The stay order issued by the Bangladesh High Court has not only paused the Adani Power–BPDB dispute—it has also raised a major question: Even though the contract designates the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), how far can a local court intervene in an international arbitration process?

High Court Order: Arbitration Halted Until Investigation Report Arrives

The dispute between Adani Power and Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB) over electricity bills and pricing was supposed to be settled through SIAC arbitration.
But the High Court ruled that until the government-formed investigation committee submits its report, the Singapore-based arbitration cannot start or continue.

This decision has effectively brought the international arbitration process to a halt.

Why This Tension Despite SIAC Being in the Contract?

If a contract designates SIAC as the “seat of arbitration,” then, under international law, the primary authority over the arbitration lies with that forum.
However, in practice, courts in many countries may impose temporary restraints under special circumstances—such as allegations of fraud, urgent investigations, or public interest concerns.

The result is a direct conflict between the foreign arbitration forum and the local courts’ jurisdiction.

Key Reasons Behind the Dispute: Pricing, Tax Benefits & Allegations

At the heart of the dispute are:

• Higher-than-normal electricity price per unit
• Ambiguities over tax benefits
• Questions over the transparency of production costs

In the 2023–24 fiscal year, Adani’s electricity price was set at Tk 14.87 per unit—much higher than the average Tk 9.57 per unit charged by other Indian suppliers.

Adani’s Response: “This Is Outside the Jurisdiction of the Bangladesh Court”

Adani Group argues that the contract clearly designates SIAC as the sole seat of arbitration, so the issue does not fall within the ordinary jurisdiction of Bangladesh courts.
They are currently reviewing the High Court order and exploring international legal remedies.

BPDB declined to comment on the matter.

Legal Reality: International Arbitration vs. Local Courts

Legal experts say that when a foreign country is selected as the arbitration seat, its courts typically supervise the arbitration process — in this case, Singapore’s courts.
However, if a local court believes that an urgent investigation or protective measures are necessary to safeguard the public interest, it may issue temporary orders.

This dual structure has now placed the Bangladesh–Adani dispute at the center of a complex legal test.

Outcome: An Uncertain Road Ahead

It remains unclear when or whether the arbitration will resume.
The High Court’s investigation-dependent stay order has left the future unresolved.
This is more than just a financial dispute—it is also a real test of the relationship between Bangladesh’s courts and international arbitration mechanisms.

#tag: international_news | Adani | Bangladesh | Singapore_arbitration | court | legal_complexity