The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) on May 5 set aside an arbitral award worth ₹80.29 crore after finding that a tribunal of retired Indian judges delivered its decision with a “closed mind,” copying large sections from previous awards without independent analysis.
The ruling marks a blow to the credibility of international arbitration panels comprising retired Indian judges following the Court of Appeal of the Singapore Supreme Court’s April decision to uphold the annulment of an award chaired by former chief justice of India Dipak Misra on similar grounds.
In a scathing 85-page judgement earlier this month, SICC judge Roger Giles ruled that the tribunal majority—identified only as “judge A” and “judge C”—had “extensively reproduced reasoning from earlier related awards rather than conducting fresh analysis.”
The case concerned a 2016 contract termed ‘CTP-11’ between a government-owned special purpose vehicle (SPV) in India and a consortium of three infrastructure companies for the construction of a segment of India’s Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC).
The claimant SPV had approached the SICC alleging that the majority arbitrators “had not applied their mind to the specific facts and submissions relevant to the case” and had engaged in “cut-and-paste” reasoning from earlier awards in related but separate arbitrations. The SPV even flagged that the majority arbitrators had cited a “non-existent” contractual clause to support their award.
The SICC found that of 176 substantive paragraphs in the CTP-11 award, 157 had been copied either verbatim or with minor editorial changes from the previous CTP-13 award—the very same decision that had already been set aside by the Singapore Supreme Court last month.
That award, in turn, had drawn from two other decisions—the “CP-301 and CP-302”—in which Judge C was also involved.
“This was not merely a clerical error but a clear indication of reliance on past reasoning without fresh analysis,” the SICC stated. “The error arose solely from wholesale copying from the CTP-13 award, which had itself copied from earlier proceedings.”
In one glaring example, paragraph 150 of the award reproduced a price adjustment formula from the CP-302 contract rather than from the CTP-11 agreement. Further compounding the issue, the tribunal applied Indian law instead of Singapore law to determine pre- and post-award interest, again mirroring past rulings without justification.
The previous Singapore Supreme Court ruling had found that the CTP-13 award, chaired by former CJI Dipak Misra, contained 212 out of 451 paragraphs copied from prior awards authored by Justice Misra in separate disputes.
Hindustan Times reached out to Justice Misra for comment, but received no response.
The dispute originated when the consortium sought a price adjustment following a 2017 notification by the union labour ministry revising minimum wages. The SPV rejected the demand, claiming price escalation had already been covered in the contract.
After failed attempts at amicable resolution and reference to a Dispute Adjudication Board, the case went to International Chamber of Commerce arbitration seated in Singapore. The tribunal comprised three retired Indian judges—two nominated by the parties and a presiding arbitrator appointed jointly.
Their final award, issued in June 2024 by a 2:1 majority, granted the consortium ₹80.29 crore against the ₹92 crore sought, with compound interest. It also directed the SPV to bear 80% of arbitration and legal costs. The dissenting arbitrator argued the claim was barred and, even if admissible, would amount to only ₹34.26 crore.
The SICC formally set aside the award and directed the parties to agree on costs of the proceedings.
These consecutive rulings raise serious questions about the credibility of international arbitration panels comprising retired judges from India, particularly in high-value commercial disputes.