Facts of the Case
The dispute arose from a large infrastructure project in India, involving a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) responsible for managing freight corridors and a consortium of three companies contracted for its execution. In 2017, the Indian government issued a notification under the Minimum Wages Act that significantly increased minimum wages for workers in various sectors. The consortium claimed that this wage hike was an unforeseen development that led to a substantial rise in their labour costs. Based on this, they demanded additional payments from the SPV, asserting that such increased costs should be reimbursed under the change in law or force majeure provisions of the contract. The SPV, however, disagreed, arguing that the contract did not entitle the consortium to such additional compensation. As the disagreement escalated and mutual negotiations failed, the parties referred the matter to arbitration in Singapore under the ICC Rules. The tribunal, chaired by former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, eventually ruled in favour of the consortium, awarding them compensation for the increased wage burden. However, the award was later challenged before the Singapore High Court, which found that significant portions of the award were copy-pasted from earlier awards authored by the same presiding arbitrator in unrelated proceedings. The High Court found this indicative of apparent bias and failure to independently assess the present dispute, and therefore set aside the award. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Singapore.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court noted that over 200 paragraphs out of the 451-paragraph award were directly lifted from earlier awards in unrelated cases. Although the arbitrator is allowed to draw on similar reasoning across cases, the Court observed that these were different disputes with their own factual matrices and contractual terms, and hence required a fresh and independent application of mind. The tribunal not only adopted reasoning wholesale from prior matters but also introduced errors in the present award, including application of the wrong law and referencing incorrect contractual clauses. The Court emphasised that these mistakes were not minor oversights but indicative of a flawed decision-making process that compromised the fairness of the proceedings.
The tribunal, in copying substantial portions from awards in earlier arbitrations where only the presiding arbitrator had participated, also created an imbalance within the arbitral panel. The co-arbitrators in the present case had not been part of those past matters and thus had no access to or context for the material that was used to form a large part of the present award. The Court found this unequal access to information among arbitrators to be yet another reason to question the integrity of the decision-making process.
Further, the Court expressed serious concern over the fact that material from unrelated proceedings was used in the present arbitration without disclosure to the parties, thereby denying them an opportunity to address or respond to such material. The award, therefore, not only failed to engage with the specific facts and submissions of the present dispute but also violated fundamental principles of procedural fairness and transparency.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court to set aside the arbitral award. It held that the process adopted by the tribunal had compromised the integrity of the proceedings. The Court found that a fair-minded observer would reasonably apprehend apparent bias in the manner the award was drafted and concluded that the tribunal had failed to exercise independent judgment in deciding the matter before it. The use of undisclosed material, the importation of reasoning from prior cases without adjustment, and the errors in basic references all demonstrated a lack of procedural rigour and impartiality. Accordingly, the arbitral award was set aside.
Our Comments
This judgment is a strong reminder of the high standards of independence, diligence, and procedural fairness expected of arbitral tribunals—especially in international arbitration. For India, the fallout is particularly significant because the tribunal in question was chaired by a former Chief Justice of India. The case reflects poorly on the credibility of Indian arbitrators in the global arena, particularly when international courts find lapses of such magnitude—copy-pasting from past awards, not disclosing materials to parties, and compromising the equal footing of arbitrators on the panel.
At a time when India is actively promoting itself as an arbitration hub, especially with the push for institutional arbitration and the establishment of centers like the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC), such incidents damage the trust of foreign parties in appointing Indian arbitrators or opting for Indian seats. Even though the arbitration was seated in Singapore, the ripple effect on perception is unavoidable.
What’s especially worrying is not just the issue of plagiarism, but the perception of bias and lack of transparency in the process. These are core principles of arbitral legitimacy. A decision like this, coming from a top court in a jurisdiction known for its strong arbitration culture, sets a precedent for strict scrutiny—something that Indian institutions and arbitrators must internalize.