Reliance Infrastructure v. Shanghai Electric: Arbitration Award Challenge Based on Alleged Forgery

The Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Reliance Infrastructure Limited's appeal against a decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), which had refused to set aside an arbitral award in favor of Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd. The dispute arose from a Letter of Guarantee related to a construction project in India. Reliance Infrastructure argued that the Guarantee Letter was a forgery and that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The SICC found that Reliance Infrastructure had waived its right to object to the tribunal's jurisdiction and that the alleged forgery was not proven. The Court of Appeal upheld the SICC's decision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismisses Reliance Infrastructure's appeal to set aside an arbitration award, finding waiver of jurisdictional objections regarding an alleged forged guarantee letter.

1.7 Decision Date

16 December 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Reliance Infrastructure Limited	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Vergis S Abraham of Providence Law Asia LLC Liu Enning of Providence Law Asia LLC
Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Cavinder Bull of Drew & Napier LLC Foo Yuet Min of Drew & Napier LLC Tay Hong Zhi Gerald of Drew & Napier LLC Aw Wei Jie Daryn Emmanuel of Drew & Napier LLC Lai Weng Han of Drew & Napier LLC Tan Pei Han of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Steven Chong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Robert French	International Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Vergis S Abraham	Providence Law Asia LLC
Liu Enning	Providence Law Asia LLC
Cavinder Bull	Drew & Napier LLC
Foo Yuet Min	Drew & Napier LLC
Tay Hong Zhi Gerald	Drew & Napier LLC
Aw Wei Jie Daryn Emmanuel	Drew & Napier LLC
Lai Weng Han	Drew & Napier LLC
Tan Pei Han	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

RINFRA argued an arbitral award against it should be set aside due to a forged Guarantee Letter.
RINFRA did not object to the tribunal's jurisdiction based on forgery during arbitration.
RINFRA explicitly stated it was not alleging forgery in its opening submissions to the tribunal.
RINFRA sought to introduce fresh evidence of forgery in the SICC.
The SICC found RINFRA had waived its objection to jurisdiction.
The SICC also found that there was no forgery on the evidence presented.
Mr. Agrawal was described as an 'Authorized Signatory' for RINFRA in a letter dated 4 July 2008.

5. Formal Citations

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd, Civil Appeal No 1 of 2024, [2024] SGCA(I) 10

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-05-25	Mr Agrawal requested deletion of parent company guarantee clause.
2008-06-24	Reliance UK entered into a contract with Sasan Power Ltd.
2008-06-26	Reliance UK and SEC entered into the Supply Contract.
2008-06-26	Guarantee Letter purportedly executed by RINFRA.
2008-07-04	Mr Agrawal sent a letter to SEC's Vice President.
2008-08-26	Mr Agrawal emailed SEC regarding RIL Guarantee Letter.
2019-01-01	Arbitration commenced.
2021-09-06	RINFRA made clear it was not alleging forgery in Opening Submissions to the Tribunal.
2022-01-21	Oral closing submissions in arbitration.
2022-01-30	SEC's counsel clarified details of the Guarantee Letter to the Tribunal.
2022-02-04	RINFRA's legal representative sent an email to the Tribunal regarding the Guarantee Letter.
2022-02-11	RINFRA updated its Summary Schedule of Issues in the arbitration.
2022-02-16	Tribunal inquired about specific findings regarding the Guarantee Letter.
2022-02-18	RINFRA's legal representatives stated the Tribunal should declare the Guarantee Letter invalid.
2024-01-01	Witnesses cross-examined at SICC hearing.
2024-07-31	Court dismissed the appeal against the SICC decision.
2024-12-17	Reasons for dismissing the appeal published.

7. Legal Issues

Waiver of Jurisdictional Objection
- Outcome: The court held that RINFRA had waived its right to challenge the award on the grounds of forgery and want of authority.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Actual knowledge of facts underlying jurisdictional objection
  - Failure to raise objection in a timely manner
Validity of Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid, as RINFRA had failed to prove forgery and Mr. Agrawal had apparent authority.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Forgery of Guarantee Letter
  - Lack of authority to execute arbitration agreement
Public Policy Exception to Arbitration Award Finality
- Outcome: The court held that the public policy exception did not apply, as RINFRA had disavowed the issue of forgery before the tribunal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Fraud affecting the award
  - Violation of fundamental principles of morality and justice

8. Remedies Sought

Setting Aside of Arbitral Award

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Enforcement of Guarantee

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction
Energy

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Reliance Infrastructure Limited v Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC(I) 3	Singapore	The current judgment is an appeal of this case. The SICC decision is discussed extensively and ultimately affirmed.
Deutsche Telekom AG v The Republic of India	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC(I) 7	Singapore	Cited for the principle of waiver of jurisdictional objections in arbitration, specifically regarding the requirement of actual knowledge of the underlying facts.
BAZ v BBA	High Court	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 266	Singapore	Cited regarding the use of the doctrine of waiver to preclude a public policy objection.
DFM v DFL	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2024] SGCA 41	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party cannot stake a certain position before the Tribunal, and then completely change course subsequently when the award is not to its liking.
China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another	High Court	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 695	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party cannot stake a certain position before the Tribunal, and then completely change course subsequently when the award is not to its liking.
Freeman and Lockyer (a firm) v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd and another	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1964] 2 QB 480	England and Wales	Applied to determine the question of apparent authority to conclude an arbitration agreement.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration	International

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Guarantee Letter
Arbitration Award
Jurisdictional Objection
Waiver
Forgery
Apparent Authority
UNCITRAL Model Law
Public Policy
SIAC
SICC

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
forgery
waiver
jurisdiction
guarantee
singapore
construction
contract

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	95
Recourse against award	90
Jurisdiction	85
Illegality and public policy	70
International Commercial Arbitration	60
Separability	55
Waiver of objections	50

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Contract Law
Civil Procedure