Business · Companies · 7 hrs ago
Tata Power accuses arbitrator and former staff after $490 million ruling
Tata Power has filed a Mumbai police complaint accusing an arbitrator and former employees of conflicts of interest and leaking company information.
The complaint concerns a dispute with Kleros Capital, a former private equity partner, over a Russian coal project.
Kleros says Tata Power breached an agreement after it shared confidential project information in 2013; Tata Power later pursued the mining rights on its own and dropped the project in 2020.
An arbitration panel awarded Kleros $490 million in 2025, and interest has since raised the amount to $650 million.
After Tata Power's challenges were dismissed, a Singapore court ordered shares in two Tata Power subsidiaries seized and sold to recover the debt.
The arbitrator named in the complaint denies the allegations, and Singapore's arbitration centre and High Court had rejected related challenges; Tata Power did not raise the conflict claims in its High Court case.
The police complaint alleges that former employees passed information to Kleros, but the available account does not say what action police will take next.
Tata Power has accused a Singapore arbitrator and former employees of conflicts of interest and leaking confidential information in a Mumbai police complaint.
The allegations concern Tata Power’s arbitration dispute with Kleros Capital over a Russian coal project.
A Singapore arbitration awarded Kleros $490 million in 2025, an amount that the article says had grown to $650 million with interest.
A Singapore court ordered the seizure and sale of shares in two Tata Power subsidiaries to recover the debt.
Arbitrator Stuart Isaacs denied the allegations, saying they were without foundation.
- Who
- Tata Power accused arbitrator Stuart Isaacs, Kleros Capital figures and two former employees. Isaacs denied the allegations.
- What
- Tata Power filed a police complaint alleging conflicts of interest and the leaking of company information in its dispute with Kleros Capital.
- When
- The FIR was filed on 2 November. The article was published on 10 November 2026.
- Where
- The FIR was filed in Mumbai, and the arbitration and court proceedings took place in Singapore.
- Why
- Tata Power alleges that undisclosed connections and leaked information weakened its case in the arbitration. The dispute arose from a Russian coal project.
Tata Power
Stuart Isaacs
Conflicts of interest
Tata Power
Tata Power alleged Isaacs had travelled to Russia with Kleros figures before the arbitration and that the connections were not disclosed.
Stuart Isaacs
Isaacs said the allegations were wholly without foundation and that his first contact with the Kleros figures was when they gave evidence in the arbitration.
Information and conduct
Tata Power
Tata Power’s FIR accused former employees and Kleros figures of working together to harm the company.
Stuart Isaacs
Isaacs said the allegations were demonstrably untrue; he said they had been rejected by the arbitration centre and the Singapore High Court.
Kleros shared confidential data with Tata Power under a non-disclosure agreement for a proposed joint Russian coal project.
Tata Power’s complaint alleged that Kleros director Ingolfur Skulason arranged trips to Russia involving Isaacs and Kleros expert witness John L. Weiss.
Tata Power dropped the Russian coal project.
Kleros won a $490 million arbitration award, which later rose to $650 million with interest.
Tata Power filed the FIR in Mumbai.
A Singapore court ordered seizure of shares in two Tata Power subsidiaries to recover the debt.
- FIR date
- 2 November
- Arbitration award
- $490 million in 2025
- Award with interest
- $650 million
- Project
- Russian coal deposit
- Seizure order
- Shares in two Tata Power subsidiaries
- Arbitrator
- Stuart Isaacs KC
2 sources
What people are saying
The allegations which are apparently made in the complaint are wholly without foundation in every respect and are scurrilous
My first and only contact with Mr Skulason and Mr Weiss was when they gave evidence in the arbitration proceedings