Singapore’s international commercial court has refused to overturn a $490.32 million arbitral award against Tata Power Company Limited, bringing a major challenge over a Russian coal-mining project to another setback for the Indian energy company.
The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), comprising Justice S Mohan and International Judges Anthony Besanko and Anthony Meagher, rejected Tata Power’s arguments that the arbitration tribunal had failed to address key issues and that two of its members faced circumstances giving rise to apparent bias.
The dispute traces back to non-disclosure agreements signed by Tata Power and investment advisory firm Kleros Capital Partners in 2013 and 2014.
Kleros had approached Tata Power over a possible investment in a project involving the Krutogorovo coal deposit in Russia. According to Kleros, it provided confidential information concerning the deposit and the process for securing a mining licence.
The agreements imposed confidentiality obligations on Tata Power and contained provisions aimed at preventing the company from bypassing Kleros’ economic interests in the proposed project.
The partnership later broke down amid disagreements over the project’s control and proposed equity arrangements. Tata Power ultimately secured the mining licence through its Russian subsidiary, FENR, in January 2018.
The project was subsequently deemed commercially unviable, and the licence was surrendered in 2022.
Kleros initiated arbitration in November 2020 under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules, alleging that Tata Power had improperly used confidential information and acted to sideline it from the project.
In September 2023, the tribunal unanimously concluded that Tata Power had breached its contractual obligations. It found that the company had misused confidential information, circumvented Kleros and failed to act in good faith.
The tribunal also concluded that Tata Power had made representations that encouraged Kleros to continue its dealings with the company while Tata Power was allegedly pursuing a strategy to exclude Kleros and secure the mining opportunity itself.
The damages question produced a split decision.
In July 2025, the tribunal majority assessed the underlying project at approximately $1.0215 billion and determined that Kleros had lost a 60% chance of successfully developing it. Tata Power was consequently ordered to pay $490.32 million in damages, along with approximately $8.29 million in legal costs and annual interest of 5.33%.
Arbitrator AK Ganguli disagreed with the majority’s approach to damages. He concluded that Tata Power’s conduct had not prevented Kleros from pursuing the project and favoured negotiating damages of $13.5 million instead.
Tata Power subsequently challenged the award before the SICC.
The company argued that the majority had failed to properly determine questions surrounding causation, remoteness and mitigation. It also raised an apparent-bias objection involving presiding arbitrator Professor Lawrence Boo and co-arbitrator Stuart Isaacs KC.
The court rejected those arguments, finding that Tata Power’s natural-justice challenge effectively sought to revisit the substance of the tribunal’s conclusions.
According to the SICC, the relevant question was not whether the tribunal’s reasoning was sufficiently detailed or persuasive, but whether the essential issues had actually been considered.
The court found adequate evidence that causation had been examined. It also stressed that an arbitral tribunal is required to determine essential issues, but is not obliged to separately address every argument advanced by the parties.
The same reasoning applied to remoteness and foreseeability. The court said those matters had been considered as part of the causation analysis, and the fact that the tribunal had not created a separate section dealing specifically with remoteness did not amount to a denial of natural justice.
The judges emphasised that the substance of the tribunal’s consideration mattered more than the structure or presentation of its reasoning.
Tata Power’s apparent-bias argument also failed.
The company had pointed to Omni Bridgeway, Kleros’ funder, having involvement in other arbitrations connected with members of the tribunal. The SICC concluded that this connection, without supporting evidence of actual circumstances indicating bias, was insufficient to establish a reasonable apprehension of partiality.
With both grounds of challenge rejected, the $490.32 million award remains in place.
The ruling reinforces the Singapore courts’ restrained approach to reviewing international arbitral awards, particularly where a party attempts to recast disagreements over an arbitral tribunal’s reasoning as procedural or natural-justice violations.
