New Delhi: In a great embarrassment, Singapore The Supreme Court has received a mediated award against the special purpose vehicle (SPV) The dedicated freight in India was established to manage the corridors of the transportation, after finding out that the tribunal headed by retired CJI Deepak Mishra copied 212 out of 451 paragraphs from two earlier awards, including the same parties.
However, MP HC X-Chief Justice was also included in the tribunal. KK Lahoti And J&K HC Geeta Mittal’s East-CJ, a Singapore SC bench led by Chief Justice Sundar Menon Since the other two were not part of the earlier awards, it could not be ascertained if they were also aware of Mishra’s “copy-paste” job.
Singapore SC was firm that copying compromised the integrity of the arbitration process and thus it did not follow “principles of natural justice”.
The court said, “Enough material obtained from parallel arbitration was external idea, which was not raised to the attention of the parties. The content made such a wider part of the award that it could not only be ignored. It was clear that it was neither contemplated nor done by parties that it could agree with a process.
On November 24, 2023, through his award, the Tribunal, led by Justice Mishra, ruled in favor of the three firms, who in August 2015 formed a union to bag the contract for the Western dedicated Mall Dhilai corridor. The Indian government’s decision to increase the labor wage created a controversy, demanding Consortum, which was selected for the SPV.
Singapore HC’s decision to separate the award, Justice Menon and Steven chong The 40-Annaly analyzing the award in the judgment of the Rash, it was found that it was in violation of the principles of copying and the principles of natural justice. A bench headed by Justice Menon acknowledged SPV’s arguments and dismissed those in the consortium.
The SPV said that during the mediation, Justice Mishra used comprehensive material obtained from parallel mediation. Singapore SC said, “It is also the general basis that the award was not drafted. Rather, parallel awards were used as a template, which was thought of mediation specifications, with the adjustment made for it,” Singapore SC said.
CJ Menon said that the SPV had abandoned some submissions in parallel arbitration and replaced them with unique new arguments for mediation in hand. He said, “These new arguments arose due to the slightly different factual matrix presented by arbitration: for example, the difference in the length of the delay and the consortium claim allowed the SPV to give additional arguments on Estopel,” he said.
Singapore SC said, “Despite this, the parallel awards were used as templates in drafting the award to a very important degree. It is undisputed that at least 212 paragraphs from parallel awards were maintained in the 451-Pargraph Award. It has many implications.”
“We also consider that the expectation of equality between the mediators was compromised. Whereas, as we mentioned, there is no evidence about what has been transported among the members of the tribunal, it is known that in this case two co-arbitrations were not private for parallel arbitration. To tell that, so, as a result, “said this.
