Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013 lets shareholders and depositors file class action suits before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) when a company’s management acts against their interests. It was introduced after the Satyam scam, based on a recommendation by the J.J. Irani Committee, to give the small shareholders a way to fight back together instead of alone. But for almost ten years after it came into force in 2016, no class action suit under this section was admitted by the NCLT. This was due to the statutory membership and shareholding thresholds, procedural ambiguity surrounding the provision, and the availability of the comparatively familiar oppression and mismanagement remedy under Section 241. This changed in February 2026, when the NCLT admitted India’s first major class action suit under Section 245 in Ankit Jain v. Jindal Poly Films Ltd., a decision later upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). This paper looks closely at that case and how the Tribunals decided it was a class action and not a derivative action. It also looks into how they read the phrase “are being conducted” to cover past transactions, and why they refused to apply foreign tests like the American Tooley test and the English reflective loss doctrine. The paper also compares India’s approach with the US, UK, and Australia. It concludes that while this case is an important step forward, one good ruling is not enough and that India still needs to fix the thresholds and procedure under Section 245 so that ordinary shareholders can actually use it going forward.