Jindal Poly Films500227Ongoing legal dispute

NCLT petition shared against Brookfield-affiliated investor over material subsidiary IPFL Films

Jindal Poly Films has shared a petition before the NCLT, New Delhi Bench under Sections 241 and 242, read with Section 244, of the Companies Act, 2013 on November 02, 2026.

By ScoutQuest · Mon 2 Nov 2026, 11:12 AM IST · 3 min read

Update Date: November 02, 2026
Statutory Basis: Sections 241 and 242, read with Section 244, of the Companies Act, 2013
Investor Holding in Subsidiary: 20 equity shares and all 79,990 compulsorily convertible preference shares of IPFL Films

What the company shared

A petition before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench under Sections 241 and 242, read with Section 244, of the Companies Act, 2013, shared on November 02, 2026.
The petition relates to the affairs of IPFL Films Private Limited, described as a material subsidiary of the company.
The petition is likely to get listed within the course of this week and is currently pending admission.

In simple terms, Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act are the route a shareholder uses to ask the NCLT to remedy oppression (conduct that is harsh or unfair to a shareholder) and mismanagement in a company's affairs.

Who is on the other side

Project Holdings Fourteen (DIFC) Limited, an investment vehicle affiliated with Brookfield Corporation, described as the Investor.
The Investor holds 20 equity shares and all 79,990 compulsorily convertible preference shares of IPFL Films.
Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr. Aviral Jain, nominee directors of the Investor on the IPFL Films board, are also respondents.
IPFL Films itself is Respondent No. 1.
The company, the Investor and IPFL Films are parties to a shareholders' agreement dated March 16, 2022, as amended on July 13, 2022.

What the company alleges

That the Investor has, since March 2024, engaged in a continuing course of oppressive conduct in the affairs of IPFL Films.
That these actions are alleged to have disrupted IPFL Films' operations.

What happened before this petition

The company received a notice of arbitration dated October 16, 2026 from the Investor under the arbitration rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, naming IPFL Films as First Respondent and the company as Second Respondent.
The Investor alleged that IPFL Films and the company breached the shareholders' agreement. The company disputes the claims.
In its response dated October 25, 2026, the company objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitrability of the dispute, saying the matters fall within NCLT jurisdiction under Sections 241 and 242.
The arbitral tribunal is yet to be constituted.
Separately, the Investor has shared a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court of Delhi seeking interim measures in aid of the arbitration. The company received a copy on October 30, 2026 and will respond in due course.

Money and outcomes

Claims cannot be quantified as they are in the nature of declaratory relief.
Expected financial implications due to compensation or penalty are not ascertainable at this stage.
The company states that the outcome of the petition and its impact on the company cannot be anticipated at this stage, and it will update the stock exchanges as appropriate.

What to watch

Whether the NCLT admits the petition and how it proceeds.
The constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the Delhi High Court's view on the interim measures sought.
Any exchange update on financial implications, which the company has said it will provide as appropriate.

Also from Jindal Poly Films

Jindal Poly stock saw its highest volume since March 2026 and snapped a five-day losing streak

23 Oct 2026

Reply to BSE on sharp volume rise: share volume movement is market driven, company says

15 Oct 2026

All Jindal Poly Films stories