The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has dismissed Tata Power Company Limited’s challenge to an arbitral award directing it to pay approximately US$490.32 million in damages to investment advisory firm Kleros Capital Partners Limited, holding that the company failed to establish any denial of natural justice or apparent bias on the part of the arbitral tribunal.
A three-member Bench comprising Justice S Mohan and International Judges Anthony Besanko and Anthony Meagher rejected Tata Power’s objections concerning the tribunal’s treatment of issues relating to causation, remoteness and mitigation. The Court also declined to interfere with the award on allegations of apparent bias against members of the tribunal.
The dispute arose from discussions between Tata Power and Kleros concerning the proposed development of the Krutogorovo coal deposit in Russia. Kleros had approached Tata Power as a prospective co-investor and the parties subsequently entered into non-disclosure agreements in 2013 and 2014.
Kleros contended that it had furnished Tata Power with confidential commercial and geological information relating to the coal deposit and the process for obtaining a mining licence. It alleged that Tata Power subsequently used that information to pursue the project independently and thereby circumvented Kleros’ commercial interests.
The parties’ relationship deteriorated over disagreements concerning the proposed venture, including questions relating to control and equity participation. Tata Power ultimately obtained the mining licence through its Russian subsidiary, FENR, in January 2018. The project was subsequently found to be commercially unviable and the licence was surrendered in 2022.
Kleros commenced arbitration proceedings under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules in November 2020, alleging misuse of confidential information and breach of contractual obligations.
In September 2023, the arbitral tribunal unanimously found Tata Power liable for misuse of confidential information, circumvention of Kleros and breach of its contractual obligations.
In July 2025, a majority of the tribunal assessed the value of the project at approximately US$1.0215 billion and determined that Kleros had suffered the loss of a 60 per cent opportunity of successfully developing the venture. On that basis, it awarded Kleros US$490.32 million in damages, apart from approximately US$8.29 million towards legal costs and interest at 5.33 per cent per annum.
Arbitrator AK Ganguli dissented on the question of damages. He took the view that Tata Power’s breaches had not deprived Kleros of the opportunity to independently pursue the project and considered an award of approximately US$13.5 million in negotiating damages to be appropriate.
Tata Power thereafter approached the SICC seeking to set aside the arbitral awards. Before the Court, it argued that the majority tribunal had failed to properly adjudicate material questions concerning causation, remoteness and mitigation, contending that such deficiencies amounted to a breach of natural justice.
The SICC rejected the challenge, finding that Tata Power was effectively seeking to reopen the merits of the tribunal’s determination by presenting its objections as procedural violations.
The Court reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration does not extend to reassessing the correctness, adequacy or depth of the tribunal’s reasoning. The relevant inquiry is whether the tribunal had considered and determined the essential issues submitted to it for adjudication.
The Bench found sufficient material demonstrating that the tribunal had addressed the question of causation. It further held that remoteness and foreseeability had been considered alongside causation and that the absence of a separately structured discussion on remoteness could not, by itself, amount to a denial of natural justice.
The Court also rejected Tata Power’s allegations of apparent bias against presiding arbitrator Professor Lawrence Boo and co-arbitrator Stuart Isaacs KC. Tata Power had relied, inter alia, upon the involvement of Omni Bridgeway, Kleros’ third-party funder, in separate arbitral proceedings involving members of the majority tribunal.
The SICC held that the circumstances relied upon by Tata Power did not furnish an adequate evidentiary basis for establishing apparent bias. The Court concluded that the apprehension advanced by Tata Power was unsupported by sufficient evidence and therefore did not warrant judicial intervention.
With the challenge dismissed, the arbitral award remains undisturbed. Interest continues to accrue at 5.33 per cent per annum from November 30, 2020, in addition to the legal costs awarded in favour of Kleros. Kleros’ legal representatives have maintained that the overall liability, after accounting for accrued interest and costs, has now exceeded US$640 million.
Tata Power has indicated that it intends to challenge the SICC ruling before the Singapore Court of Appeal and has 28 days to pursue the appellate remedy.
The decision reinforces the restrained approach adopted by Singapore courts towards judicial interference with arbitral awards and underscores the distinction between a genuine denial of procedural fairness and an attempt to invite the supervisory court to revisit the tribunal’s substantive findings.
The post Singapore Court dismisses Tata Power’s challenge to $490.32 million arbitral Award appeared first on India Legal.