Tata Power intends to challenge the Kleros arbitration award of $490.32 million in the Singapore Court of Appeal after its previous legal attempt was dismissed.
On August 26, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) rejected Tata Power's applications to set aside the arbitration awards issued in 2025. Furthermore, the court dismissed the challenge to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) ruling from June 2025 concerning the appointment of two arbitrators to the majority tribunal.
In its ruling, the SICC found that the tribunal did not violate the principles of natural justice or rules of fair hearing, thereby refuting Tata Power's arguments regarding apparent bias and unaddressed issues of causation, remoteness, and mitigation.
Following this decision, Tata Power announced that it will file an appeal with the Singapore Court of Appeal within the stipulated period of 28 days from August 26, according to CNBC-TV18.
Background of the Dispute
The conflict between Tata Power and Kleros arose from arbitration proceedings that began in November 2020. This dispute relates to agreements concerning a coal mining project proposal in Russia. The arbitral tribunal previously held Tata Power responsible for breaching certain non-disclosure agreements, as well as for failing to fulfill contractual obligations of good faith and trust.
The three-member tribunal awarded Kleros compensation of $490.32 million for lost investment opportunity. The decision was made by a majority vote of 2:1, and Tata Power was also obligated to pay annual interest of 5.33% on this amount, starting from November 30, 2020, until payment.
Additionally, Tata Power must cover certain legal and arbitration costs, while interest on the $490.32 million continues to increase the total debt amount.
What Happens Next?
Tata Power now has 28 days from the date of the SICC ruling to file an appeal with the Singapore Court of Appeal, and the company has confirmed its intention to do so.
Previously, the company claimed to have legal grounds to challenge the arbitration awards and had not made a provision for potential payment in its financial statements based on legal advice. However, its latest statement does not indicate a change in this position, other than confirming the planned appeal.