• 

Corporate Class Action Remedies

I. Concept of Corporate Class Action Remedies

Corporate class action remedies enable a group of shareholders or depositors to collectively seek relief against:

The company,

Its directors,

Auditors,

Advisors or consultants,

for fraudulent, unlawful, or prejudicial acts that harm their collective interests.

The remedy reflects a shift from individual minority protection to collective investor justice, ensuring accountability in corporate governance.

II. Statutory Framework: Companies Act, 2013

A. Section 245 – Class Action

Section 245 empowers:

Members or depositors (or any class of them)
to apply to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) where company affairs are conducted in a manner:

Prejudicial to company,

Prejudicial to members or depositors,

Fraudulent or ultra vires law or constitutional documents.

B. Threshold Requirements (Section 245(3))

For members:

At least 100 members, or

Such percentage of members as prescribed, or

Members holding prescribed percentage of share capital.

For depositors:

At least 100 depositors, or

Prescribed percentage of total depositors or deposits.

III. Objectives of Class Action Remedies

Collective redress for dispersed shareholders

Deterrence against corporate misconduct

Reduction of multiplicity of proceedings

Enhanced corporate accountability

Alignment with global best practices

IV. Nature of Reliefs Available (Section 245(1))

The Tribunal may order:

Restraint orders against:

Ultra vires acts,

Breach of articles or memorandum.

Declarations that resolutions are void if passed by misrepresentation.

Damages or compensation from:

Company,

Directors,

Auditors,

Experts or consultants.

Recovery of undue gains.

Any other remedy deemed fit in the interest of members or depositors.

V. Key Judicial Principles From Case Law

1. Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta

Principle:

Company law remedies are meant to protect collective shareholder interest, not merely individual rights.

Relevance:

Foundation for collective shareholder action jurisprudence.

2. M/s. Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Principle:

Section 245 is a remedial and preventive provision, not merely compensatory.

Relevance:

Clarified the preventive scope of class actions.

3. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Sons Ltd.

Principle:

Collective shareholder remedies are rooted in equitable jurisdiction of NCLT.

Relevance:

Affirmed broad interpretative approach to shareholder protection.

4. Rajeev Saumitra v. Neetu Singh

Principle:

Tribunal must consider good faith and absence of vexatious intent in shareholder actions.

Relevance:

Applied to class action maintainability analysis.

5. In re: Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS)

Principle:

Class action-type remedies justified to protect large body of stakeholders from systemic mismanagement.

Relevance:

Reinforced collective remedial philosophy.

6. Mukesh Kothari v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Principle:

Courts must prevent abuse of majority power causing widespread shareholder prejudice.

Relevance:

Supports collective relief where individual action is ineffective.

7. Union of India v. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd.

Principle:

Collective investor protection is integral to corporate regulation.

Relevance:

Depositor-centric class action rationale.

8. Nikhil Mehta v. AMR Infrastructure Ltd.

Principle:

Investor remedies may be pursued collectively where representations are common.

Relevance:

Consumer–corporate overlap in class redress.

VI. Factors Considered by NCLT (Section 245(4))

Before admitting a class action, NCLT evaluates:

Whether applicants act in good faith

Evidence of common grievance

Likelihood of alternative remedy

Views of disinterested members or depositors

Whether cause of action is collective in nature

VII. Class Action vs. Oppression & Mismanagement

VIII. Liability of Auditors and Advisors

Section 245 expressly extends liability to:

Auditors (including audit firms),

Experts,

Consultants,
for:

Incorrect statements,

Misleading advice,

Fraudulent conduct.

This marks a significant expansion of corporate accountability.

IX. Practical Challenges in Indian Class Actions

High numerical thresholds

Procedural delays

Cost of litigation

Limited precedent base

Coordination among dispersed shareholders

Despite this, jurisprudence is steadily evolving.

X. Conclusion

Corporate class action remedies under Indian law represent a transformative shift in shareholder and depositor protection. Courts and tribunals have emphasized that:

Corporate wrongs affecting many require collective remedies

Accountability extends beyond the boardroom

Equity and deterrence are central to class actions

Section 245 thus functions not merely as a compensation mechanism, but as a powerful corporate governance tool to curb systemic abuse.

RELATED Blog

Competition Law at Afghanistan

Competition Law at Albania

Competition Law at Angola

Competition Law at American Samoa (US)

Competition Law at Andorra

Competition Law at Anguilla (BOT)

Competition Law at Antigua and Barbuda

Competition Law at Argentina

Competition Law at Armenia

Competition Law at Artsakh