August 28, 2026

SICC Rejects Tata Power’s Challenge to Arbitral Award in Kleros Capital Partners’ Case

The legal conflict traces back to agreements signed in 2013 and 2014, when Tata Power and Kleros engaged in discussions concerning a potential co-investment project. The venture focused on extracting coal from the Krutogorovo deposit located in Russia. Kleros approached Tata Power as an industrial partner, sharing proprietary information regarding the geological deposit, operational strategies, and the auction process required to secure the necessary mining licence.

Rajnath Singh India MoD Positive Indigenisation List.

India Adds More Than 400 Additional Defence Items for Local Production

India’s Cement Sector Sees Major Shakeup as Dalmia Takes Over 5.75 MTPA Capacity

SICC Rejects Tata Power’s Challenge to SIAC Arbitral Award: Commercial legal disputes originating from cross-border investments frequently test the boundaries of institutional arbitration. The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) delivered a judgment dismissing an application by Tata Power Company Limited to set aside a $490.32 million arbitral award. The award directs the Indian multinational to pay the damages to investment advisory firm Kleros Capital Partners Limited, concluding a multi-year legal conflict stemming from a prospective joint venture in Russia.

The case underscores the strict judicial deference afforded to arbitral outcomes in Singapore. Under established principles governing international arbitration, domestic courts intervene only under narrow, exceptional circumstances, such as demonstrable breaches of natural justice or clear evidence of arbitrator bias. The bench comprising Justice S Mohan alongside International Judges Anthony Besanko and Anthony Meagher found that Tata Power‘s arguments failed to meet these rigorous thresholds, treating the challenge instead as an attempt to re-litigate the merits of the underlying dispute.

Origins of the Dispute and Confidentiality Breaches

The relationship was governed by non-disclosure agreements designed to protect Kleros’ economic interests and prevent either party from circumventing the other. Over time, however, the commercial alignment eroded amid disagreements concerning equity participation and project control. Despite ongoing discussions with Kleros, Tata Power pursued the acquisition independently through its Russian subsidiary, FENR, successfully obtaining the mining licence in January 2018. The company later found the venture unviable and surrendered the licence in 2022.

In November 2020, Kleros initiated formal arbitration under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rules. The arbitral tribunal delivered a unanimous decision in September 2023, finding that Tata Power had misused confidential information, bypassed Kleros, and violated its contractual duty of good faith. The tribunal noted that Tata Power had maintained misleading communications to keep Kleros engaged while planning to acquire the project unilaterally.

Quantum Assessment and Arbitral Dissent

Following the liability determination, the tribunal evaluated the financial loss suffered by Kleros. In July 2025, the majority of the tribunal valued the coal project at $1.0215 billion. Determining that Kleros had lost a 60 percent chance of successfully developing the resource, the majority ordered Tata Power to pay $490.32 million in damages. This figure was supplemented by approximately $8.29 million in legal costs and an annual interest rate of 5.33 percent.

The assessment was not unanimous. Arbitrator AK Ganguli issued a dissenting opinion regarding the quantum of damages. The dissenter argued that Tata Power’s contractual breaches did not directly prevent Kleros from independently pursuing the project, suggesting instead that a lower award of $13.5 million representing negotiating damages would be appropriate. Despite this dissent, the majority ruling stood as the final award.

READ: SAFHAL Joint Venture to Power Future IMRH and DBMRH Rotorcraft Fleets

SICC Evaluation of Natural Justice and Bias Claims

Before the SICC, Tata Power contested the award on two primary fronts: procedural irregularities amounting to a breach of natural justice and apparent bias among the tribunal members. The company argued that the majority had failed to properly address essential legal issues including causation, remoteness of damage, and the duty to mitigate losses. Furthermore, it alleged apparent bias concerning presiding arbitrator Professor Lawrence Boo and co-arbitrator Stuart Isaacs KC, pointing to the involvement of Kleros’ litigation funder, Omni Bridgeway, in unrelated arbitrations involving those arbitrators.

The SICC rejected these contentions in their entirety. Addressing the procedural arguments, the court clarified that its role is not to assess the analytical depth or commercial quality of an arbitral decision, but merely to verify whether an analysis took place. The judges found sufficient textual evidence in the award showing that the tribunal had considered causation and foreseeability. The court underscored that an arbitral tribunal is required to decide essential issues, but it is under no obligation to individually address every collateral argument raised by a party. “The court is concerned with substance not form,” the judgment noted.

On the question of apparent bias, the court evaluated the connections involving the third-party funder. It held that the relationship between the funder and the arbitrators in separate, unconnected proceedings was far too remote to establish a real danger of bias. Characterising the allegation as an unfounded apprehension ungrounded in evidence, the court dismissed the challenge.

The ruling reinforces Singapore’s position as a predictable and reliable seat for international commercial arbitration. By maintaining a high threshold for setting aside arbitral awards, the judiciary provides commercial enterprises with assurance that final decisions rendered by properly constituted tribunals will be upheld barring severe procedural failures.

Don’t Miss: Gameskraft vs. ED: Karnataka HC Rejects Arguments Shielding Administrative Documents From Scrutiny

Also Read: The First Front of War: Why India is Upgrading its Border Roads for the Tech Era