Singapore Court Upholds US$490.32M SIAC Award In Favour Of Kleros Capital Against Tata Power

On 26 August, the Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed three applications filed by The Tata Power Company Limited challenging a US$490.32 million Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) award in favour of Kleros Capital Partners Limited.

A Bench of Justice S Mohan and International Judges Anthony Besanko and Anthony Meagher observed that a party cannot use setting-aside proceedings to reopen the merits of an arbitral award merely because it disagrees with the tribunal's reasoning on causation, remoteness or mitigation. It held:

“Thus, shorn of its frills, Tata's case on apparent bias is, in our judgment, no more than an unfounded apprehension that is ungrounded in evidence and unsupported by the findings and conclusions in the Liability Award or the Quantum Award.”

The dispute arose from two non-disclosure agreements dated 21 September 2013 and 16 September 2014 concerning a proposed coal-mining project involving the Krutogorovo deposit in Russia.

Kleros approached Tata Power as a potential co-investor and shared information concerning the deposit and the process for obtaining a mining licence. The relationship later deteriorated, and Tata Power's Russian subsidiary obtained the mining licence in January 2018.

Kleros commenced arbitration under the SIAC Rules on 30 November 2020, alleging misuse of confidential information, circumvention and breach of contractual obligations.

On 26 September 2023, the tribunal unanimously found Tata Power liable for several breaches of the non-disclosure agreements and proceeded to determine causation and damages.

In its Quantum Award dated 1 July 2025, the tribunal's majority awarded Kleros US$490.32 million in damages. Tata Power sought corrections on 20 July 2025, which were made on 2 August 2025.

In its Final Award dated 27 August 2025, the majority directed Tata Power to pay S$2.95 million towards arbitration expenses, including tribunal costs, and reimburse Kleros' deposits, with 5.33% simple interest on the reimbursable S$2.69 million. It also directed Tata Power to pay S$98,154.39 towards Kleros' additional legal costs and expenses, with 5.33% interest until full payment.

Tata Power then approached the Singapore International Commercial Court through three applications under the International Arbitration Act 1994 and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, as amended in 2006. The applications sought relief against the arbitral awards and challenged the constitution and conduct of the tribunal.

One application challenged the appointments of presiding arbitrator Professor Lawrence Boo and co-arbitrator Stuart Isaacs KC for apparent bias, while the other two sought to set aside the Quantum and Final Awards on, among other grounds, breach of natural justice and failure to follow the agreed arbitral procedure.

Tata Power argued that the majority had failed to properly consider causation, remoteness and mitigation, thereby failing to decide matters submitted for determination and breaching the fair-hearing rule.

It also alleged apparent bias based on undisclosed appointments of the arbitrators in unrelated proceedings involving Kleros' third-party funder, Omni Bridgeway, and alleged professional connections involving the arbitrators. Tata Power initially further argued that the majority had exceeded the scope of its submission by awarding damages beyond the relief sought by Kleros, but subsequently withdrew this ground of challenge.

Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the tribunal had applied its mind to causation, remoteness and mitigation. It said setting-aside proceedings could not be used to reopen the merits merely because a party disagreed with the tribunal's reasoning or conclusion.

On causation, the Court first rejected Tata Power's main argument on the ground that it constituted a new ground of challenge raised out of time and was therefore time-barred. In the alternative, it held that the argument was an attempt to reopen the merits of the tribunal's decision, observing: “In essence, therefore, Tata's present infra petita complaint is, in our view, really a disguised attempt (borne out of counsel's ingenuity) at attacking the merits of the Majority's decision, which is a matter that is not justiciable before us.”

On remoteness, it held that the tribunal need not deal with every issue under a separate heading, provided its reasoning, read as a whole, showed that it had considered the issue.

On mitigation, the Bench found that the tribunal had considered the parties' arguments and reached a decision, adding that the correctness of that decision was immaterial in setting-aside proceedings.

It also rejected the apparent-bias allegation, holding that Omni Bridgeway's funding of parties in unrelated arbitrations involving the same arbitrators did not, without more, establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Further, it observed that Tata Power's complaints reflected the perspective not of a fair-minded observer, but of a party that was “unduly sensitive or suspicious” and seeking means to overturn the Quantum Award.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed all three applications in their entirety with costs, leaving the US$490.32 million SIAC award in favour of Kleros Capital Partners intact.

For Tata Power: Advocates Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh SC, Jaikanth Shankar, Hanspreet Singh Sachdev, Gulshan Singh Gill and Goh Enchi, Jeanne (Davinder Singh Chambers LLC) (instructed); Koh Swee Yen SC, Wong Zheng Hui, Daryl, Frank Oh Sheng Loong, Edwin Tan and Elizabeth Wee Wen Cui (WongPartnership LLP) (instructed); and Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen, Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Chan Kit Munn Claudia and Tan Yi Liang (Prolegis LLC).

For Kleros Capital Partners Limited: Advocates Toby Landau KC, Liang Hanwen, Calvin and Lim Rui-Qi, Rochelle (Duxton Hill Chambers).