The Tata Power Company Limited v Kleros Capital Partners Limited
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 24–30 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | Singapore International Commercial Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Anthony Besanko, Anthony Meagher, S Mohan |
| Charges / claim | Arbitration |
| Counsel | Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, Duxton Hill Chambers, Prolegis LLC, WongPartnership LLP, Chan Kit Munn Claudia, Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen, Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh, Edwin Tan, Elizabeth Wee Wen Cui, Frank Oh Sheng Loong, Goh Enchi, Jeanne, Gulshan Singh Gill, Hanspreet Singh Sachdev, Jaikanth Shankar, Koh Swee Yen, Liang Hanwen Calvin, Lim Rui-Qi Rochelle, Tan Yi Liang, Toby Landau KC, Wong Zheng Hui Daryl |
Source: [2026] SGHC(I) 15, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (3)
Counsel (21)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
The Tata Power Co Ltd v Kleros Capital Partners Ltd and other matters [2026] SGHC(I) 15 was decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court, with S Mohan J delivering the judgment of the court, on 26 August 2026. Tata challenged an arbitral Quantum Award in which a majority of the tribunal awarded Kleros damages amounting to approximately US$490m for loss of a chance, following a Liability Award finding breaches of two non-disclosure agreements. The issues were whether the Majority breached natural justice or the agreed arbitral procedure by failing to decide causation, remoteness and mitigation, and whether Prof Boo or Mr Isaacs KC showed apparent bias. The court dismissed OA 13, OA 24 and OA 25 in their entirety with costs.
[2026] SGHC(I) 15 explained
The Tata Power Company Limited v Kleros Capital Partners Limited ([2026] SGHC(I) 15) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 26 August 2026. It is categorised under Arbitration. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGHC(I) 15 about?
The Tata Power Company Limited v Kleros Capital Partners Limited ([2026] SGHC(I) 15) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Infra petita challenge”, “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Breach of natural justice”, and “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Breach of natural justice — Whether tribunal demonstrated apparent bias”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(I) 15 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(I) 15 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 61 and [2025] SGHC 28. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
What was Tata Power v Kleros Capital Partners about ([2026] SGHC(I) 15)?
Tata Power applied to set aside an arbitral Quantum Award that gave Kleros approximately US$490m for loss of a chance after breaches of non-disclosure agreements, alleging breach of natural justice and apparent bias in the tribunal majority.
What did the court decide in [2026] SGHC(I) 15?
The Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed OA 13, OA 24 and OA 25 in their entirety with costs, holding the Majority did not fail to decide essential issues and that no reasonable suspicion of apparent bias arose.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (22)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC(I) 15)