Firm Matters

Khaitan & Co represented KSE Electricals before the Singapore High Court on an international supply contract dispute with the Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board, involving an arbitral award of approximately USD 6.9 million, excluding interest and costs.

Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board (“BREB”), a corporation established and operated by the Government of Bangladesh, filed an application (HC/OA 164/2026) before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore to set aside parts of a Consolidated Final Award dated 7 November 2025 made by an arbitral tribunal in an ad hoc consolidated arbitration against KSE Electricals Pte Ltd (India) (“KSE”), an entity incorporated in India in the business of electrical distribution line accessories. The dispute arose from six contracts entered into between BREB and KSE in 2017 and 2018 for the supply of guy accessories, involving allegations of defective goods (zinc coating deficiency), breach of agreed arbitral procedure regarding joint testing, and wilful misconduct. The Award concerned claims of substantial commercial value, with the Tribunal awarding KSE approximately US$6.9 million, excluding interest and costs. BREB was represented in the setting-aside proceedings by Wong Partnership LLP.

The High Court, in its judgment dated 5 August 2026 ([2026] SGHC 163), dismissed the setting aside application in its entirety. Justice Kristy Tan held that: (a) the Tribunal’s procedural decision to proceed with the arbitration without awaiting completion of the Further Joint Testing fell within the Tribunal’s exclusive procedural domain and did not constitute a breach of agreed arbitral procedure; (b) the Tribunal did not breach the fair hearing rule by failing to consider essential issues in the Defective Goods Claim, as the arguments cited by BREB were merely arguments on the essential issue and not essential issues themselves; and (c) BREB’s challenge on the Wilful Misconduct Claim failed because, even assuming a breach of natural justice, BREB could not demonstrate actual prejudice as it had not proven the incurrence of consequential losses.