India Glycols v Texan Minerals: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice & Excess of Jurisdiction
In India Glycols Ltd, IGL Chem International USA LLC, and Dharmesh Mehta v Texan Minerals and Chemicals LLC, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application to partially set aside an arbitration award. The court, presided over by Kristy Tan JC, dismissed the claim of breach of natural justice but allowed the application in part, setting aside the portion of the award that held IGL Chem International USA LLC and Dharmesh Mehta liable for damages, finding that the arbitrator exceeded its jurisdiction. The court upheld the award against India Glycols Ltd.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed in part
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court partially set aside an arbitration award, finding no breach of natural justice but excess of jurisdiction regarding damages against certain parties.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| India Glycols Ltd | Claimant, Respondent | Corporation | Partial Loss | Partial | Siraj Omar SC, Larisa Cheng, Robbie Tan |
| IGL Chem International USA LLC | Claimant, Respondent | Corporation | Won | Won | Siraj Omar SC, Larisa Cheng, Robbie Tan |
| Dharmesh Mehta | Claimant, Respondent | Individual | Won | Won | Siraj Omar SC, Larisa Cheng, Robbie Tan |
| Texan Minerals and Chemicals LLC | Defendant, Claimant | Corporation | Partial Loss | Partial | Colin Seow Fu Hong, Huang Qianwei |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kristy Tan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Siraj Omar SC | Siraj Omar LLC |
| Larisa Cheng | Siraj Omar LLC |
| Robbie Tan | Siraj Omar LLC |
| Colin Seow Fu Hong | Colin Seow Chambers |
| Huang Qianwei | Colin Seow Chambers |
4. Facts
- Texan and IGL entered into a Manufacturer Representation Agreement (MRA) in February 2021.
- IGL nominated Texan to be the exclusive distributor of its hand sanitiser products in North America.
- Clause 4.8 of the MRA required IGL to maintain a robust quality assurance program including GMP as required by USA FDA.
- Texan raised issues with the quality of the hand sanitiser products around June 2021.
- Texan alleged that the hand sanitisers had not been manufactured and packaged in compliance with the US Food and Drug Administration’s (the “FDA”) current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”).
- Texan, IGL, ICI and Dharmesh executed an arbitration agreement in March 2023.
- The Tribunal found that IGL breached the MRA by failing to bring their facilities up to cGMP compliance standards within a reasonable period of time.
5. Formal Citations
- India Glycols Ltd and others v Texan Minerals and Chemicals LLC, Originating Application No 963 of 2024, [2025] SGHC 28
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Texan placed purchase orders with ICI for hand sanitisers | |
| Texan placed purchase orders with ICI for hand sanitisers | |
| Texan and IGL executed a Manufacturer Representation Agreement | |
| Texan raised issues with the quality of hand sanitiser products | |
| Texan issued a letter to IGL alleging breach of contract | |
| Texan, IGL, ICI and Dharmesh executed an arbitration agreement | |
| Texan commenced the Arbitration against IGL, ICI and Dharmesh | |
| Tribunal issued the Award | |
| OA 963 hearing | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that IGL breached the Manufacturer Representation Agreement by failing to maintain GMP standards.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to comply with GMP standards
- Excess of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing liability on parties not subject to the breached agreement.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Enforcement of promises to take back the sanitizer product
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Chemical Manufacturing
- Distribution
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BZW and another v BZV | High Court | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1080 | Singapore | Cited regarding the fair hearing rule. |
| CJA v CIZ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited regarding the fair hearing rule. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited regarding showing that arguments from the parties on the applicability of the presumption would have had a real as opposed to a fanciful chance of making a difference to the Tribunal’s deliberations |
| TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited regarding there is no requirement that the Tribunal had to expressly state that it was addressing these submissions by its finding |
| BAZ v BBA and others and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 266 | Singapore | Cited regarding the possibility of an arbitral award being severable and the court setting aside only that part of the award made in excess of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction |
| Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1279 | Singapore | Cited regarding an arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any issue not referred to it for determination by the parties |
| CBX and another v CBZ and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 47 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court adopts a two-stage enquiry to determine whether an arbitral award was made in excess of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction |
| CDM and another v CDP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 235 | Singapore | Cited regarding the scope of the parties’ submission to arbitration is determined with reference to five sources |
| CAJ and another v CAI and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited regarding the overriding consideration is to determine whether the relevant issues had been properly pleaded before the tribunal |
| CKH v CKG and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court will view the whole position and the course of events objectively and fairly to determine what the parties may be taken to have accepted between themselves and before the arbitral tribunal |
| CIM v CIN | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 1176 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court will interpret the material on the record objectively, keeping in mind the context in which the material or communication was conveyed in the arbitration |
| GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co Ltd v Tornado Consumer Goods Ltd and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 271 | Singapore | Cited regarding once the applicant shows that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, there is no further requirement for the applicant to show that it had suffered real or actual prejudice |
| Swire Shipping Pte Ltd v Ace Exim Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 5 SLR 706 | Singapore | Cited regarding once the applicant shows that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, there is no further requirement for the applicant to show that it had suffered real or actual prejudice |
| Inzign Pte Ltd v Associated Spring Asia Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 147 | Singapore | Cited regarding a successful defence of set-off is necessarily premised on the claimant having first successfully established its claim |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Manufacturer Representation Agreement
- Good Manufacturing Practices
- cGMP compliance
- Storage Costs
- Arbitration Award
- Set-off
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- breach of contract
- GMP
- natural justice
- excess of jurisdiction
- Singapore
- hand sanitizer
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- International Trade
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Contract Law