and compensation, at a fraction of the legal cost any individual buyer would have faced pursuing the claim alone.
Representative matters
Typical engagements
All matters described generically to protect client confidentiality.
NCLT petition drafted on current precedent
Advised a group of minority shareholders on a Section 245 petition alleging related-party value diversion, structuring the filing to align directly with the reasoning in the current leading precedent.
Representative complaint for 340+ consumers
Coordinated a representative complaint under the Consumer Protection Act on behalf of 340+ purchasers of a defective consumer electronics product, achieving a group settlement including refunds and extended warranties.
Claim built on IT Act and tort, not DPDPA alone
Advised a group of individuals affected by a data breach on the realistic legal basis for a coordinated claim, structuring the case around IT Act and tort remedies given DPDPA's current compensation limits.
Coordinated claims against distributor
Coordinated claims for a group of retail investors mis-sold a structured financial product, working alongside a regulatory complaint to strengthen the group's negotiating position.
Why choose SIRI Law LLP
Class action strategy grounded in current precedent
We pursue companies, not just individual claims — and we build every representative proceeding on the statutory route current law actually supports.
Claimant coordination
We coordinate large claimant groups, handling communication, evidence, and strategy for hundreds or thousands of individuals.
Systemic accountability
We pursue companies, not just individual claims. The goal is systemic accountability, not just individual compensation.
Integrated forensics
Class actions increasingly involve data. Our integrated team handles all digital evidence under privilege.
Honest route selection
We tell claimants which statutory mechanism actually supports their claim — including where a Section 245 route is now genuinely viable and where a DPDPA-only theory is not.
The SIRI advantage
Law firm alone vs. security firm alone vs. SIRI Law LLP
| Capability | Law firm only | Security firm only | SIRI Law LLP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital evidence | Cannot collect court-admissible evidence | Findings not protected by privilege | Legal + forensics, privileged from day one |
| Regulatory response | Slow, no in-house technical capacity | Cannot file regulatory notifications or represent in court | Fully integrated — one call handles both |
| Technical staff | No engineers on staff | No litigation capability | Both under one roof |
Frequently asked
Class action litigation, answered directly
How do class action suits work in India?
India has a representative suit mechanism under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC allowing one or more persons to sue on behalf of others with the same interest. Consumer class actions are facilitated through the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which allows consumer associations and groups to file representative complaints.
Can shareholders bring a class action against a company, and does the mechanism actually work in practice?
Yes, and as of 2026 there is now real precedent showing it works. Section 245 of the Companies Act 2013, notified in 2016, allows members and depositors to petition the NCLT against a company for fraud, oppression, or mismanagement, including claims for damages and compensation. For nearly a decade the provision sat almost entirely untested — no class action suit had been admitted under it. That changed on 5 February 2026, when the NCLT admitted India's first major Section 245 shareholder class action, in a dispute alleging roughly ₹2,500 crore in value diversion through related-party transactions. The company's challenge to admissibility was rejected, and the NCLT's order was subsequently upheld on appeal by the NCLAT. The tribunals clarified that Section 245 covers past, present, and continuing conduct, and that its availability isn't excluded merely because an oppression and mismanagement claim under Sections 241–242 might also be available on the same facts. This is now the leading precedent any Section 245 petition will be measured against.
What are the costs of class action litigation?
Class action litigation involves significant front-end costs shared among claimants or funded on a conditional fee basis. We discuss cost structures including group fee arrangements, conditional fees, and litigation funding options.
Can data breach victims bring a class action, and does DPDPA actually provide for compensation?
This is a genuinely contested area of Indian law worth understanding accurately before relying on it. The DPDP Act 2023 empowers the Data Protection Board to impose penalties on a data fiduciary for inadequate security safeguards, but unlike Section 245(1)(g) of the Companies Act, which explicitly allows shareholders to claim damages or compensation, the DPDP Act contains no express statutory mechanism for a data principal to claim personal compensation from the Board itself. Penalties collected under the Act go to the Consolidated Fund of India, not to affected individuals. Some commentators read this omission as deliberate, intended to discourage a flood of individual claims before the Board. This does not mean data breach victims have no civil remedy — a claim in tort, under the IT Act, or through consumer protection mechanisms may still be available depending on the facts — but it does mean the DPDPA route is meaningfully different from, and currently weaker than, the shareholder compensation mechanism under Section 245. We advise honestly on which avenue actually fits a specific data breach claim rather than assuming DPDPA alone provides a direct compensation pathway.
Consult a SIRI attorney today
Book a confidential case review. No obligation.
We assess your legal position and advise on the statutory route current law actually supports, including how the Jindal Poly Films precedent may affect your matter.
Related services