Tata Power files FIR against Kleros, alleges $8m loss from data leak

Tata Power has filed a First Information Report against Kleros Capital Partners and seven other individuals at Mumbai’s MRA Marg police station on November 2. The company alleges that the accused, which includes two Kleros directors, an arbitrator, an expert witness, a litigation funder, and two former Tata Power employees, engaged in criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust.

The FIR specifically cites the misuse of confidential company information as a central element of the alleged misconduct. Tata Power claims this activity resulted in an $8 million loss.

Allegations of data misuse

• Shantanu Singh, the group head of legal at Tata Power, lodged an FIR claiming that ex-employees disclosed sensitive information to Kleros Capital Partners.
• The purportedly leaked documents comprised private correspondence, preliminary legal filings, depositions, queries for counsel, and a standalone project review.
• Tata Power contends that expert witness John Weiss formulated a valuation without performing an on-site inspection.
• The filing asserts that both Weiss and arbitrator Stuart Isaacs possessed previous ties to Kleros.
• The First Information Report fails to identify when the suspected breach was identified.
• No law enforcement measures have been recorded apart from the initial case entry.
• Neither Kleros nor the other named individuals have provided any reported response.
• The FIR omits any schedule regarding the Singapore Court of Appeal litigation.

Financial stakes and award details

The dispute centers on a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) award with a principal sum of $490.32 million. This figure represents the adjudicated liability, not the amount Tata Power alleges was lost through fraud. Kleros Capital Partners asserts that the total financial exposure, including accrued interest, now exceeds $640 million (over ₹6,000 crore).

Tata Power estimates its direct loss from the alleged data misuse at approximately $8 million (₹95 crore). While the underlying liability finding was unanimous in September 2023, the subsequent damages award was decided by a 2:1 majority in July 2025.

Component	Amount
SIAC Award Principal	$490.32 million
Tata Power Estimated Direct Loss	~$8 million (₹95 crore)
Kleros Total Claim	>$640 million (₹6,000 crore)

Interest on the award accrues at 5.33% per year from 30 November 2020. According to Kleros's counsel, this rate adds roughly $71,600 to the total sum each day. The legal records do not clarify whether the FIR constitutes a genuine pursuit of criminal wrongdoing or a strategic pressure tactic in the ongoing civil proceedings.

Market reaction and company context

Tata Power shares slid to a seven-month low of ₹348.20 on the day following a ruling by the Singapore International Commercial Court. On August 26, 2026, that court dismissed all set-aside applications related to the dispute.

In its most recent financial disclosures, Tata Power reported a record profit of ₹5,118 crore for fiscal year 2026. The company’s net worth stands at approximately ₹39,500 crore. Despite the legal pressures, the utility has maintained aggressive capital spending. Its capital expenditure for the first quarter of fiscal year 2027 reached ₹5,375 crore, marking the highest quarterly figure in the company’s history.

A note from Motilal Oswal dated October 31 highlighted that the stock had fallen 27% in the preceding six months.

Singapore appeals and enforcement mechanics

Tata Power stated it would appeal the August 26, 2026, Singapore International Commercial Court decision to the Singapore Court of Appeal, with one report indicating the appeal was lodged by end-September. The company has not provided for the award in its FY26 or Q1 FY27 accounts, citing legal advice, while its auditor flagged the matter without qualifying its opinion. Filing an appeal does not by itself suspend enforcement of the award.

Jurisdictional limits and enforcement strategy

The Mumbai FIR does not bind Singapore courts, and reaching a British Virgin Islands-registered firm, a foreign arbitrator, and an overseas funder presents a jurisdictional challenge. A live criminal case offers Tata Power a recognised public-policy ground for resisting enforcement of the foreign award in India. Police powers to seize devices and emails could yield fresh evidence for the Singapore appeal, whereas private litigants lack such access. The filing does not clarify if the criminal pursuit is a genuine wrongdoing investigation or a tactic to complicate Kleros's enforcement, leaving the timing—two months after the Singapore loss—as a point of contention.