RGLC Moot Court Petition

8/18/2019 RGLC Moot Court Petition

1/28

Before

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI,

APPLICATION NO. _____/2013

Athleti! G!"#e$%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%.%%%%%%%%%... Petiti&"e'

v.

G&(e'")e"t &* I"+i! .............%%%%%...%%%%%%............................ Re$&"+e"t

With

CONTE-PT PETITION NO. _____/2013

Athleti! G!"#e$...%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%..%%%Petiti&"e'

v.

G&(e'")e"t &* I"+i!..............................................%%..%.%%%..%%% Re$&"+e"t

0


2/28

TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................II

Index of Abbreviations.............................................................................................................III

Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................IV

Statement of Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................VIII

Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................IX

Questions resented..............................................................................................................XIII

Summar! of leadin"s..........................................................................................................XIV

leadin"s....................................................................................................................................#

1. THERE WA NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B THE PETITIONER ..........................#

#.#. The Last-Shot Rule would apply in interpreting Contractual Negotiations$...........#

#.%. The obligation to satisfy itself lay on the Government as the Contract was entered

into on an ‘as is where is basis!........................................................................................%

#.&. The Company is not liable for any crimes of financial impropriety$.......................&

#.'. The Government has violated its contractual obligations relating to "etitioners

Trade Secret $......................................................................................................................'

2. THE ARBITRAL AWARD I LIABLE TO BE ET AIDE.................................................(

#$%$ The &ward by the &rbitrator is perverse and patently illegal!................................(

#$#$ 'n &rguendo( The "rocedure followed did not comply with the &rbitration

&greement!.......................................................................................................................#%

3. WHETHER THE R EPONDENT I GUILT OF CIIL CONTE-PT...............................#&

. WHETHER THE R EPONDENT HA CO--ITTED THE OFFENE OF PERUR.........#'

ra!er.......................................................................................................................................#(


3/28

INDE4 OF ABBREIATION

) Section

)) Sections

* ara"ra+h

** ara"ra+hs

A.. Andhra radesh

A.C. A++ellate Cases

AI, All India ,e+orter

Anr. Another

-om. -omba!

Cri..J. Criminal a/ Journal

.-. in"1s -ench

2ad. 2adras

n. 3ote

4rs. 4thers

.C.A. revention of Corru+tion Act

SC Su+reme Court

SCC Su+reme Court Cases

Sd56 Si"ned

Su++. Su++lementar!

7.. 7ttar radesh

7.S. 7nited States

7.T. 7nion Territor!

v. Versus


4/28

INDE4 OF AUTHORITIE

STATUTES

Indian enal Code8 #9(0..........................................................................................................#'

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(...............................................................................(

The Contem+t of Court Act8 #:;#............................................................................................#&

The '? S, :........................................................#&

+abu Ram Gupta v$ Sudhir +hasin8 AI, #:;: SC #@9%..........................................................#&

+an* of +aroda v$ Sadruddin ,asan aya8 >%00'? # SCC &(0...............................................#&

+SNL v$ +"L .obile Cellular Ltd8 >%009?#& SCC @:;..............................................................#

-utler 2achine Tool v. =x6Cell64 Cor+oration8 #:;:B # , '0# Court of A++eal..............#

Coco v$ &$N$ Clar* Ltd 8 #:(:B ,C '#.....................................................................................@

Commonwealth v$ /ohn 0airfa1 2 Sons Ltd 8 >#:90? #'; C, &:.............................................@

3dpuganti +apanaiah v$ Sri )$S$ Ra4u &nd Two 5rs8 %00; A Di"h Court8 Contem+t Case

3o.:#@ of %00%.....................................................................................................................#'

,ouse of spring gardens point blan* 8 #:9&B FS, %#&..............................................................@

'6bal &hmed Saeed v$ State of ."8 C. A. 3o. (0'5#::@............................................................&

/agdish v$ "remlata evi8 AI, #::0 ,aE 9;.............................................................................##

)uldip Singh v$ State of "un4ab( >#:9'? # Crimes #0&& >D?...............................................#%

Laliteshwar "rasad Sahai v$ +ateshwar "rasad 8 AI, #:(( SC @90.........................................:

L'C of 'ndia v$ Ra4a 7asireddy )omalavalli )amba 2 5rs8 >#:9'? % SCC ;#:........................#


5/28

-'nde1 of &uthorities- -"etitioner-

Lord &shburton v$ "ape8 #:#&B % Ch '(:..................................................................................@

.$S$ Narayanagouda v$ Giri4amma8 AI, #:;; ant. @9...........................................................;

.urray &nd Co v$ &sho* )$R$ Newatia8 >%00%? % SCC &(;.....................................................#&

N$( /$( 8$( 9$( v$ 0'N&8 CAS :95%09............................................................................................(

Narendra Singh and &nother v$ State of ."8 >%00'? #0 SCC (::.............................................'

5NGC v$ Saw "ipes8 >%00&? @ SCC ;0@....................................................................................(

"earse v$ "earse ( #9'(8 #( J Ch #@&.....................................................................................#0

"rabhu v$ State of Ra4asthan8 >#:9'? # Crimes #0%0 >,aE? >G-?............................................#%

R$ v$ Collins8 >#:9;? # SC, %(@>Can SC?................................................................................#0

R$ v$ Stillman8 >#::;? # SC, (0; >Can SC?.............................................................................#0

Radha )ishan v$ Navratan .al 8 AI, #::0 ,aE #%;.................................................................##

Ra4 )ishore v$ State of :ttar "radesh8 #:99 AII Cr Cas ##.....................................................##

Ra4inder )umar )indra v$ elhi &dministration8 >#:9'? ' SCC (&@........................................9

Ra*apali Ra4a Rama Gopala Rao v$ Naragani Govinda Sehararao8 >#:9:? ' SCC %@@....... .#&

Sachindra Nath "an4a v$ N$L$ +asa*( "rincipal Secretary( Goverment of 9est +engal 8 %00'

>'? CD3 (0%.........................................................................................................................#'

Saltaman 3ngineering v$ Campbell 3ngineering 8 >#:'9? (@ ,C %0& >CA?.............................@

Sharad +udhichand Sharda v$ State of .aharashtra8 AI, #:9' SC #(%%................................:

Siman La*ra v$ Sudhis "rasad 8 #::& >#? J, ':&.................................................................#&

State of )erala v$ .$.$ .athew8 AI, #:;9 SC #@;#..............................................................#%

State of Ra4asthan v$ .ohan Singh8 #::@ Su++ >%? SCC #@&..................................................#&

State of :" v$ Su*hbasi8 AI, #:9@ SC #%%'............................................................................#%

The Government of NCT of elhi vs$ Shri )hem Chand and &nother8 AI, %00& Gelhi '..#%

The Security "rinting and .inting Corporation of 'ndia v$ Gandhi 'ndustrial Corporation8

>%00;? #& SCC %&(.................................................................................................................9

IV


6/28

-'nde1 of &uthorities- -"etitioner-

Thomas .arshall v$ Guinle8 #:;:B # Ch %&;...........................................................................@

Three Rivers istrict Council 2 5rs v$ Governor 2 Company of the +an* of 3ngland 8 %00&B

=CA Civ ';'....................................................................................................................#0

:nion +an* of 'ndia v$ 5fficial Li6uidator8 >#::'? # SCC @;@.................................................%

:nited States v$ Conte8 >3.G. Cal. %00'?...................................................................................9

:S&& v$ G8 CAS %00'545(':..................................................................................................9

:S&& v$ .$ and '&&08 CAS %00'545('@................................................................................9

7$ Sambandan v$ The "un4ab National +an*8 .. 3o. #:@@; of %00: 2.. 3o. # of %00:.%

7odafone 'nternational ,oldings + 7 vs$ :nion of 'ndia8 >%0#%? ( SCC (#&...........................'

BOOKS

James A.,. 3afHi"er8 Circumstantial 3vidence of oping! +&LC5 and +eyond 8 #( 2ar.

S+orts . ,ev. '@ >%00@?........................................................................................................;

4 2alhotra And Indu 2alhotra81 The Law and "ractice of &rbitration and Conciliation 8

exis 3exis -utter/oerths adh/a8


7/28

TATE-ENT OF URIDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for two petitions filed before this

Honourable Court clubbed together by the Honourable Court. The first application

invokes its territorial ordinary original civil jurisdiction under section !"#$ of the

%rbitration %nd Conciliation %ct& #''( read with section )"#$ and section )"*$ of The +elhi

High Court %ct& #'((. The second Contempt Petition invokes original jurisdiction under

section ## of The Contempt of Court %ct& #',#. -t sets forth the facts and the laws on

which the claims are based.


8/28

TATE-ENT OF FACT

I.

an Atheletica Inc. is a com+an! incor+orated in the 7nited States of America /ith the

+ur+ose of +rovidin" a s+ectrum of services in the S+orts Industr!. In #:998 a subsidiar! /as

set u+ in eru >Atheltica 2achu? to cater to the "ro/in" atin American clientele. an

Athletica set u+ a research /in" to investi"ate the local flora and fauna in the nearb! AmaHon

forests in -raHil. The com+an! then set6u+ a research station near the Indo63e+al border after

incor+oratin" a subsidiar! in 3e+al >Athletic =verest? in #:9:. Till no/ an Athletica did not

have a food and nutrition de+artment.

In #::#8 the com+an! si"ned a local football team in -raHil8 esvalidos /hich8 did ver! /ell.

=ventuall! ((K +ercent of the team members /ent on to become a +art of the national

football team. -e"innin" in #::% Athletica 2achu si"ned them for a decade. -et/een #::%

and %00%8 -raHil /on the orld cu+ t/ice and reached the final once. -! no/ the com+an!

had a full! functional food de+artment.

II.

an Athletica1s success in -raHil hel+ed it maLe an entr! in a lar"e number of develo+in"

economies. Do/ever8 the means and methods em+lo!ed b! them /ere Le+t com+letel! secret

and the +la!ers /ere made to si"n a :: !ear non disclosure a"reement.

In %0008 2r. Sumanto DaEela8 the Indian 2inister for S+orts and International Affairs8

a++roached 2r. aurie >one of the +romoters of an Athletica? to hel+ out /ith the Indian

DocLe! Team. In order to com+l! /ith the


9/28

-Statement of 0acts- -"etitioner-

taLen care of8 the +arties entered into a contract on an as is /here is basis1 throu"h Athletica


10/28


In the meantime the -raHillian enuir! /as +ublished8 and rel!in" on that a local -raHillian

Court held Atheletica 2achu to be "uilt! of environmental violations and +a!in" several

bribes. The 7nited States commenced investi"ations under the Forei"n Corru+t ractices Act8

#:;;.

-o/in" to increasin" "lobal +ressure8 the Indian


11/28


The Com+an! continued to raise man! obEections to the +rocedure of the conduct of the

Arbitration +roceedin"s and the rules to evidence attached8 but each obEection /as reEected.

The Com+an! also filed a Civil Contem+t etition a"ainst the


12/28

5UETION PREENTED

#.# D=TD=, TD=,= AS A -,=ACD 4F C43T,ACT -O TD= =TITI43=, P%.# D=TD=, TD= A,-IT,A AA,G IS IA-= T4 -= S=T ASIG=P&.# D=TD=, TD= ,=S43G=3T IS


13/28

U--AR OF PLEADING

THERE WA NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B THE PETITIONER

The etitioner submits that there /as no breach of contract on the +art of Athletica


14/28

-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-

THE R EPONDENT HA CO--ITTED THE OFFENE OF PERUR

The ,es+ondent has "iven an undertaLin" statin" that the! /ill not rescind the contract /here

as the decision to rescind the contract had alread! been taLen b! the res+ondent. hoever in

an! declaration made b! him to an! court of Eustice8 maLes an! statement /hich is false8 and

/hich he believes to be either false or does not believe to be true8 touchin" an! +oint material

to the obEect for /hich the declaration is made shall be +unishable in a "rave manner as if he

"ave false evidence. Therefore the ,es+ondent has committed the offense of +erEur!.


15/28


PLEADING

1. THERE WA NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B THE PETITIONER

The etitioner submits that there /as no breach of contract on the +art of Athletica #? of the Indian Contract

Act8 /herein it /as held that if one /ere to alter or modif! the terms of the contract8 it /as

reuired to be done either b! ex+ress a"reement or b! necessar! im+lication /hich /ould

ne"ate the a++lication of the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio1.R

# +utler .achine Tool v$ 31-Cell-5 Corporation( #:;:B # , '0# Court of A++eal.

% L'C of 'ndia v$ Ra4a 7asireddy )omalavalli )amba 2 5rs8 >#:9'? % SCC ;#:8 at *#9.

& +SNL v$ +"L .obile Cellular Ltd8 >%009?#& SCC @:;8 at * &0.


16/28


In the instant case8 durin" the ne"otiation of the contract8 the +arties disa"reed on the


17/28


18/28


7odafone 'nternational ,oldings +7 v$ :nion of 'ndia#08 the Su+reme Court noted that

man! of the offshore com+anies use the facilities of 4ffshore Financial Centers situate in

2auritius8 Ca!man Islands etc. 2an! of these offshore holdin"s and arran"ements are

undertaLen for sound commercial and le"itimate tax +lannin" reasons8 /ithout an! intent

to conceal income or assets from the home countr! tax Eurisdiction and India has al/a!s

encoura"ed such arran"ements8 unless it is fraudulent or fictitious.R

-ased on the above la/8 it is humbl! submitted b! the etitioner that the mere existence of a

holdin" com+an! in the Ca!man Islands cou+led /ith the fact that Athletica 2achu /as held

liable for offences in -raHil does not automaticall! dra/ the inference that the etitioner /as

involved in mone! launderin". In the instant case8 there is no +roof as to the linL bet/een

+rofits "ained from offences committed b! Athletica 2achu8 and the transactions entered into

bet/een Athletica %0#%? ( SCC (#& at * #'%.

## Indian Innovation -ill8 ) %>&? Coco v$ &$N$ Clar* Ltd 8 #:(:B ,C '# Thomas .arshall v$ Guinle8 #:;:B #

Ch %&; ,ouse of spring gardens point blan* 8 #:9&B FS, %#&.

#% Saltaman 3ngineering v$ Campbell 3ngineering 8 >#:'9? (@ ,C %0& >CA?.


19/28


infrin"ement of ri"ht is a++licable in cases /here the information /as obtained im+ro+erl! as

breach of confidence.#& In the instant case8 the emails that /ere +roduced as evidence constitute trade secrets. The!

contained information of trainin"8 food and nutrition. The same had commercial value as it

contained the mantra of successes1 of the team. The com+an! has taLen all the reasonable

ste+s to Lee+ it a secret liLe non6disclosure a"reement /ith +la!ers.The "overnment has breached the confidence of the com+an! b! obtainin" those emails

throu"h ille"al means and hence breached the contract.

Therefore8 the etitioner submits that in the absence of a breach of the contract b! the

etitioner8 no dis+ute re"ardin" the contract can be said to have arisen. Dence8 the Arbitrator8

in renderin" his a/ard on the matter has acted be!ond the sco+e of his authorit! under

Section %9>&? of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::( >hereinafter( 6The A%?>b?.

#@ 5NGC v$ Saw "ipes8 >%00&? @ SCC ;0@8 at * %#.


20/28


!= Pie$ C!$e8? /herein it /as held that an arbitral a/ard is liable to be set aside in case it

suffers from a +atent ille"alit!. This submission shall be dealt /ith in a t/o6+ron"ed manner$

0irstly8 the standard of +roof to be com+lied /ith in a case concernin" an Anti6Go+in" rule

violation is the stee+ standard of Comfortable Satisfaction1. Secondly8 the a/ard has been

made in conscious violation of the +leadin"s and the evidence8 and is therefore +erverse.

%.#.#. The -urden of roof to be dischar"ed is one of Comfortable Satisfaction1$

The Court of Arbitration in S+ort8 in its landmarL decree in N$( /$( 8$( 9$ v$ 0'N(8 held that

the standard of +roof a++licable in +rovin" a Case of do+in" in s+ort is one that establishes a

heav! burden of Comfortable Satisfaction1 of the hearin" bod!. The case further ex+lained

that the burden of +roof reuired to be dischar"ed under this standard is more than a mere

balance of +robabilities and is more aLin to that of be!ond reasonable doubt1. This standard

of +roof has also been ado+ted under the orld Anti Go+in" A"enc!1s Code >hereinafter(

6the WADA C&+e8?#; in dealin" /ith anti6do+in" rule violations. 2oreover8 the standard has

also been ado+ted in India b! the revised Anti6Go+in" ,ules of the 3ational Anti6Go+in"

A"enc!#9 >hereinafter 8 6the NADA R>le$8?8 /hich have been ado+ted in conformance /ith

the AGA Code. Therefore8 it is considered a rule of custom in International S+orts a/. #:

Finall!8 the etitioner submits that "iven the ,es+ondents themselves have submitted the

AGA "uidelines and relevant as+ects of Indian la/ for +erusal b! the arbitrator %0 an

inference ma! be dra/n as to their acce+tance of this hi"h burden of +roof.

-ased on the above la/8 the etitioner asserts that in adEudicatin" as to /hether the a/ard is

liable to be set aside on the "rounds of it conflictin" /ith the +ublic +olic! of India8 the Court

16 N$( /$( 8$( 9$( v$ 0'N&8 CAS :95%098 at * #&.

#; The orld Anti6Go+in" Code8 %00:8 at Article &.#.

#9 The Anti6Go+in" ,ules8 The 3ational Anti Go+in" A"enc!8 India8 at Article &.#.

#: James A.,. 3afHi"er8 Circumstantial 3vidence of oping! +&LC5 and +eyond 8 #( 2ar. S+orts . ,ev. '@

>%00@?.

%0 0actsheet at * #'.


21/28


must looL at the arbitral a/ard throu"h the +rism of /hether the heav! burden of

Comfortable Satisfaction1 has been dischar"ed.

%.#.%. The A/ard is in violation of the +leadin"s and the evidence8 and hence +erverse$

A /ell established "round for settin" aside an arbitral a/ard is +erversit!1.%# In .S

Narayanagoudas Case8 it /as held that a decision made in conscious violation of the

+leadin"s and the la/ is a +erverse decision and it cannot be allo/ed to stand uncorrected.%%

In addition to this the Su+reme Court%& has held that /here an arbitrator records findin"s

based on no le"al evidence8 and the findin"s are either his ipse di1it or based on conEectures

or surmises8 the enuir! suffers from the added infirmit! of non6a++lication of mind and

stands vitiated.

The etitioner further asserts that althou"h recent develo+ments in relation to evidence

admissible under cases +ertainin" to anti6do+in" rule violations have allo/ed for the

admissibilit! of Circumstantial evidence as o++osed to merel! do+e test results8 there is a

ver! hi"h burden of +roof associated /ith the admissibilit! of such circumstantial evidence8

as o++osed to the +resum+tion associated /ith do+e test results. %'

In the instant case8 the etitioner submits8 that there is no direct evidence in the form of do+e

test results that linLs the Com+an! /ith alle"ations of committin" anti6do+in" rule violations

as +er Article % of the 3AGA ,ules.%@ The etitioner also asserts that a distinction must be

dra/n /ith res+ect to cases arisin" out of the +&LC5 Controversy18 /herein the CAS and

the 7S Gistrict Court of 3orthern California relied on admissions of "uilt and uncontroverted

%# 4 2alhotra And Indu 2alhotra81 The Law and "ractice of &rbitration and Conciliation 8 exis 3exis

-utter/oerths adh/a8 #:9'? ' SCC (&@. &lso See The Security "rinting and

.inting Corporation of 'ndia v$ Gandhi 'ndustrial Corporation8 >%00;? #& SCC %&(8 at * 9.

%' :S&& v$ G8 CAS %00'545(': :S&& v$ .$ and '&&08 CAS %00'545('@ 'ndictment 8 :nited States v$

Conte8 >3.G. Cal. %00'?.

%@ The Anti6Go+in" ,ules8 The 3ational Anti Go+in" A"enc!8 India8 at Article %.


22/28


/itness testimon!.%( These forms of evidence also find mention under the AGA Code.%; In

the instant case8 ho/ever8 the arbitrator has relied on mere documentar! evidence /hich the

etitioner submits is not sufficient to dischar"e the heav! burden of +roof reuired in usin"

circumstantial evidence in such cases.

It is submitted b! the etitioner that the Arbitrator should have follo/ed the =vidence Act

durin" the Arbitral roceedin"s. This is because8 since this /as not an International

Commercial Arbitration%98 it /ould be "overned b! art I of the Arbitration Act /hose

+rovisions la! do/n that in such a case8 the substantive la/ /ould be Indian%:. In addition8

the Arbitration A"reement +rovides that the +rocedure of the arbitration shall be determined

in the arbitration itself.&0 Ges+ite all this8 in the Arbitration A"reement8 the +arties have

ex+ressl! a"reed to use Indian a/. This8 the +etitioner submits is indicative of the +arties1

intent to use the Indian a/ relatin" to =vidence.

The etitioner also avers that an a++raisal of the evidence relied on b! the Arbitrator sho/s

that the a/ard suffers from +erversit! as laid do/n in the aforementioned la/. This is dealt

/ith under the follo/in" heads of evidence that /ere administered in the arbitral

+roceedin"s$

a? 7alidity of the emails produced by the government $

In 7$ Satyavathi v$ " 7en*ataratnam&%8 it /as held that if the +roof of the evidence is in the

uestion viH. a viH. +rovin" the "enuineness of the content b! +roducin" the same8 it /ould

not be sufficient to +rove the truth of the contents of the documents&& unless the /riter of the

%( Supra8 note %0.

%; The orld Anti6Go+in" Code8 %00:8 at Article &.%.

%9 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) %>#?>f?.

%: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) %9>#?>a?.

&0 0actsheet 8 Annexure Three8 Clause #9'.;.

0actsheet 8 Annexure Three8 Clause #9'.:.

&% #:99 >#? AT :#@ Nunna 7en*ateswara Rao vs Tota 7en*ateswara Rao 2 5rs( %00; >'? AG ;''

&&The Indian =vidence Act8 #9;%8 ) (@- >#?.


23/28


document is examined. It onl! constitutes hearsa! evidence. Dearsa! evidence is not

admissible.&'

In the "iven facts8 there is no em+lo!ee named as Ace Ventura. Dence there is no author to

the emails. Therefore the emails should not be considered b! the arbitrator. 'n &rguendo8 /hen the documents are +roduced in order to seeL le"al advice b! the client8

then these documents are protected 1 under le"al advice +rivile"e.&@ The court should looL at

the facts of the case8 /ei"hin" the harm to societ! caused b! disclosure a"ainst the harm

caused to the administration of Eustice in case of full information not available.&( ate ni"ht

-ruce 8J observed that +rotection of the client for the communication bet/een him and his

la/!er need to be +reserved in order to ensure the soundness of the +rocess of Eustice.&;

Therefore evidence collected b! violation of ri"hts and freedoms of individual should not be

admitted as it /ill brin" the +rocess of Eustice into disre+ute in the e!es of reasonable man.&9

In the "iven facts the com+an! has claimed those emails to be la/!er client +rivile"e

information as it /as created to seeL le"al advice and therefore should not have been taLen

into consideration b! the arbitrator.

b? 7alidity of the +ra#:9;? # SC, %(@>Can SC? R$ v$ Stillman8 >#::;? # SC, (0; >Can SC?.

&: The Indian =vidence Act8 #9;%8 ) ;9>(?.


24/28


Eud"ement /ithout certificate can onl! constitute secondar! evidence for /hich /hen

contents +roved8 it ma! be received.'0 In the "iven facts8 it can no/here be inferred from the

facts that the Eud"ement +roduced is certified and hence should not be admissible.

'n &rguendo8 a dru" to sho/ certain reactions in the bod! reuire certain method of

administration and certain time +eriod to react to sho/ the reuired result. 4n the basis of

facts8 the reliance of arbitrator on the forei"n Eud"ement can be challen"ed. The forei"n court

has clearl! stated that nature of the dru" to be administered is in liuid form and the time

+eriod reuired for effect is %' hrs. In India8 the biscuit alle"ed to contain the dru" is solid

form and is administered Eust before the match. Therefore it cannot be +resumed that the

com+an! has indul"ed in the same activit! as in case of the -raHil subsidiar!.

c= 7alidity of the affidavit given by the player!

Affidavits are not included in the definition of evidence1 in s.& of I=A8#9;%.'# Affidavits

filed b! the +arties /ithout "ivin" the o++ortunit! to the o++osition to cross examine the

de+onent cannot be treated as evidence under s # and & of I=A8 #9;%.'%

In the instant case8 the affidavit on /hich the arbitrator has relied cannot be admissible as the

+la!er /ho has "iven the affidavit is ver! much alive and the ri"ht of cross examination b!

the o++osition has been violated. 'n &rguendo8 /hen the affidavit is bein" considered b! the arbitrator8 here is no mention of

administration of +erformance enhancin" dru" to the +la!ers. The +la!er has clearl! stated

that the ualit! of trainin" and food and nutrition is much better. The onl! sus+icious1 food

item seem to be the s/eet biscuit. Stron" sus+icions and "rave doubts cannot taLe +lace of

'0 Sir JF Stefen81 igest of 3vidence18 Vol #8 Third =dn8 #:'08ublished b! ittle8 -ro/n Co8 -oston Arts at *

(;and ;'.

'# Ra4 )ishore v$ State of :ttar "radesh8 #:99 AII Cr Cas ## /agdish v$ "remlata evi8 AI, #::0 ,aE 9;.

'% Radha )ishan v$ Navratan .al 8 AI, #::0 ,aE #%;.


25/28


le"al +roof .'& The sweet biscuit can be com+ared to chocolate or an ener"! drinL /hich also

"ive a charge of rush .''

-ased on all of the above mentioned la/8 the etitioner humbl! submits that the Arbitral

A/ard is liable to be set aside on the "round that it conflicts /ith +ublic +olic! of India '@ due

to +atent ille"alit! and "iven the +erversit! of the a/ard8 the Court cannot allo/ it to stand

uncorrected.

%.%. 'n &rguendo( the "rocedure followed did not comply with the &rbitration &greement!

In #:9'? # Crimes #0&&

>D?.

'' htt+$55conference.!ouths+ortsn!.or"5reference5"oldber"er.+df $ Last 7isited on Januar!8 (th %0#&.

'@ The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) &'>%?>b?.

'( The Government of NCT of elhi vs$ Shri )hem Chand and &nother8 AI, %00& Gelhi '8 at * #@.

'; The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) #9.

'9 0actsheet 8 at * #'.

': The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) &'>%?>a?>v?.


26/28


Civil contem+t of court has been defined as /ilful1 disobedience to an! Eud"ment8 decree8

direction8 order8 /rit or other +rocess of a court or /ilful breach of an undertaLin" "iven to a

court.@0 In a case /here undertaLin" is recorded in the manner a"reed b! the +arties in a

court1s order8 it "ains a bindin" nature.@# Court has defined /ilful1 as intentional8 deliberate

and conscious.@% It is also submitted that for contem+t of court8 advanta"e to the contemnor is

not necessar!.@&

In the "iven factual matrix8 the Additional Solicitor #:9:? ' SCC %@@.

@& .urray &nd Co v$ &sho* )$R$ Newatia8 >%00%? % SCC &(;.

@' 0act Sheet 8 Annexure (.

@@ &shish )umar )undu v$ &$)$ Tandon8 #::' >'? S, :.

@( State of Ra4asthan v$ .ohan Singh8 #::@ Su++ >%? SCC #@& See &lso Siman La*ra v$ Sudhis "rasad 8 #::&

>#? J, ':&.

@; Sachindra Nath "an4a v$ N$L$ +asa*( "rincipal Secretary( Goverment of 9est +engal 8 %00' >'? CD3 (0%.


27/28


7ndertaLin" "iven to court is an affidavit.@9. An UaffidavitU includes affirmation and

declaration in the case of +ersons b! la/ allo/ed to affirm or declare instead of s/earin". @:

hoever in an! declaration made b! him to an! court of Eustice8 maLes an! statement /hich

is false8 and /hich he believes to be either false or does not believe to be true8 touchin" an!

+oint material to the obEect for /hich the declaration is made shall be +unishable in a "rave

manner as if he "ave false evidence.(0

In the "iven factual matrix8 an undertaLin" /as "iven b! the counsel of the res+ondent. It

declared that that the res+ondent /ill not terminate the contract till +ro+er resolution /ould

be sou"ht b! the arbitrator. Another fact note/orth! here is that the res+ondent had alread!

decided to terminate the contract. This constitutes that the res+ondent "ave false declaration

as to not terminatin" the contract till the arbitration +roceedin"s are com+leted. Dence the!

are liable for +erEur!.

Further to be noted8 that Counsel re+resents the client. In case of uncertaint!8 it is the dut! of

the client to inform his counsel and conseuentl! if false statements are made in +leadin"s8

the res+onsibilit! /ill devolve /holl! and com+letel! on the +art!. (#

ith re"ard to the ambi"uit! to counsel1s Lno/led"e8 the la/ has clearl! laid the dut! on to

the +art!. Therefore the res+ondent cannot /ash a/a! their hands b! taLin" the defence that

the Counsel did not Lne/ about the decision and hence no +erEur! /as committed.

PRAER

@9 3dpuganti +apanaiah v$ Sri )$S$ Ra4u &nd Two 5rs8 %00; A Di"h Court8 Contem+t Case 3o.:#@ of %00%

@: The &?.

(0 Indian enal Code8 #9(08 ) #:: Read 9ith ) %00.

(# &$N$Gouda v$ State of )arnata*a( >#::9? Cr J ';@(.


28/28


In the li"ht of ar"uments advanced and authorities cited8 the etitioner humbl! submits

that the Don1ble Court ma! be +leased to adEud"e and declare that$

%$ The arbitral award be set aside$

#$ The Respondent be held guilty of civil contempt of court$

>$ The Respondent be held guilty of per4ury$

%ny other order as it deems fit in the interest of euity& justice and good

conscience.

F&' Thi$ At &* ?i"+"e$$, the Petiti&"e' h!ll D>t7 B&>"+ F&'e(e' P'!7.

Sd56

>Counsel for the etitioner?

RGLC Moot Court Petition

Documents

Transcript of RGLC Moot Court Petition