Indus Powertech Inc v Echjay Industries Private Ltd

RICKY DIWAN KC (instructed by Stewarts Law LLP) for the Claimant THOMAS PLEWMAN KC and CHINTAN CHANDRACHUD (instructed by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 9 and 10 March 2026 (Draft Judgment circulated on 24 March 2026) ____________________

"(2) Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant�

"The fact that Section 68(2)(d) is confined in its application to essential issues as distinct from the reasons for determining them should give rise no practical difficulties. If one simply approaches that provision by asking whether that which has not been dealt with is capable of being formulated as an essential issue of the nature of what would be included in an agreed list of issues prepared for the purposes of a case management conference if instead of an arbitration the matters were to be determined in court, the answer should normally be obvious."

"It is likely to be a serious irregularity under section 68 for the tribunal to fail to deal with all essential issues. But it may do so concisely. A failure to deal with an issue is not the same as a failure to set out the reasoning for rejecting a particular argument. Such a failure is remediable under section 70 (4): see Colman J in Margulead Ltd v Exide Technologies [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 727 and in World Trade Corporation Ltd v Czarnikow Sugar Ltd [2004] 2 All R (Comm) 813; and Morison J in Fidelity Management SA v Myriad International Holdings BV [2005] EWHC 1193 (Comm) ."

"�(iii) A tribunal is not required to deal with each issue seriatim: it can sometimes deal with a number of issues in a composite disposal of them.