Respondent Memo Final NUJS

Before
THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI

APPLICATION No _____/2013
Athlet!" G"#$e%&&&&&&&&'''&&&&&&&'&&&&&&&&&''' Petto#e(
v.
Go)e(#*e#t o+ I#,"'&&&&&&&&&'''&&&&&&'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Re%-o#,e#t
With
CONTE.PT PETITION No _____/2013
Athlet!" G"#$e%&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'Petto#e(
v.
Go)e(#*e#t o+ I#," &&&&&&&&&&'''&&&&''&'&&&''&&& Re%-o#,e#t
/.E.ORANDU. for THE RE0PONDENT/
-Table of Contents- -Respondent-
TABLE OF CONTENT0
Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................I
Index of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................II
Index of Authorities.....................................................................................................................III
Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................VII
Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................VIII
Questions Presented....................................................................................................................XI
Summar of Pleadin!s...............................................................................................................XII
Pleadin!s and Authorities........................................................................................................." # "
#. T$% &%SP'()%(T IS J*STIFI%) I( &%SCI()I(+ T$% C'(T&ACT A() I(V',I(+
A&-IT&ATI'(......................................................................................................................." # "
#.# The Petitioner has failed to ma/e necessar disclosures to the &es0ondent............." # "
#.1 The Petitioner has been involved in Crimes of Financial Im0ro0riet......................" 1 "
#.2 The &es0ondent has not violated the Com0an3s trade secret ri!hts........................" 4 "
1 T$% A&-IT&A5 A6A&) IS ('T 5IA-5% T' -% S%T ASI)%.........................................." 4 "
1.# The Petitioner has acce0ted the 7urisdiction of the Arbitrator..................................." 8 "
1.1 The Arbitrator is the sole 7ud!e of 9ualit and 9uantit of %vidence submitted......." : "
1.2 The Arbitrator3s vie; is in /ee0in! ;ith the Public Polic of India........................." < "
2 T$% &%SP'()%(T IS ('T +*I5T= 'F CIVI5 C'(T%>PT 'F C'*&T........................" #2 "
4. T$% &%SP'()%(T IS ('T 5IA-5% F'& P%&J*&=......................................................" #8 "
Praer......................................................................................................................................" #? "
I
-Index of Abbreviations- -Respondent-
INDE1 OF ABBRE2IATION0
@ 3 Section
@@ 3 Sections
A 3 Para!ra0h
AA 3 Para!ra0hs
A.P. 3 Andhra Pradesh
A.C. 3 A00ellate Cases
AI& 3 All India &e0orter
Anr. 3 Another
-om. 3 -omba
Cri.5.J 3 Criminal 5a; Journal
,.-. 3 ,in!3s -ench
>ad. 3 >adras
n. 3 (ote
'rs. 3 'thers
>>)& 3 >ines and >inerals B&e!ulation
and )evelo0mentC ActD #E8<
SC 3 Su0reme Court
SCC 3 Su0reme Court Cases
SdF" 3 Si!ned
Su00. 3 Su00lementar
*.P. 3 *ttar Pradesh
*.S. 3 *nited States
II
-Index of Authorities- -Respondent-
INDE1 OF AUTHORITIE0
Cases
#E<4G AC ##2......................................................................................................................." ## "
A.G. v. Walt HamstowD *)C B#?E8C ## T5& 822................................................................" #8 "
Adikanda wain v. !mperorD AI& #E4< Pat 18#D 0 841H "ali hankar Chatter#ee v. arat
Chandra $e%D B#E<<C Cal $C( 82?................................................................................" #< "
All India Anna $ravida &unnetra "a'ha(am v. l.". TripathiD B1IIEC 8 SCC 4#<............." #8 "
As(arall v. !mperor AI& #E41 (a! ?I..............................................................................." #: "
Ashish "umar "undu v. A.".Tandon) #EE4 B4C S5& 2#E...................................................." #: "
Attorne% General v. Guardian *ewspapers +td J#E??G AII %& 848...................................." ## "
,abu Ram Gupta v. udhir ,hasinD AI& #E<E SC #8?1......................................................" #4 "
,adat - Co v. !ast India Tradin( CoD AI& #E:4 SC 82?..................................................." #2 "
,ha(wati .oundation v. Commissioner &C$D 6rit Petition BCC (os. #4:.........................." 1 "
,*+ vs. ,W+ Industries /vt. +td.D '.>.P. 4#8F1II2..........................................................." < "
,W+ +td. v. &T*+D 1II< B4C A&- 5& 2E? B)elhiC..............................................................." ? "
Castrol Australian /t% +td v. !mTe0h Asso0iated /t% +tdD B#E?IC 8# F5& #?4.................." ## "
Co0o v. A.*. Clark +tdD J#E:EG &PC 4#................................................................................" 4 "
$harmavir in(h - 1rs. v. mt. *avra# indhuD #EE< AI$C 18E......................................" #8 "
!dpu(anti ,apanaiah v. ri "..Ra#u - 1rsD 1II< AP $i!h CourtD Contem0t Case (o.E#8 of
1II1................................................................................................................................." #: "
Gan(a Retreat - Towers +td. v. tate of Ra#asthanD B1II2C #1 SCC E#..............................." 1 "
House of prin( Gardens /oint ,lankD J#E?2G FS& 1#2......................................................." 4 "
In the &atter of the Appli0ation of .ederation Internationale de ,asketball for a ubpoena
/ursuant 1? *.S.C.S #<?1............................................................................................." #I "
III
-tatement of 2urisdi0tion- -Respondent-
Initial ervi0es +td v. /ueterilsD J#E:?G # Q- 2E:..............................................................." ## "
"onrad Wiedemann Gmbh v. tandard Castin(s /vt. +tdD J#E?8G B#IC IP5& 142................" 4 "
"rishna ,ha(%a 2ala *i(am +td. v. Harish0handra Redd% D AI& 1II< SC ?#<...................." : "
&./. harma v. atish ChandraD AI& #E84 SC 2II............................................................." ## "
&oor(ate Toba00o Co +td v. /hilips &orris +tdD J#EE#G AII %& 24#................................." ## "
&uni0ipal Corporation of $elhi v. 2a(an *ath AshokD B#E?<C 4 SCC 4E<................" < "D " #2 "
*.) 2.) 3.) W.) v. .I*A D CAS E?F1I?........................................................................................" ? "
*ara%ana /ani0ker v. The ub 4 $ivisional &a(istrate) .ort Coshin - 1rsD #E<E ,er 5T 24:
........................................................................................................................................." #8 "
*isha "anta Ro% Choudhar% v. mt. aro# ,ashini GohoD AI& #E4? Cal 1E4 B)-C.........." #4 "
1*GC v. aw /ipesD B1II2C 8 SCC <I8................................................................................" < "
Padarath Sin!h v. &attan Sin!hD B#E1IC Pat 4#E................................................................." #: "
/ooran &al v. $ire0tor of Inspe0tion 5Investi(ation6D B#E<4C # SCC 248D 2:4.................." ## "
7ueen v. Ahmed All%D ## 6& 18D 1<..................................................................................." #: "
R.&. &alkani v. tate of &aharashtraD B#E<2C # SCC 4<#................................................." ## "
R.. 2oshi v. A#it &ills +td) B#E<<C 4 SCC E?........................................................................" 2 "
Rashtri%a Ispat *i(am v. $ewan Chand Ram aranD B1I#1C 8 SCC 2I:..................." 8 "D " #1 "
Ratansi $a%a v. !mperorD AI& #E#: Sind <I B1C................................................................" #: "
Renusa(ar /vt. Co. +td. v. General !le0tri0 Co.D #EE4 Su00 B#C SCC :44.........................." < "
C Gupta v. !mperorD AI& #E14 &an! #<.........................................................................." #: "
.*. &alhotra v. Airport Authorit% of India D 1II? B1C A&- 5& <: B)elhiC.........................." : "
.R. ,ommai v. 8nion of IndiaD B#EE4C 2 SCC #................................................................." #: "
a0hindra *ath /an#a v. *.+. ,asak) /rin0ipal e0retar%) Govt of West ,en(alD 1II4 B4C
C$( :I1.........................................................................................................................." #8 "
altman !n(9( Co. +td. v. Campbell !n(9( Co. +td.D J#E4?G :8 &PC 1I2............................" 4 "
IV
hiv Raman Gour v. &adan &ohan "andaD B#EEIC Cr 5J #I22........................................." #: "
h%ni :ar(hese v tate 5Govt. of *CT of $elhi6D B1II?C #4< )5T :E# B)elC......................" ## "
tate 5*CT of $elhi6 v. *av#ot andhuD B1II8C## SCC :II..............................................." ## "
tate of &./. v.Ramesh C.harmaD B1II8C #1 SCC :1?......................................................" ## "
tate of 8ttar /radesh v. Allied Constru0tionsD B1II2C < SCC 2E:............................" 8 "D " #1 "
udarsan Tradin( Co. v. Government of "eralaD B#E?EC 1 SCC 2?......................................" 8 "
Thirupath% "umar "hemka v. CITD B1II<C 1#I CT& B>adC 1?<.........................................." 2 "
Thomas &arshall v. Guinle) J #E<EG # Ch 12<......................................................................" 4 "
8nited tates v. ConteD B(.). Cal. 1II4C..............................................................................." E "
8A$A v. G. D CAS 1II4F'F:4E............................................................................................" E "
8A$A v. &. and IAA. D CAS 1II4F'F:48..........................................................................." E "
Statutes
Indian Penal CodeD #?:I......................................................................................................" #: "
The Arbitration and Conciliation ActD #EE:.........................................................................." 8 "
The Arbitration And Conciliation ActD #EE:......................................................................." #2 "
The General Clauses A0tD #E<#..........................................................................................." #: "
The Indian !viden0e A0tD #?<1................................................................................." ## "D " #2 "
The Prevention of >one 5aunderin! ActD 1II1.................................................................." 2 "
Rules
The 1I#1 Prohibited 5ist International StandardD The 6orld Anti")o0in! Code................." E "
The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD India......................................." E "
The 6orld Anti")o0in! CodeD 1IIE....................................................................................." ? "
8
V
James A.&. (afKi!erD LCir0umstantial !viden0e of $opin(; ,A+C1 and ,e%ond<D #: >ar9.
S0orts 5. &ev. 48 B1II8C...................................................................................................." E "
'P >alhotra and Indu >alhotraD LThe +aw and /ra0ti0e of Arbitration and Con0iliation<D
5exis (exis -utter;oerths 6adh;aD +ur!aon B1II:C......................................................" 8 "
Patric/ ,. ThorntonD Lports +aw3D Jones and -artlett PublishersD B-ostonC B1I##C.........." #I "
9
$enr Cam0bell -lac/D et.alD ,la0k<s +aw $i0tionar%) :
th
%ditionD 0.#I<ED St. Paul >inn.
6est Publishin! Com0anD #EEI....................................................................................." #4 "
VI
0TATE.ENT OF 4URI0DICTION
The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to two petitions filed
before this Honourable Court, and clubbed together by the Honourable Court. The first
application invokes its territorial ordinary original civil urisdiction under section !"#$% of
the &rbitration &nd Conciliation &ct, $''( read with section )#$% and section )#*% of The
+elhi High Court &ct, $'((. The second Contempt ,etition invokes its original urisdiction
under section $$ of The Contempt of Court &ct, $'-$. .t sets forth the facts and the laws on
which the claims are based.
VII
-tatement of .a0ts- -Respondent-
0TATE.ENT OF FACT0
I'
Pan Atheletica Inc. is a com0an incor0orated in the *nited States of America ;ith the
0ur0ose of 0rovidin! a s0ectrum of services in the S0orts Industr.. Pan Athletica set u0 a
research ;in! to investi!ate the local flora and fauna in the nearb AmaKon forests in -raKil.
The com0an then set"u0 a research station near the Indo"(e0al border after incor0oratin! a
subsidiar in (e0al BAthletic %verestC in #E?E. Till no; Pan Athletica did not have a food and
nutrition de0artment.
In #EE#D the com0an si!ned a local football team in -raKilD $esvalidos ;hichD did ver ;ell.
%ventuall ::M 0ercent of the team members ;ent on to become a 0art of the national
football team. -e!innin! in #EE1 Athletica >achu si!ned them for a decade. -et;een #EE1
and 1II1D -raKil ;on the 6orld cu0 t;ice and reached the final once. - no; the com0an
had a full functional food de0artment.
II'
The means and methods em0loed b the com0an ;ere /e0t com0letel secret and the
0laers ;ere made to si!n a EE ear non disclosure a!reement. In 1IIID >r. Sumanto $a7elaD
the Indian >inister for S0orts and International AffairsD a00roached >r. 5aurie to hel0 out
;ith the Indian $oc/e Team. Pan Athletica incor0orated a ;holl o;ned subsidiar in the
Caman Islands BAthletica AtlanticaCD and Athletica +an!es served as a ;holl o;ned
subsidiar of Athletica Atlantica in India . Follo;in! ne!otiations bet;een Pan Athletica and
the Indian +overnment BhereinafterD L+overnment3CD ;herein all the !overnment3s concerns
;ere ta/en care ofD the 0arties entered into a contract on an Las is ;here is basis3 throu!h
LAthletica +an!es3 BhereinafterD LCom0an3CD in 1II2. The Contract contained an Arbitration
Clause. )urin! the ne!otiationsD the Com0an made it clear that as 0er this contractD the
VIII
!overnment ;ould not be allo;ed to com0el the Com0an to reveal its means and methods.
Alon! ;ith this contractD members of the Indian $oc/e Team ;ere made to si!n an
a!reement containin! a non"disclosure clause. The Indian $oc/e Team fared ;ell bet;een
1II1 and 1I#1.
III'
In 1II2D the -raKilian +overnment did not re"si!n ;ith Athletica >achu rather an en9uir
;as launched to loo/ into the 0ractices of the com0an and the en9uir lasted over five ears.
In Februar 1I#1D durin! the celebration in an after 0artD a drun/ member of the Indian
$oc/e contin!ent revealed the success to the ma!ic biscuits the com0an !ave. This caused
u0roar in the countr. A hi!h level en9uir ;as launched b the +overnmentD ;hile The
Indian $oc/e Federation en!a!ed the services of a 0rivate detective com0an. The Indian
+overnment also invo/ed the Arbitration clause and served a notice on the com0an.
I2'
Athetica +an!es filed a 0etition for interim reliefD to sto0 the +overnment from brea/in! the
contract. The )elhi $i!h Court admitted the 0etition and durin! the course of 0roceedin!sD
the Addl. Solicitor +eneral ;ho a00eared before the Court !ave an underta/in! that 0endin!
0ro0er resolution of the issue it ;ould not brea/ the contract. In the meantime the -raKillian
en9uir ;as 0ublishedD and relin! on that a local -raKillian Court held Atheletica >achu to
be !uilt of environmental violations and 0ain! several bribes. The *nited States
commenced investi!ations under the Forei!n Corru0t Practices ActD #E<<.
-o;in! to increasin! !lobal 0ressureD the Indian +overnment rescinded the contract and
terminated all of the Com0an3s contractual obli!ations.
2'
IX
In the on!oin! Arbitration 0roceedin!sD the Arbitrator too/ note of the above facts alon! ;ith
-raKilian 7ud!mentD the intimation of the *.S. investi!ationsD the 6A)A !uidelines and
9uotes all as0ects of Indian la;. The +overnment ;as also able to 0resent the re0ort of the
0rivate investi!atorsD ;hich relied on several emails ;hich ;as 0rivile!ed communication
and excer0ts of the -raKilian 7ud!ment. The +overnment also 0roduced the affidavits of the
0laerD Sushant Sin!h 5a//arba!ha. Amon!st the evidence submitted for arbitrationD there
;ere a lar!e number of e"mails ;hich dealt ;ith ver sensitive information about the formula
of the food and nutrition 0roducts administered to the athletesD information of ban/ AFc3sD and
certain communication ;hich ;ere su00osed to be la;er"client 0rivile!ed information. All
these e"mails ;ere for;arded b an e"mail id aceventuraN0anatheletica.us. The com0an
;ent on record to sa that there ;as no 0erson in the em0lo of the com0an b the name of
Ace Ventura. In the affidavit submitted b the athleteD he s0o/e at len!th about the 0rocedure
of the trainin! and the diet. The Com0an raised man ob7ections to the 0rocedure of the
conduct of the 0roceedin!s and the rules to evidence attachedD but each ob7ection ;as
re7ected. The Com0an also filed a Civil Contem0t Petition a!ainst the +overnment.
2I'
At the end of the arbitrationD the a;ard held that the com0an ;as indeed en!a!ed in do0in!
and that it had both ille!al and unethical means to administer the team. The arbitrator
a;arded unli9uidated dama!es to the tune of O# billion dollars to the +overnment. A!!rieved
b this a;ardD the Com0an a00roached the )elhi $i!h Court in the instant 0etition. The
com0an submitted that the entire arbitration ;as a farce as information obtained b the &TI
indicated that the decision to brea/ the contract ;as alread ta/en b the minister even before
the interim relief a00lication.
X
-7uestions /resented- -Respondent-
5UE0TION0 PRE0ENTED
The follo;in! 9uestions are 0resented before the court in the instant matter"
#. 6$%T$%& T$% &%SP'()%(T IS J*STIFI%) I( &%SCI()I(+ T$% C'(T&ACT A()
I(V',I(+ A&-IT&ATI'(.
1. 6$%T$%& T$% A&-IT&A5 A6A&) IS 5IA-5% T' -% S%T ASI)%.
2. 6$%T$%& T$% &%SP'()%(T IS +*I5T= 'F CIVI5 C'(T%>PT 'F C'*&T.
4. 6$%T$%& T$% &%SP'()%(T $AS C'>>ITT%) T$% 'FF%(S% 'F P%&J*&=.
XI
-ummar% of /leadin(s- -Respondent-
0U..AR6 OF PLEADING0
1' THE RE0PONDENT I0 4U0TIFIED IN RE0CINDING THE CONTRACT AND IN2O7ING
ARBITRATION3
The &es0ondent submits that the contract ;as rescinded due to there bein! misre0resentation
of material facts b Athletica +an!es B 8The Co*-"#9:CD as ;ell as the commission of
offences. This !ives rise to a dis0ute ;ith re!ard to the contractD and hence the &es0ondent is
7ustified in invo/in! arbitration. This submission is threefold. .irstl%) the Com0an did not
ma/e necessar disclosures. e0ondl%D the Com0an has been involved in financial
im0ro0riet. Thirdl%D the &es0ondent has not violated the Com0an3s trade secret ri!hts.
2' THE ARBITRAL AWARD I0 NOT LIABLE TO BE 0ET A0IDE3
It is humbl submitted that the A;ard is not liable to be set aside under the 0rovisions of
Section 24 of the APC Act. This submission is threefold. .irstl%D The Petitioner has acce0ted
the 7urisdiction of the Arbitrator. e0ondl%D The Arbitrator is the sole 7ud!e of the evidence.
Thirdl%D The Arbitrator3s vie; is in /ee0in! ;ith the Public Polic of India.
3' WHETHER THE RE0PONDENT I0 GUILT6 OF CI2IL CONTE.PT OF COURT'
It is submitted to the $on3ble Court that the res0ondent is not !uilt of civil contem0t of
Court. This assertion is t;ofold. .irstl%D the im0u!ned order is a consent decree and hence
non com0liance of order does not amount to contem0t of court. e0ondl%D the res0ondent has
not committed the offence of contem0t even if the decree has bindin! nature.
;' WHETHER THE RE0PONDENT GUILT6 OF PER4UR6'
It is submitted to the $on3ble Court that the res0ondent has not committed the act of 0er7ur.
&es0ondent has not submitted an false evidence there is also a lac/ of Intention on the 0art
of the res0ondent. $ence res0ondent is not !uilt of 0er7ur.
XII
XIII
PLEADING0 AND AUTHORITIE0
1' THE RE0PONDENT I0 4U0TIFIED IN RE0CINDING THE CONTRACT AND IN2O7ING
ARBITRATION3
The &es0ondent submits that the contract ;as rescinded due to there bein! misre0resentation
of material facts b Athletica +an!es BhereinafterD 8The Co*-"#9:C in enterin! into the
a!reementD as ;ell as the commission of offences relatin! to financial im0ro0riet. This !ives
rise to a dis0ute ;ith re!ard to the contractD and hence the &es0ondent is 7ustified in
submittin! the matter to the arbitrator. This submission is threefold. .irstl%) the Com0an did
not ma/e necessar disclosures. e0ondl%D the Com0an has been involved in financial
im0ro0riet. ThirdlD the &es0ondent has not violated the Com0an3s trade secret ri!hts.
#.#.# The /etitioner has failed to make ne0essar% dis0losures to the Respondent;
It has been held b the Su0reme Court
#
that Qa re0resentation is deemed to have been false
and therefore a misre0resentationD if it ;as at the material date false in substance and in fact.R
The Court also observed that Section #< of the Contract Act defines fraud as act committed
b a 0art to a contract ;ith intent to deceive another. FinallD the Court relied on the
landmar/ 7ud!ement on the issue in $err% v. /eek
1
to determine that a Qfraud is 0roved ;hen
it is sho;n that a false re0resentation has been made B#C /no;in!lD or B1C ;ithout belief in
its truthD or B2C rec/lesslD careless ;hether it be true or false.R
The &es0ondent humbl submits that as 0er the contract ne!otiations entered into b the t;o
0artiesD the +overnment had clearl ex0ressed its concerns re!ardin! the Qe0isodesR in -raKil.
To facilitate contract ne!otiationsD the +overnment had also as/ed the Com0an to submit
#
hrisht $hawan v. &=s. haw ,rothers D B#EE1C # SCC 824D at A 1I.
1
$err% v. /eek D B#??EC #4 A00 Cas 22<.
I
-/leadin(s and Authorities- -Respondent-
an 0ertinent information on these develo0ments and that the same shall be considered under
the necessar disclosures to be made in the matter. To this the Com0an re0lied on ##"I2"
1II2 that nothin! ;ith re!ard to the issue ;as Lconcrete3. It is also established fact that the
-raKilian +overnment had decided not to 0ursue an extension of the Petitioner3s contract
after 1II1D and had in fact launched an investi!ation. $enceD the &es0ondent submits that the
Petitioner3s stance that nothin! ;ith re!ard to this issue ;as Lconcrete3 must be construed as a
fraudulent misre0resentation as 0er Section #< of the Contract Act.
>oreoverD even in case the contract ;ere to be loo/ed at b the &es0ondent on an Las is
;here is basis3D the acce0ted le!al 0rinci0le is that Qas is ;here isR cannot be extended to
include even lar!e discre0ancies.
2
$enceD even if the &es0ondent in the instant case did enter
into the contract on an Las is ;here is basis3D it did not miti!ate the obli!ation of the Petitioner
to act res0onsibl.
4
The &es0ondent asserts that en9uiries relatin! to economic crimesD
environmental la;D and do0in! in -raKil did amount to Llar!e discre0ancies3 that the
Petitioner ;as obli!ed to inform the +overnment about as 0er the above le!al 0recedent.
The &es0ondent avers thatD !iven the fraudulent misre0resentation on the 0art of the
PetitionerD the &es0ondent ;ould have the o0tion to rescind the contract and see/ dama!es
throu!h arbitration. This falls in line ;ith the reasonin! of the Su0reme Court.
8

#.#.1 The /etitioner has been involved in Crimes of .inan0ial Impropriet%;
The Prevention of >one 5aunderin! Act
:
las do;n that a mone launderin! offender
Ldirectl or indirectl attem0ts to indul!e in or /no;in!l assists in or is actuall involved in
2
&an#u Gupta v. $elhi $evelopment Authorit%D #I2 B1II2C )5T <<:D at A #2.
4
,ha(wati .oundation v. Commissioner &C$D 6rit Petition BCC (os. #4:D at A 4#8.
8
Gan(a Retreat - Towers +td. v. tate of Ra#asthanD B1II2C #1 SCC E#D at A 14.
:
The Prevention of >one 5aunderin! ActD 1II1D @ 2.
#
an 0rocess or activit connected ;ith the 0roceeds of crime and 0ro7ectin! it as untainted
0ro0ert.3 AlsoD it has been established b Indian courts
<
that the burden of 0roof re9uired to
0rove mens rea in economic offences is not that of Lbeond reasonable doubt3. InsteadD courts
have im0osed a burden of no faultF strict liabilit in cases dealin! ;ith economic offences.
The &es0ondent submits that the Petitioner3s 0arent com0an has in the instant caseD been
held !uilt of 0er0etratin! a ran!e of ille!al activities in -raKilD includin! violations of
%nvironmental 5a; and -riber.
?
FurtherD it is asserted b the &es0ondent that not onl has
the 0arent com0an established a holdin! com0an in the Caman IslandsH but in a letter
dated ##"I2"1II2D the 0romoter of the Com0an statedD Q=ou seeD ;e ;anted to be sure that
all the financial transactions of the Com0an are discreet and handled 0ro0erlD if %ou know
what we mean.R
E
FinallD it is note;orth that the Petitioner Com0an has no assets located in
India
#I
D so it can be reasonabl inferred that the ca0ital for its transactions is routed to it
throu!h the Caman Islands $oldin! Com0an. -ased on the above factsD the &es0ondent
submits that the Petitioner has been involved in mone launderin!D and since activities
contrar to Indian la; are bein! committed in 0ursuance ;ith obli!ations arisin! out of the
>standard 0ontra0t<
##
D it is the &es0ondent3s submission that the +overnment is entitled to
rescind the contractD and refer contractual dis0utes to the Arbitrator.
#.#.2 The Respondent has not violated the Compan%<s trade se0ret ri(hts;
<
Thirupath% "umar "hemka v. CITD B1II<C 1#I CT& B>adC 1?<D at A 4.:H R.. 2oshi v. A#it &ills +td) B#E<<C 4
SCC E?D at A 1I.
?
.a0t heetD at A #1.
E
.a0t heetD Annexure T;o.
#I
.a0t heet) Annexure T;o.
##
.a0t heetD Annexure T;o.
1
InformationD includin! a formulaD 0atternD com0ilationD 0ro!ram deviceD methodD techni9ue or
0rocess can constitute trade secrete if it 9ualifies three other criteria.
#1
SecondlD the
information has commercial value. ThirdlD it has been sub7ect to res0onsible ste0s under the
circumstances b the 0erson la;full in control of the informationD to /ee0 it secret. 'nce a
trade secret is available in 0ublic domain then it has lost the status as ;ell as the 0rotection.
#2
In the instant caseD the information that ;as there in the emails that ;ere 0roduced in front of
the arbitrator did not constitute trade secret as that information ;as available in the 0ublic
domain. After the -raKilian 7ud!ementD the trainin!D food and nutrition used b the com0an
has come to 0ublic domain throu!h the 7ud!ement and hence lost the status of trade secret.
Therefore the !overnment has not breached the confidence of the com0an. - im0licationD
the !overnment has not breached the contract.
2'1 THE ARBITRAL AWARD I0 NOT LIABLE TO BE 0ET A0IDE3
This Court has reco!niKed that Lthe la; ;ith res0ect to challen!e to an A;ard under
Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation ActD #EE: BhereinafterD 8The A<C A!t:C is
no; ;ell settled. An A;ard can be challen!ed onl if the same is a!ainst the contractual
0rovisions or is ille!al or is so 0erverse that it shoc/s the 7udicial conscience.3 It is
note;orth that la;s !overnin! ArbitrationD internationall
#4
as ;ell as in IndiaD tilt the
balance in favour of finalit of the Arbitral A;ard. This is in reco!nition of the >/rin0iple of
#1
Indian Innovation -illD Section 1B2CH Co0o v. A.*. Clark +tdD J#E:EG &PC 4#H Thomas &arshall v. Guinle)
J #E<EG # Ch 12<H House of prin( Gardens /oint ,lankD J#E?2G FS& 1#2.
#2
"onrad Wiedemann Gmbh v. tandard Castin(s /vt. +tdD J#E?8G B#IC IP5& 142H altman !n(9( Co. +td. v.
Campbell !n(9( Co. +td.D J#E4?G :8 &PC 1I2.
#4
*(CIT&A5 >odel 5a;D Article 8.
2
/art% Autonom%< that !overns the la; of Arbitration.
#8
FurtherD it is submitted b the
&es0ondent that it is a ;ell established 0rinci0le of la; that ;hile ad7udicatin! a 0etition to
set aside an arbitral a;ardD the Court cannot substitute its o;n evaluation instead of that of
the Arbitrator.
#:
'nce it is found that the vie; of the arbitrator is a 0lausible oneD the court
shall refrain itself from interferin! ;ith the a;ard.
#<
-ased on these 0resum0tionsD the &es0ondent submits that the Arbitral A;ard is not liable to
be set aside under the 0rovisions of Section 24 of the APC Act. This submission of the
&es0ondent is a threefold one. .irstl%D The Petitioner has acce0ted the 7urisdiction of the
Arbitrator. e0ondl%D The Arbitrator is the sole 7ud!e of the 9ualit and 9uantit of evidence.
Thirdl%D The Arbitrator3s vie; is in /ee0in! ;ith the Public Polic of India.
#.#.4 The /etitioner has a00epted the #urisdi0tion of the Arbitrator;
The APC Act las do;n that an arbitral a;ard ma be set aside if the a;ard deals ;ith a
dis0ute not contem0lated or not fallin! ;ithin the terms of the submission to arbitration.
#?
Section #: of the APC Act further las do;n a le!islative acce0tance of the >kompeten'-
kompeten'< 0rinci0leD thereb declarin! the Arbitral Tribunal com0etent to rule on its o;n
7urisdiction.
#E
#8
'P >alhotra and Indu >alhotraD LThe +aw and /ra0ti0e of Arbitration and Con0iliation<D 5exis (exis
-utter;oerths 6adh;aD +ur!aon B1II:CD at 0!. #I?:.
#:
udarsan Tradin( Co. v. Government of "eralaD B#E?EC 1 SCC 2?D at A 2#.
#<
tate of 8ttar /radesh v. Allied Constru0tionsD B1II2C < SCC 2E:D at A 4H Rashtri%a Ispat *i(am v. $ewan
Chand Ram aranD B1I#1C 8 SCC 2I:D at A1E.
#?
The Arbitration and Conciliation ActD #EE:D @ 24B1CBaCBivC.
#E
The Arbitration and Conciliation ActD #EE:D @ #:.
4
In .*. &alhotra v. Airport Authorit% of India
1I
D a division bench of this Court held that
Sections #: and 24 of the APC Act need to be read to!ether in dealin! ;ith a 0etition for
settin! aside of an arbitral a;ard. The Court in this case relied on 0recedent laid do;n b the
Su0reme Court
1#
to establish that in the absence of an ob7ection Section #: of the APC Act
bein! raised before the arbitral tribunal re!ardin! the tribunal3s 7urisdictionH the 0art ;aives
the ri!ht to ma/e such an a00eal a!ainst the tribunal3s 7urisdiction before the Court under
Section 24 of the APC Act.
In the above mentioned casesD the 0arties see/in! to set aside the a;ard had not raised
ob7ections to the arbitral tribunal3s 7urisdiction before the tribunal itself as 0er Section #: of
the APC Act. In factD in these casesD these 0arties had submitted to arbitrationD and had
directl raised the 7urisdictional challen!e before the Court. In such a scenarioD Indian Courts
have held that the 0arties have ;aived their ri!ht to raise a 7urisdictional challen!e. In this
caseD Athletica +an!es has not raised an 7urisdictional challen!e before the arbitrator
himself. ThusD it is submitted b the &es0ondent that the Petitioner has ;aived its ri!ht to
challen!e the Arbitrator3s 7urisdiction. $enceD the 0etition to set aside the a;ard under
Section 24B1CBaCBivC should not be entertained.
1.1 The Arbitrator is the sole #ud(e of ?ualit% and ?uantit% of !viden0e submitted ;
In ,*+ v. ,W+ Industries +td.
11
the Court noted that the APC Act of #EE: has !one a ste0
further than the Act of #E4I in em0o;erin! the arbitrator. It ;as observed that the arbitrator
shall be the sole 7ud!e of the 9ualit and 9uantit of evidenceD and that the Court shall not be
1I
.*. &alhotra v. Airport Authorit% of India D 1II? B1C A&- 5& <: B)elhiCD at A ?.
1#
"rishna ,ha(%a 2ala *i(am +td. v. Harish0handra Redd% D AI& 1II< SC ?#<D at A <.
11
,*+ vs. ,W+ Industries /vt. +td.D '.>.P. 4#8F1II2D at A 8.
8
dra;n into re"a00raisin! the evidence. It has been reasoned that the 0arties have selected their
o;n forum and thatD in doin! soD the have conceded the 0o;er of a00raisement of the
evidence to the arbitrator.
12
In the instant caseD the 0arties had a!reed that the Procedure of arbitration ;ould be decided
durin! the arbitration. FurthermoreD the Petitioner3s claims ;ith re!ard to the rules of
evidence have alread been loo/ed into and re7ected b the arbitrator.
14
$enceD it is submitted
that the Arbitrator has alread considered the 9ualit and 9uantit of evidence in determinin!
the arbitral a;ard. The &es0ondent submits that the aforementioned le!al 0rinci0les limit the
sco0e of the Court in a00raisin! evidence.
1.2 The Arbitrator<s view is in keepin( with the /ubli0 /oli0% of India ;
In 1*GC v. aw /ipes
18
BhereinafterD 8The 0"= P-e% C"%e:CD it ;as held b the Court that
in addition to the !rounds laid do;n in the Renusa(ar Case
1:
D the Court can set aside an
a;ard ;hen it finds that the a;ard ;as L0atentl ille!al3.
In the Sa; Pi0es 7ud!ementD the Court had held meanin! of Patent Ille!alit to mean @the
ille(alit% must (o to the root of the matter and if ille(alit% was of a trivial nature) it 0annot be
held that the award is a(ainst the publi0 poli0%. The award 0ould be set aside if it is so unfair
or unreasonable that it shakes the 0ons0ien0e of the Court.A
BC
>oreoverD since the Sa; Pi0es CaseD the Courts in India have !iven a ver restrictive
meanin! to 0atent ille!alitD in an attem0t to minimiKe the effect of the 7ud!ement.
1?
In the
12
&uni0ipal Corporation of $elhi v. 2a(an *ath AshokD B#E?<C 4 SCC 4E<.
14
.a0t heetD at A #4.
18
1*GC v. aw /ipesD B1II2C 8 SCC <I8.
1:
Renusa(ar /vt. Co. +td. v. General !le0tri0 Co.D #EE4 Su00 B#C SCC :44.
1<
upra *ote 18D at A #:.
1?
,W+ +td. v. &T*+D 1II< B4C A&- 5& 2E? B)elhiC.
:
instant caseD ho;everD the &es0ondent submits that none of the conditions 0recedent are
satisfied. In order to substantiate this assertionD the &es0ondent shall deal ;ith it in a t;o"
0ron!ed manner. .irstl%) The standard of 0roof re9uired in cases of s0orts do0in! is not as
hi!h as L0roof beond reasonable doubt3. e0ondl%D the evidence submitted before the
arbitrator ma/es the a;ard a L0lausible3 oneD thereb ne!atin! the need for Court interference.
B.D.E. The ,urden of /roof to be dis0har(ed is one of >Comfortable atisfa0tion<;
The Court of Arbitration in S0ortD in its landmar/ decree in (.D J.D =.D 6. vs. FI(A
1E
D held that
the standard of 0roof a00licable in 0rovin! a Case of do0in! in s0ort is not the hi!h standard
of L0roof beond reasonable doubt3 that is used in criminal 7uris0rudenceD but merel one that
satisfies the alle!ations to the LComfortable Satisfaction3 of the hearin! bod. This standard of
0roof has also been ado0ted under the 6orld Anti )o0in! A!enc3s Code Bhereinafter) 8the
WADA Co,e:C
2I
in dealin! ;ith anti"do0in! rule violations. >oreoverD the standard has also
been ado0ted in India b the revised Anti")o0in! &ules of the (ational Anti")o0in!
A!enc
2#
BhereinafterD 8the NADA R>le%:CD ;hich have been ado0ted in conformance ;ith
the 6A)A Code. ThereforeD it is considered a rule of custom in International S0orts 5a;.
21
In
0ursuance ;ith this ;ell established 0rinci0le of s0orts la; 7uris0rudenceD the &es0ondent
has submitted the 6A)A !uidelines and relevant as0ects of Indian la; for 0erusal b the
arbitrator
22
.
1E
*.) 2.) 3.) W.) v. .I*A D CAS E?F1I?D at A #2.
2I
The 6orld Anti")o0in! CodeD 1IIED at Article 2.#.
2#
The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD IndiaD at Article 2.#.
21
James A.&. (afKi!erD LCir0umstantial !viden0e of $opin(; ,A+C1 and ,e%ond<D #: >ar9. S0orts 5. &ev. 48
B1II8C.
22
.a0tsheet at A #4.
<
-ased on the above la;D the &es0ondent asserts that in ad7udicatin! ;hether the a;ard is
liable to be set aside on the !rounds of it conflictin! ;ith the 0ublic 0olic of IndiaD the Court
must loo/ at the arbitral a;ard throu!h the 0rism of ;hether the burden of LComfortable
Satisfaction of the hearin! bod Bi.e. the arbitratorC3 has been dischar!edD and not ;hether the
alle!ations could be 0roved beond reasonable doubt.
B.D.B The Award) based on the eviden0e submitted) is a >plausible< one;
The &es0ondent submits that the 0osition of la; in relation to evidence admissible under
cases 0ertainin! to anti"do0in! rule violationsD es0eciall ;here the dru! administered is
Ldifficult to detect3D allo;s for the admissibilit of Circumstantial evidence as o00osed to
merel do0e test results.
24
>oreoverD the 6A)A Code bans !ene do0in! as a 0rohibited
0ractice under the 1I#1 Prohibited 5istD ;hich has been acce0ted b the (A)A.
28
AlsoD it is
;ell /no;n that !ene do0in!D as has been carried out b the Petitioner in the instant caseD is
difficult to detect.
2:
In the instant caseD the &es0ondent submits that there is enou!h circumstantial evidence in the
form of documentsD internal records of the com0anD and testaments !iven b the 0laers to
corroborate the alle!ations a!ainst the com0an of committin! anti"do0in! rule violations as
0er Article 1 of the (A)A &ules.
2<
In this li!htD it is submitted that the arbitrator3s findin!s
;ith re!ard to s0ecific offences includin! traffic/in!
2?
D and the administerin! or attem0ted
24
8A$A v. G. D CAS 1II4F'F:4EH 8A$A v. &. and IAA. D CAS 1II4F'F:48H Indi0tmentD 8nited tates v.
ConteD B(.). Cal. 1II4C.
28
The 1I#1 Prohibited 5ist International StandardD The 6orld Anti")o0in! CodeD at >2.
2:
upra note 21.
2<
The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD IndiaD at Article 1.
2?
The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD IndiaD at Article 1.<.
?
administerin! of 0erformance enhancin! dru!s
2E
are 7ustified. This vie; is further
substantiated b cases arisin! out of the L,A+C1 Controvers%3D ;herein the CAS and the *S
)istrict Court of (orthern California relied on similar circumstantial evidence to establish
!uilt of the 0arties.
4I
ThusD it is submitted b the &es0ondent that the arbitrator has carried out a 7ust evaluation of
the evidence 0resented. This submission is dealt ;ith under the follo;in! heads of evidence
that ;ere administered in the arbitral 0roceedin!s.
a. :alidit% of the emails produ0ed b% the (overnment.
Private interest of a 0art is not sufficient ;arrant for denial of a00lication on the basis of
confidentialit.
4#
In *orwi0h /harma0al Co v. Commissioners of Customs - !x0ise
41
) it ;as
held that Lpubli0 interest< must be the criterion b ;hich %9uit determines ;hether it ;ill
0rotect information ;hich an individual claims as confidential.
42

In the instant caseD 0ublic interest of doin! 7ustice over;ei!hs the confidentialit claim of the
0etitioner. The emails form 0art of relevant facts and hence form documentar evidence in
order to attain 7ustice in this case and therefore should be considered.
In Ar(uendoD Indian %vidence ActD #?<1 0ermits Lrelevan0e3 of evidence as the onl test of
admissibilit of evidence.
44
The Courts have ta/en a vie; that there is no la; that excludes
evidence on the !round that it ;as obtained ille!all.
48
The Su0reme Court has said that QIt
will be wron( to invoke the supposed spirit of our Constitution for ex0ludin( su0h eviden0e.
2E
The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD IndiaD at Article 1.?.
4I
upra note 24.
4#
In the &atter of the Appli0ation of .ederation Internationale de ,asketball for a ubpoena /ursuant 1?
*.S.C.S #<?1 as cited in Patric/ ,. ThorntonD Lports +aw3D Jones and -artlett PublishersD B-ostonC B1I##C.
41
J#E<4G AC ##2 at #?EH Castrol Australian /t% +td v. !mTe0h Asso0iated /t% +tdD B#E?IC 8# F5& #?4.
42
The same ;as also u0held in Attorne% General v. Guardian *ewspapers +td J#E??G AII %& 848H &oor(ate
Toba00o Co +td v. /hilips &orris +tdD J#EE#G AII %& 24#H Initial ervi0es +td v. /ueterilsD J#E:?G # Q- 2E:.
44
The Indian !viden0e A0tD #?<1D @ 8.
E
It) therefore) follows that neither b% invokin( the spirit of our Constitution nor b% a strained
0onstru0tion of an% of the fundamental ri(hts 0an we spell out the ex0lusion of eviden0e
obtained on an ille(al sear0h.R
4:
The Lprivile(e3 of the clients to the communication ;ith
la;er onl extends to non disclosure b la;er or an of his subordinates.
4<
This 0rivile!e
does not 0ut a bar on consideration of the evidence if the same is 0rocured b means other
than the la;er or his subordinate.
4?

In the !iven factsD the emails have been 0roduced throu!h ille!al methodsD ho;ever the still
constitutes evidence and are admissible in the court of la;. The emails ;ere 0roduced in front
of the arbitrator b the 0rivate investi!ator. There is nothin! in the fact sheet to su00ort that
the la;er disclosed it to him directl or indirectl. Therefore com0an cannot claim
0rotection a!ainst such evidence.
b. :alidit% of the forei(n #ud(ment produ0ed b% the (overnment.
The arbitrator has exercised the discretion as to the la;s of evidence. $e has relied on the
forei!n 7ud!ement correctl. The facts of the case ;hen analsed clearl sho;s that the
com0an has used the same 0ractices to enhance the 0erformance of the 0laers as done b
the subsidiar in -raKil. This can be construed from the fact that the com0an ;as im0ortin!
rare bacteria that ;as available in AmaKon 7un!le and the one in the $imalaas to (e0al. The
research station in (e0al ;as used to fuse the )(A of the t;o and form a !eneticall
modified or!anism. Presum0tion lies in favour of the arbitral a;ard
4E
D so it must be assumed
48
h%ni :ar(hese v tate 5Govt. of *CT of $elhi6D B1II?C #4< )5T :E# B)elCH &./. harma v. atish ChandraD
AI& #E84 SC 2IIHtate of &./. v.Ramesh C.harmaD B1II8C #1 SCC :1?H R.&. &alkani v. tate of
&aharashtraD B#E<2C # SCC 4<#H tate 5*CT of $elhi6 v. *av#ot andhuD B1II8C## SCC :II.
4:
/ooran &al v. $ire0tor of Inspe0tion 5Investi(ation6D B#E<4C # SCC 248D 2:4D 0ara 12
4<
The Indian %vidence ActD #?<1D @ #1<
4?
Id.
4E
tate of 8ttar /radesh v. Allied Constru0tionsD B1II2C < SCC 2E:D at A 4H Rashtri%a Ispat *i(am v. $ewan
Chand Ram aranD B1I#1C 8 SCC 2I:D at A1E.
#I
that the arbitrator ;ould have corroborated this information ;ith the information of the
formula of food 0resent in the emails. The arbitrator has relied on these evidences to a;ard
dama!es to the !overnment. Therefore it can be inferred that the Athletica +an!es has used
the same !eneticall modified bacteria and hence is liable for do0in!.
In Ar(uendoD a certified co0 of a forei!n 7ud!ment b the ori!inal le!al /ee0er ;ith a
certificate b the Indian Consul is admissible in the court of la;.
8I
The 0resum0tion lies in
favour of the 7ud!ment if the o00osition has not raised an ob7ection as to its content.
8#

In the !iven facts there is no ob7ection raised as to the content of the relevant 0arts of the
7ud!ment. SecondlD the facts are silent on the issue of it bein! certified. $ence the arbitrator
has correctl relied on the 7ud!ment.
0. :alidit% of the affidavit of the pla%er.
Arbitrator is not bound b the la; of evidence of India.
81
'b7ection as to manner of adducin!
evidence is a matter of 0rocedure and it is an established 0rinci0le that 0arties to arbitration
have selected their o;n forum and that in doin! soD the have conceded the 0o;er of
a00raisement of the evidence to the arbitrator.
82
The affidavit in 9uestion !ives corroborative
evidence of the relevant facts.
84
In the !iven factsD the com0an has not challen!ed the
content of the affidavit. Therefore affidavit containin! relevant facts should be ta/en into
account b the arbitrator as it !ives relevant evidence as to the manner of do0in! and other
0rocedures ta/en u0 b the com0an for enhancin! the 0erformance of the 0laers. $ence his
reliance on the affidavit is valid.
-ased on all the above la;D the &es0ondents submit that the arbitrator3s vie; is L0lausible3D
and henceD not liable to be set aside.
8I
The Indian %vidence ActD #?<1D @. <?B:C
8#
The Indian %vidence ActD #?<1D @ ?: H ,adat - Co v. !ast India Tradin( CoD AI& #E:4 SC 82?
81
The Arbitration And Conciliation ActD #EE:D @ #E
82
&uni0ipal Corporation of $elhi v. 2a(an *ath AshokD B#E?<C 4 SCC 4E<.
84
The Indian %vidence ActD #?<1D @ #8:
##
2'; THE RE0PONDENT I0 NOT GUILT6 OF CI2IL CONTE.PT OF COURT'
It is submitted that the res0ondent is not !uilt of contem0t. This assertion is t;ofold. .irstl%D
the order is a consent decree and hence non com0liance of the order is not contem0t of court.
e0ondl%D the res0ondent has not committed the offence of contem0t even if the decree has
bindin! nature.
2.#. The impu(ned order is a 0onsent de0ree.
In a case of consent decree 0assed b a courtD disobedience of the underta/in! recorded in the
decree !iven b a 0art to the other does not amount to contem0t.
88
Consent decree is in the
nature of a solemn contract of the 0artiesD made under the sanction of the court ;ith a mutual
consent of the 0arties.
8:
In the !iven factsD the order of the court is formed b the consent of
the 0arties and is in nature of a contract to 0erform the terms of the contract ;ith each other.
Therefore an disobedience of the said decree does not amount to contem0t of court.
D.B. The respondent has not 0ommitted the offen0e of 0ontempt even if the de0ree has
bindin( nature.
In Ar(uendoD The res0ondent has not committed the offence of contem0t even if the decree
has bindin! nature. This assertion is three fold. .irstl%D there ;as no ;ilful disobedience on
their 0art. e0ondl%D there ;as 0artial com0liance ;ith the order. +astl%D the subse9uent
chan!es made it difficult to com0l ;ith the orders.
2.1.#. There ;as no L;ilful3 disobedience.
88
*isha "anta Ro% Choudhar% v. mt. aro# ,ashini GohoD AI& #E4? Cal 1E4 B)-C. ,abu Ram Gupta v.
udhir ,hasinD AI& #E<E SC #8?1.
8:
$enr Cam0bell -lac/D et.alD ,la0k<s +aw $i0tionar%) :
th
%ditionD 0.#I<ED St. Paul >inn. 6est Publishin!
Com0anD #EEI.
#1
There is no strai!ht 7ac/et formula for the meanin! of L;ilful3 and it differs from case to
case.
8<
The court has observed that L;ilful3 means an act done voluntaril and intentionall
and ;ith the s0ecific intent to do somethin! ;hich a la; forbids or ;ith the intent to fail to
do somethin! ;hich la; re9uires to be done.
8?
In the !iven fact situationD the res0ondent did
not voluntaril terminated the contract. From the !iven factsD it can be inferred that the
L!lobal 0ressure3 had forced the res0ondent to terminate the contract.
2.1.1. There ;as 0artial com0liance on the 0art of the res0ondent.
Partial com0liance of an order has been considered as a reason for holdin! that there ;as no
;ilful violation.
8E
In the !iven caseD the res0ondent u0held its res0onsibilit till there ;as no
!lobal 0ressure. ThereforeD it clearl sho;s that there ;as no ;ilful violation and that the
res0ondent had com0lied ;ith the order for some time resultin! in 0artial com0liance.
2.1.2. The subse9uent chan!es made it difficult to com0l ;ith the orders.
If a 0art char!ed of contem0t ;ithout fault on his 0art is unable to com0l ;ith the
underta/in! thenD there is no contem0t.
:I
Conce0t of ;ilful disobedience and contem0t does
not cover acts beond one3s o;n 0o;er. This re9uires a situation in ;hich the 0art is Lnot
able to3 com0l ;ith the order.
:#
Subse9uent develo0ments ma create difficulties in
im0lementation and com0liance of the order.
:1
In the instant caseD the !lobal 0ressure after the
8<
a0hindra *ath /an#a v. *.+. ,asak) /rin0ipal e0retar%) Govt of West ,en(alD 1II4 B4C C$( :I1.
8?
All India Anna $ravida &unnetra "a'ha(am v. l.". TripathiD B1IIEC 8 SCC 4#<.
8E
$harmavir in(h - 1rs. v. mt. *avra# indhuD #EE< AI$C 18E.
:I
*ara%ana /ani0ker v. The ub 4 $ivisional &a(istrate) .ort Coshin - 1rsD #E<E ,er 5T 24:H A.G. v. Walt
HamstowD *)C B#?E8C ## T5& 822.
:#
.R. ,ommai v. 8nion of IndiaD B#EE4C 2 SCC #.
:1
Ashish "umar "undu v. A.".Tandon) #EE4 B4C S5& 2#E.
#2
order had created difficulties for the res0ondent to com0l ;ith the order. $ence it humbl
submitted that the res0ondent should not be held liable for civil contem0t of court.
4. THE RE0PONDENT I0 NOT LIABLE FOR PER4UR6 .
*nderta/in! !iven to court is an affidavit.
:2
. An SaffidavitS includes affirmation and
declaration in the case of 0ersons b la; allo;ed to affirm or declare instead of s;earin!.
:4
6hoever in an declaration made b him to an court of 7usticeD ma/es an statement ;hich
is falseD and ;hich he believes to be either false or does not believe to be trueD touchin! an
0oint material to the ob7ect for ;hich the declaration is made shall be 0unishable in a !rave
manner as if he !ave false evidence.
:8
To establish false evidenceD it must be sho;n that the
false statement char!ed a!ainst the accused is Lliterall3 false. There must be statement of fact
;hich is false. It is no offence if the fact stated is true but some circumstance is su00ressedD
;ith a result that the ;ron! inference can be deduced.
::
Intention is an im0ortant in!redient
for 0rosecution of 0er7ur.
:<
If there ;as a reasonable 0ossibilit that the defence stor is
trueD then the essential in!redient of the 0rosecution case ;ould not be established and hence
;ill not be !uilt of 0er7ur.
:?
In the instant caseD the facts stated b the res0ondent ;ere true
that the ;ere u0holdin! the contract till then. Intention of the res0ondent before the court
order can be ta/en as to terminate the contract. -ut there is nothin! to construe the same
:2
!dpu(anti ,apanaiah v. ri "..Ra#u - 1rsD 1II< AP $i!h CourtD Contem0t Case (o.E#8 of 1II1.
:4
The General Clauses A0tD #E<# @ 2B2C.
:8
Indian Penal CodeD #?:ID @ #EE Read With @ 1II.
::
Ratansi $a%a v. !mperorD AI& #E#: Sind <I B1CD 0 <#H 7ueen v. Ahmed All%D ## 6& 18D 1<H Padarath Sin!h
v. &attan Sin!hD B#E1IC Pat 4#EH C Gupta v. !mperorD AI& #E14 &an! #<
:<
hiv Raman Gour v. &adan &ohan "andaD B#EEIC Cr 5J #I22D 0 #I24 BPP$C.
:?
Adikanda wain v. !mperorD AI& #E4< Pat 18#D 0 841H "ali hankar Chatter#ee v. arat Chandra $e%D
B#E<<C Cal $C( 82?D 0 841.
#4
intention to continue after the order. A court order can be 0resumed to chan!e the intention of
the res0ondent causin! fear for liabilitD unless 0roven to the contrar. It is humbl submitted
to the $on3ble court that res0ondent shouldn3t be held !uilt of 0er7ur.
#8
-/ra%er- -Respondent-
PRA6ER
In the li!ht of ar!uments advanced and authorities citedD the &es0ondent humbl submits
that the $on3ble Court ma be 0leased to ad7ud!e and declare that.
E. The Respondent was #ustified in res0indin( the 0ontra0t and invokin(
Arbitration
B. The Impu(ned Arbitral Award is valid) and is not liable to be set aside
under e0tion DF of the Arbitration and Con0iliation A0t) EGGH.
D. The Respondent is not (uilt% of Civil Contempt of Court.
F. The Respondent is not liable for per#ur%.
&ny other order as it deems fit in the interest of e/uity, ustice and good
conscience.
Fo( Th% A!t o+ 7#,#e%%, the Re%-o#,e#t 0h"ll D>t9 Bo>#, Fo(e)e( P("9'
SdF"
BCounsel for the &es0ondentC
#:

Respondent Memo Final NUJS

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Respondent Memo Final NUJS

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Before

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI

Вам также может понравиться