At the heart of the dispute was a contract under the CPT-13 project, part of India's western Dedicated Freight Corridor. The respondent, DJO, a special purpose vehicle managing this project, had awarded the contract to a consortium formed by the three appellants: DJP, DJQ, and DJR. The conflict arose from a 2017 wage hike issued by the Indian Ministry of Labour, prompting the appellants to seek additional payment under contract clauses that allowed for price adjustments in case of legislative changes or increased labour costs.
However, their claim—filed three years after the notification—was met with resistance from DJO, citing time-bar provisions and procedural defaults under Clause 20.1 of the FIDIC contract conditions.
The arbitration, conducted under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules in Singapore, initially went in favour of the appellants, awarding them over US$13 million (including interest and costs). But the Singapore High Court, and now the Court of Appeal, found that the tribunal had copied at least 212 out of 451 paragraphs of the final award directly from two other related arbitrations (CP-301 and CP-302) involving different parties and contracts.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, delivering the judgment alongside Justices Steven Chong and David Neuberger, expressed grave concern:
“A fair-minded and informed observer would reasonably apprehend that the Award was prepared by a Tribunal that did not keep an open mind.”
The court emphasized that the copied material wasn’t trivial. It included erroneous legal provisions, such as referencing the wrong version of Clause 13.8 from a different contract, and incorrectly applying Indian law instead of Singapore law on interest and costs. Additionally, references in the award to calculations never presented in the present arbitration further fueled concerns.
Justice Menon observed:
“The most important warranty provided to [parties] is that their dispute will be determined through a fair, impartial and equal process.”
The tribunal, chaired by former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, faced accusations of apparent bias and failure to apply its mind independently. Though no bad faith was imputed, the court ruled that the appearance of prejudgment and unequal treatment between arbitrators rendered the entire process flawed.
Despite arguments by the appellants’ counsel that the copy-pasting was a harmless "short cut", the court strongly disagreed. It held that such conduct compromised the right to a fair hearing and eroded trust in arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.
Quoting precedent, the court noted:
“Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.”
The ruling also rejected the appellants’ request to only set aside parts of the award, stating that the breach tainted the entire award. The case has drawn international attention, as it underscores the heightened responsibility arbitrators bear—especially when multiple proceedings are involved.
The appeal has been dismissed, and parties have been directed to submit cost-related arguments within three weeks.
Read The Judgment Here
keywords: Arbitration award, breach of natural justice, Singapore court, freight corridor dispute, ICC arbitration, contract dispute
