Moot Memorial for International Moot, Papers of Law

Download Moot Memorial for International Moot and more Papers Law in PDF only on Docsity!

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | 1 e (^) TEAM CODE: 35R 5 th^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2 020 Before THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, BARATHEON CITY, STARK PROVINCE ARCEBOR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED CLAIMANT v. RENVIDORA NATIONAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED RESPONDENT CASE CONCERNING The Agreement between Arcebor Power Private Limited and Renvidora National Power Company Limited MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. I

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... VIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... XIV

ISSUES RAISED.................................................................................................................... XVII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................... XVIII

PLEADINGS ................................................................................................................................. 1

I. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE, OWING TO THE

ABSENCE OF A VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES .............................. 1

A. There was no unequivocal consent of the Respondents to refer the disputes to arbitration .............................................................................................................................. 1

_1. On account of the non-existence of arbitral institution mentioned in the clause, the agreement loses validity. ..................................................................................................... 1

2. The ambiguity of the arbitration clause must be interpreted against the Claimant according to the contra proferentem rule ........................................................................... 2_ B. Forum Clause ................................................................................................................ 2 _1. The existence if of a forum selection clause in the main agreement ......................... 2
3. The general presumption in favour of arbitration must be disregarded .................. 2_ II. THE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS UNDERWAY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT IN YEVADU BARS THE JURISDICTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL ............................................................................. 3 A. Add heading...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. _1. Imposition of Moratorium prohibits the continuation of Arbitration proceedings... 4
4. The ongoing Arbitration proceedings can affect the assets of the Respondent. ....... 4
5. It can sabotage the rights of the other creditors of the respondent. ......................... 5_

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | II B. Non-Enforceability of an Award precludes the Arbitral Tribunal’s Jurisdiction.. 6

_1. If an arbitral tribunal is not able to render an enforceable award it is obliged to decline its jurisdiction. ........................................................................................................ 7

2. The public policy concerns of Yevadu encourage the dismissal of the arbitral proceedings. ........................................................................................................................ 8_ III. THE CLAIMANT IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE ITS SOURCE OF FUNDING AND SECURITY OF COSTS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE RESPONDENTS. ........................................ 9 A. The Claimant is under an obligation to disclose its source of funding to pursue the Arbitration Proceedings. ...................................................................................................... 9 _1. Disclosure of the Source of funding should be made to avoid conflict of interest.. 10
3. Confidentiality of the Arbitration Proceedings will be breached due to the existence of a third-party funder. ..................................................................................................... 10
4. Disclosure should be made in order to support security of Costs. ......................... 11_ B. The Tribunal should order Security for Legal Costs. ............................................. 11 _1. The tribunal has a discretion under SIAC Rule 27(j) to order claimant to order security for costs. .............................................................................................................. 12
5. Claimant’s financial situation raises concerns about its ability to cover respondent’s legal costs.......................................................................................................................... 12
6. The claimant is being supported by third partyfunder. ........................................... 13
7. A fundamental change ofcircumstances.................................................................. 13_ IV. THE POWER MINISTRY SHOULD NOT BE JOINED AS A THIRD-PARTY TO THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS. .................................................................................................. 14 A. Power Ministry is not Prima Facie bound by the Arbitration Agreement............ 14 1. The Power Ministry is not prima facie bound by the arbitration agreement. ........ 14 i. Respondent enjoys a separate legal existence and had entered into the agreement in its own capacity. ........................................................................................................... 14

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | III ii. The involvement of the Power Ministry in the performance and execution of the contract is insufficient for the purposes of joinder. ...................................................... 15

2. The parties did not consent to the joinder of Power Ministry to the arbitration agreement at any point...................................................................................................... 16 iii. There is no existence of a common intent of the parties to join the Power Ministry to the arbitration ............................................................................................................ 17 ii. No implicit or implied consent to bind the Ministry to the arbitration agreement can be made out. ........................................................................................................... 18 V. THE CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT BREACHED THE AGREEMENT AND THE RESPONDENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT. ...................................................................... 19 A. Claimant’s Conduct lead to Fundamental breach of the Agreement. ................... 20 _1. Respondent suffered a substantial deprivation of what he was entitled to expect under the contract. ............................................................................................................ 20

2. Time was of the essence of the contract. ................................................................. 21
3. The Claimant committed multiple breaches throughout the span of the contract.. 21
4. there has been anticipatory repudiation of the agreement by the claimant. .......... 22_ B. The respondent has validly exercised its right to avoidance under the CISG ...... 24 _1. The respondent fulfilled the conditions of giving notice. ........................................ 25
5. Pursuant to Art. 73 of the CISG, Claimant is entitled to avoid future instalments of an instalment contract....................................................................................................... 26
6. The claimant cannot invoke article 79 to exempt the breach. ................................ 27
7. The Respondent is not obliged to renegotiate the Agreement................................. 27_ PRAYER ................................................................................................................................... XIV

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | IV

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

% Percentage §(§) Section(s) ¶ Paragraph ¶¶ Paragraphs AC Appeal Case Anr. Another Arb. Arbitration Art. Article BIL Bilateral Investment Treaty Cf. Confer Ch. Chapter Cir. Circuit CISG United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) Co. Company Comm. Commentary

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | V Corp. Corporation e.g. Exempli gratia (for example) ECJ European Court of Justice ed. Edition et al. Et alii (and others) F. Supplement Federal Supplement Govt. Government Hon’ble Honourable IBC Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ibid. Ibidem (in the same place) ICC International Chamber of Commerce ICSID International Center for Settlement of investment diputes Int. International K.B. Kings Bench LR Law review Ltd. Limited MLCBI Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | VI NYC United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enfrocement of Foerign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958. Ors. Others p. Page pp. Pages Pvt. Private Q.B. Queen’s Bench Rep. Reporter SIAC Singapore International Arbitration Centre U.S. United States of America u/ Under UN United Nations UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law UNIDROIT International Institute for the Unification of Private Law UOI Union of India USA United States of America v. Versus

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | VII vol. Volume

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | VIII

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

• ICC Case No. CASES
• [Bowling alleys case, Fed. SC,( Ger. 2014)
• 94; ICC Case No.
• Air line Pilots Ass’n Int. v. U.S.Airways group Inc., 609 F.3, 347 (4th Cir.2010)
• Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) - S.C.C
• Arbitral award No.
• AT & T Techs. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S., 643 (1986).
• Bank of Baroda v. Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd., (2018) S.C.C .........................................................e
• Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Government of Turkmenistan,
• Cavagna v. La Chartreuse, CA Paris, 404 (2001).
• Central Bank of India v. Elmot Engineering Co., (1994) 4 S.C.C.,
• CISG - Online
• CISG-ONLINE NO.
• CLOUT case No.
• CLOUT case No.
• CLOUT Case No. 293...................................................................................................................
• Corp. LSR C.A. v. Jesus Ramon Rodriguez , Expte. 1181, 9 (Venezuela S.Ct. 2016)
• Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v. Puay Kim Seng &Anr., 4 SGCA, 13 (1999). - UKSC, 46 (2010) Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Hiding Co. v. Ministry of Religious affairs, Govt. of Pakistan,
• Demarigny v. Caizabank Monaco , Cass. Civ., 82 (1995)...............................................................
• EP S.A. v. FP Oy, Hel.Ct. Appeal, 410 (Fin. 1998)
• First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S., 938 (1995)
• Hanwha Corp. v. Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc., Fed. D. Ct. NY, 623 (U.S. 2011)
• ICC Case No.
• ICC Case No.
• ICC Case No. 2138; ICC Case No. 2321.

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | IX ICC Case no. 4 972 ........................................................................................................................ 15 ICC Case No. 6519 ....................................................................................................................... 15 ICC case no. 6673 ......................................................................................................................... 15 ICC Case No. 6697 ......................................................................................................................... 7 ICC Case No. 7337 ....................................................................................................................... 16 ICC Case No.10818 ...................................................................................................................... 17 ICC Case No.4727 .......................................................................................................................... 2 Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2017) S.C.C., 678 ..................................................... 5 Ins Con of Hartford v. TIG Ins. Co. 360 3d, 322 (2nd^ Cir. 2004). ................................................ 15 K.S. Oils Ltd. v. The State Trade Corp. of India Ltd. & Anr., (2018) S.C.C., 475 ........................ 5 L'HamidSaadi v. Huan, CA, 246 (Paris 2000). .............................................................................. 2 Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jyoti Structures Ltd., (2018) 246 DLT, 485................... 4 Punjab National Bank v. James Hotels, (2017) S.C.C., 456 ........................................................... 5 TBK v. Astro Nusantara International BV & Ors., 226 SGCA, 57 (2013) .................................. 16 Vivendi SA et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al. &Elekrim SA et al,Swiss Fed. SC, 428 (2009) ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Volt Information Sciences v Leland Stanford, U.S., 468 (1989). .................................................. 16 X v. Y & Z, ICC Proc. Order, (2012). .......................................................................................... 12 Yarn Case, App. Ct. Frankfurt, 199 (Ger. 2000 ............................................................................ 24 CONVENTIONS New York Convention ................................................................................................................. 16 Dispute Settlement , United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNITED NATIONS (Jan 13, 2020, 3PM), https://unctad.org/en/Docs/edmmisc232add39_en.pdf. ................................... 1 Nina Gumzej, Global Development: New York Convention - Reconsidered: Contribution to the 45d' Anniversary of the Convention: Certain Aspects of Public Policy in the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award ', 2003 CROAT. ARB. Y.B.,39 ............................................................... 5 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) with amendments as adopted in 2006 ........................................................................................................................... 9 BOOKS

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | X

14 BERNARD HANOTIAU, COMPLEX ARBITRATIONS: MULTIPRTY, MULTICONTRACT, MULTI-

ISSUE AND CLASS ACTIONS 49 (2006) ....................................................................................... 17

37 STAVROS BREKOULAKIS, THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 119.

Julian David & Mathew Lew eds. (2016). ................................................................................ 18 7 GEORGIOS PETROCHILOS, MULTIPARTY ARBITRATION 119 (Bernard Hanotiau & Eric Schwartz eds.) (2010) ............................................................................................................................... 17 ALAN REDFERN et al., LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 71 (2004). ......................................................................................................................................... 4 BERNARD HANOTIAU, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 2006: BACK TO BASICS? (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed.) 341 (2007 .......................................................................................................... 17 BLACKABY et al., REDFERN AND HUNTER ON INTERNTIONAL ARBITRATION 202 (6th^ ed. 2015). 5, 6 EMMANUEL GAILLARD & JOHN SAVAGE, FOUCHARD GAILLARD GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 734 (1999) ..................................................................................... 6 FOUCHARD PHILIPPE ET AL., FOUCHARD, GAILLARD, GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION. KLUWER LAW INTERNATIONAL, 1280 (1999). .................................................... 10 FRANCOIS POUDRET & SEBASTIEN BESSON, COMPARATIVE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 281 (2007) ................................................................................................................................... 6 GABRIELLE KAUFMANN- KOHLER & ANTONIO RIGOZZI, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: LAW AND PRACTICE IN SWITZERLAND 160 (3rd^ ed. 2015). .......................................................................... 4 GARY B. BORN & MATTEO ANGELINI, FINANCES IN INTERNATIONAL ABITRATION 43 (Sherlin Tung & Fabricio Fortese eds.) (2019)........................................................................................ 1 GARY B. BORN & PETER B. RUTLEDGE, INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN UNITED STATES COURTS 19 9 (5th^ ed. 2011) .......................................................................................................... 6 GARY B. BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 567 (2nd^ ed. 2014) ..................... 4, 5 ICC Case No. 4132 ......................................................................................................................... 8 INGEBORG SCHLECHTRIEM AND PETER SCHWENZER, COMMENTARY ON THE UN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNTIONSL SALE OF GOODS 175 (Ingeborg Schwenzer ed.) (4th ed. 2016)............ 19, 20 Jean Rouche et al., French Arbitration Law and Practice: A dynamic Civil Law approach to International Arbitration 37 (2nd^ ed. 2009). ................................................................................ 1 JEffREY WAINCYMER, PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 644 (2012)11, 15

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XI

JONAS VON GOELER, THIRD PARTY FUNDING IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND ITS IMPACT

ON PROCEDURE 2 98 (2016......................................................................................................... 10

JULIAN D.M. LEW et al., COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 188 (2003) ................................................................................................................................................. 5, 6 JULIAN DAVID MATHEW LEW & LOUKAS A. MISTELIS, COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 187 (2003).; ............................................................................... 6, 7 Julian David Mathew Lew et al., Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 687 (2003) 1 MESTRE, OFFICIAL COMMENTARY ON THE UNIDROIT CONVENTION ON SUBSTANTIVE RULES FOR INTERMEDIATED SECURITIES 121 (2019)..................................................................................... 2 NIGEL BLACKABY et al., REDFERN AND HUNTER ON INTERNTIONAL ARBITRATION 361 (6th^ ed. 20 15) ........................................................................................................................................... 4 SIMON VORURGER, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND CROSS BORDER INSOLVENCY: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES 299 (2014). .................................................................................. 4 STEFAN KROLL et al, UN CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (CISG) 1057 (2011). ................................................................................................................. 26 STEFAN MICHEALKROLL, PERVASIVE PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 359 (Loukas A. Mistelis& Julian David Mathew Lew eds.) (2006). ....................................................... 3, 5, 6 STEFAN VOGENAUER, COMMENTARY ON THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS 20 (2nd^ ed.2015) ............................................................................... 2 VAN DEN BERG, NEW YORK CONVENTION GUIDE 1958 ................................................................. 7 VESNA LAZIC, CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY AND ARBITRATION 338 (S. Kroll et al. eds.) (2011). 3, 6 YVES DERAINS& ERIC A. SCHWARTZ, A GUIDE TO THE ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION 385 (2nd^ ed.

2005. ........................................................................................................................................... 7 JOURNAL 33 Nadia Darwazeh &AdrenLeleu, Disclosure and Security for costs or how to address Imbalances Created by Third-Paty Funding, 143 JOURNAL OF INT. ARB .................................. 10 Andrew Tweeddale& Keren Tweeddale, Arbitration of Commercial Disputes: International & English Law & Practice OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 350 (2007). ......................................... 10

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XII Arjun Gupta et al., An Introduction to Joinder and Consolidation in Institutional Arbitration 4 IJAL, 134 (2015) ....................................................................................................................... 16 B Hanotiau, Problems Raised by Complex Arbitrations Involving Multiple Contracts-Parties- Issues – An Analysis , 18 JOURNAL OF INT. L. ARB., 253 (2001) ............................................... 16 Bernard Hanotiau, Non-signatoires, Groups of Companies and Groups of Contracts in Seleceted Asian Countries: A case Law Analysis, 32 JOURNAL OF INT. ARB., 571 (2015) ....................... 16 Bernardo M. Cremades and Ignacio Madalena, Parallel Proceedings in International Arbitration 24(4) Arb. Int. 507 (2008)........................................................................................................... 7 Burcu Osmanoglu, Third-Party Funding in International Commercial Arbitration and Arbitrator Conflict of Interest 32 JOURNAL OF INT. ARB., 332 (2015). ........................................................ 9 Francisco Blavi, It’s About Time to Regulate Third-Party Funding KLUWERARBITRATION (2015) ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Georges Affaki, Third Party Funding in International Arbitration ICCWBO, 234 (2013........... 10 Ileana M., The Scope of the duty to maintain confidentiality , 22 KLUWER LAW INTERNATIONAL, 27 (2011). ............................................................................................... 16 Jean Kalicki, Security for Costs in International Arbitration , Transnational Dispute Mgt., 1 (2006) ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Mauricio PestillaFabbri, Inapplicability of the arbitration agreement due to the impecuniousity of the party 94 REV. BRASIL. DE ARBITRAGEM (Joao Bosco Lee & Daniel de Andrade Levy eds.) 2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Mohamed Abdulmohsen al-Kharafi & Sons Co. v. The Govt. of Libya & Ors. INT.JAL, 250 (2014). ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Sykes, The Contra Proferentem Rule and the Interpretation of International Commercial Arbitration Agreements: The Possible Uses and Misuses of A Tool for Solutions to Ambiguities, 8 Vindobona J. Int’l Comm. L. & Arb., 33 (2004). .............................................. 2 11 Legislative Guide on Insolvency , UNCITRAL (Jan.14, 2020, 11AM) , https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency/legislativeguides/insolvency_law ........... 3, 5 MISCELLANEOUS

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XIII BARRINGTON, Third Party Claims an Arbitration , 432 (2017 ................................................. 10 C.M. Bianca, M.J. Bonnell, Commentary on the International Sales Law – The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention, 211 (2015). .................................................................................................. 19 Denice Forstén, Parallel Proceedings and the Doctrine of Lis Pendens in International Commercial Arbitration OATD (Jan 31, 2020, PM) https://oatd.org/oatd/record?record=oai%5C%3ADiVA.org%5C%3Auu- 253169 .................... 7 Eric Schwartz & Yves Derains , Guide to the IC Rules of Arbitraion , 41 ( 2nd^ ed. 2005) .......... 17 GOELER, Disadvantages of Third Party Funding, 293 (2015) ................................................... 10 ICC Bull. XVI , 9 4 - 98 (2001). ...................................................................................................... 16 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ..................................................................................... 3, 4 Report on the Insolvency Law Committee , March 2018, MCAGOI, http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ReportInsolvencyLawCommittee_12042019.pdf ........... 4 Report on the Insolvency Law Committee, March 2018, MCAGOI, http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ReportInsolvencyLawCommittee_12042019.pdf ........... 4 Robert Koch, The concept of fundamental breach of contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Good ̧ REVIEW OF THE CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (CISG) 1998 ............. 20

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XIV

STATEMENT OF FACTS

PARTIES

1. Arcebor Power Pvt. Ltd. [ hereinafter Claimant) – A company incorporated under the laws of Xanier, having a legal personality and can also, bring actions in its own name. It is also the “Market energy leader’ in Xanier.
2. Renvidora National Power co. Ltd. [ hereinafter Respondent] - A company incorporated in Yevadu and wholly owned by the Yevadu Government. The company has ownership over thermal power plants established in remote areas of Yevadu and operates the same. The company also provides for electricity in the remote and hilly terrains of Tullyland, Lanniport and Asshai in the state of Yevadu. THE PART-SUPPLY AGREEMENT
3. On 14 January 2015, the Respondent entered into an agreement [Part Supply Agreement] with the Claimant for the supply of parts and components required for the regular repair and maintenance of the turbines of the Tullyland Power Plant.
4. Under the agreement, the claimant was required to send a designated official to carry out an Annual inspection of the Power Plant at the commencement of each year.
5. Upon inspection, the claimant along with the site officials were to finalize a list [Requisition list] of parts required to be supplied.
6. The parts were to be delivered in instalments by the Claimants to the Respondents at the end of each quarter.
7. The obligations of the parties with respect to the agreement were laid down in Clause 3. of the Part Supply Agreement. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM
8. The Part Supply Agreement contained a Dispute Resolution clause [Clause 11.0], which conferred jurisdiction to the courts of Yevadu and Xanier to resolve the disputes arising out of the Part-Supply agreement.
9. The Claimant, citing ambiguity in clause, proposed to amend the dispute resolution clause.

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XV

3. The Respondent concurred with the concern of the Claimant, however, due to procedural and time constraints, suggested concluding a separate agreement at a later stage.
4. However, the in-house legal advisor of the claimant drafted an Addendum containing an arbitration clause, which envisaged submitting the disputes to arbitration under the jurisdiction of Singapore Arbitration Centre (SAC).
5. The addendum was signed by both the parties on January 14, 2015, along with the Part Supply Agreement. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OF THE CLAIMANTS AND ATTEMPTS AT RENEGOTIATION
6. Around the beginning of the year 2018, Xanier imposed high tariffs on raw materials sourced from Zorastra on the allegation of Zorastra’s indulgence in unfair trade practices.
7. Since Zorastra was the major source of raw materials for the Claimants, the trade war between Xanier and Zorastra impacted the business operations of the Claimant, and resulted in huge losses.
8. Due to its financial hardships, the Claimant requested renegotiation of the Part-Supply Agreement, claiming that the performance of its obligations under the present part supply agreement became commercially unviable for the Claimant. In this regard, claimant requested to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the Part supply agreement with the senior management of the respondent.
9. The Respondent believed that the pricing of the agreement was in line with the market practice. On December 14, 2018, the respondent declined the proposition to negotiate vide a letter, and directed the timely delivery of parts due on 31st^ December. The claimant was informed that the failure to deliver the instalment on time, the Respondent would be constrained to take an action under the Agreement. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
10. The claimants effected the delivery of parts for the last quarter of 2019 in the second week of January, after a delay of two weeks. Moreover, an additional claim of USD 100,000 was also made.
11. The respondent refused to accept the delivery of the consignment, alleging that the Claimant had failed to perform its obligations wsithin the stipulated timeline.

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XVI

3. On January 20, 2019, the Claimant was served with a termination notice from the respondent. Aggrieved by the termination of the Agreement, the Claimant filed a notice of arbitration.

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 ISSUES RAISED MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XVII

ISSUES RAISED

I.

WHETHER THERE IS A VALID AGREEMENT IN EXISTENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH REFERS THE

DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION UNDER THE AEGIS OF SIAC?

II.

WHETHER THE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS UNDERWAY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT IN YEVADU

BARS THE JURISDICTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL?

III.

WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE ITS SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR

PURSUING THESE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SECURITY FOR

LEGAL COSTS?

IV.

WHETHER THE MINISTRY OF POWER, GOVERNMENT OF YEVADU MAY BE JOINED AS A PARTY TO

THE PRESENT ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS?

V.

WHETHER THE CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT BREACHED THE AGREEMENT AND WHETHER THE

RESPONDENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT?

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XVIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

i. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE, OWING TO THE LACK OF CONSENT & ABSENCE OF A VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES The Jurisdiction of this tribunal is contested by the Respondent. The arbitration agreement concluded between the parties is invalid since there is no manifestation of an unequivocal consent of both the parties to arbitrate. Further, the parties had inserted a forum selection clause in the main agreement, indicating that they had contemplated dispute resolution by courts. Thus, the general presumption in favour of the validity of the arbitration clause must be disregarded and the case be studied in light of the facts and circumstances. Moreover, the arbitration clause is pathological as it confers jurisdiction to an institution which is not in existence. Therefore, the tribunal constituted pursuant to such clause should not have jurisdiction over the dispute ii. THE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS UNDERWAY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT IN YEVADU BARS THE JURISDICTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL The moratorium imposed upon the institution and continuation of proceedings against the Respondent in the state if Yevadu deprives this tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over the concerned matter. If the arbitration proceedings are allowed to be continued, it can affect the assets of the respondent and can thereby sabotage the rights of other creditors of the Respondent Moreover, any award rendered against the Respondent during the moratorium period is likely to be set aside due to the public policy consideration of the state of Yevadu. Therefore, if the arbitral tribunal is not able to render an enforceable award, it is obliged to decline its jurisdiction. iii. THE POWER MINISTRY SHOULD NOT BE JOINED AS A THIRD PARTY TO THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | XIX The Power Ministry should not be joined to the present arbitration proceedings since it is not prima facie bound by the arbitration agreement. The respondent is a separate legal entity and has entered the agreement in its individual capacity. There is no privity of contract between the claimant and the Power Ministry. Moreover, the involvement of the Power Ministry in the performance and execution of the contract is insufficient for the purposes of joinder. In addition to this, the parties did not consent to the joinder of Power Ministry to the arbitration agreement at any point. There is no common intent of the parties to join the Power Ministry to the Arbitration. Additionally there wasn’t any implied consent to bind the Ministry to the Arbitration Agreement. iv. THE CLAIMANT SHOULD BE MADE TO DISCLOSE THIRD PARTY FUNDER AND ISSUE SECURITY OF COSTS. The Claimant ought to disclose before the tribunal whether it is being funded by a third party under SIAC Rule 27(c) as the Respondent came to know about the funder through a news report. Further if the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim then it must order the Claimant to furnish security of legal costs incurred by the Respondent in defending these arbitration proceedings pursuant to Rule 27(j). v. THE CLAIMANT BREACHED THE AGREEMENT AND THE RESPONDENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN TERMINATION The Respondent contends that the termination of the Agreement was based on the fundamental breaches of the Agreement committed by the Claimant. The claimant did not supply the fourth quarterly instalment as a result of which the Respondent suffered Substantial detriment and Fulfilled all the essentials of avoidance under article 49 .Further the Claimant cannot be exempted under article 79 of CISG since the Respondent is will within its right to avoid the Agreement. The Respondent is not obliged to renegotiate the terms of the Agreement.

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 PLEADINGS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | 1

PLEADINGS

I. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE,

OWING TO THE ABSENCE OF A VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE PARTIES

¶1. It is submitted that this tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the concerned dispute as there was no unequivocal consent of the Respondents to refer the disputes to arbitration (A) ; Forum Clause. (B) A. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS INVALID It is submitted that the arbitration agreement concluded between the parties seek to resolve the disputes arising out of the agreement under an institution which does not exist arbitration institution mentioned in the arbitration clause does not exist

1. On account of the non-existence of arbitral institution mentioned in the clause, the agreement loses validity. ¶2. It is submitted that the institution must be unequivocally mentioned in the clause in order to consider an agreement valid.^1 Enforcement has been refused where the arbitration agreement was ambiguous,^2 In order to be valid and effective, an agreement to arbitrate requires theunequivocal consentof each party to it, failing which the relevant dispute must be adjudicated by national courts.^3 Jurisdiction is a matter of public order and in light of the unavailability of the arbitration center provided for in the arbitration agreement, the disputes in relation to the [agreement shall be resolved before the courts.”^4 In the instant case, the designation of the institution was at best ambiguous, which renders the agreement invalid. (^1) Dispute Settlement , United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNITED NATIONS (Jan 13, 2020, 3PM), https://unctad.org/en/Docs/edmmisc232add39_en.pdf. (^2) Julian David Mathew Lew et al., Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 687 (2003). (^3) Jean Rouche et al., French Arbitration Law and Practice: A dynamic Civil Law approach to International Arbitration 37 (2nd^ ed. 2009). (^4) Corp. LSR C.A. v. Jesus Ramon Rodriguez, Expte. 1181, 9 (Venezuela S.Ct. 2016); GARY B. BORN & MATTEO ANGELINI, FINANCES IN INTERNATIONAL ABITRATION 43 (Sherlin Tung & Fabricio Fortese eds.) (2019).

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 PLEADINGS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | 2

2. The ambiguity of the arbitration clause must be interpreted against the Claimant according to the contra proferentem rule ¶3. The rule of contra proferentem is a rule for interpretation which states that the party introducing a particular wording into an agreement has to bear the risk of the ambiguity and accept an interpretation in its disfavour.^5 .It is submitted that the Claimant had drafted the arbitration clause without any consultation with the Respondent company. The wording of the clause is ambiguous and it fails to unequivocally designate any valid institution for arbitration. Hence, the Claimant, as the drafter, should bear the risk of this ambiguity. **B. THE EXISTENCE OF A FORUM CLAUSE INDICATES THAT THERE WAS NO UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO ARBITRATION UNDER THE SIAC RULES

1. The existence if of a forum selection clause in the main agreement** ¶4. In a well-known decision, the French Supreme Court asserted that where two contradicting forum selection clauses are contained in a single contract, each cancelled the other out, leaving the dispute to be governed by the default procedural rules of territorial jurisdiction.^6 It was also observed that since the clauses followed one after the other in the contract, it was not possible to apply the rule of contractual interpretation favouring special conditions over general conditions^7 Applying the interpretation to the instant case, the mere existence of an arbitration clause would not be sufficient to establish unequivocal consent to arbitrate. 2. The general presumption in favour of arbitration must be disregarded ¶5. The argument for the presumption in favour of arbitration agreements has often been based on the premise that the latter carry a “greater volitional intensity.” However, it is submitted that the argument for greater volitional intensity should be disregarded.^8 (^5) [Bowling alleys case, Fed. SC,( Ger. 2014); ICC Case No.4727; STEFAN VOGENAUER, COMMENTARY ON THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS 20 (2nd^ ed.2015); Sykes, The Contra Proferentem Rule and the Interpretation of International Commercial Arbitration Agreements: The Possible Uses and Misuses of A Tool for Solutions to Ambiguities , 8 Vindobona J. Int’l Comm. L. & Arb., 33 (2004). (^6) Demarigny v. Caizabank Monaco, Cass. Civ., 82 (1995) ; MESTRE, OFFICIAL COMMENTARY ON THE UNIDROIT CONVENTION ON SUBSTANTIVE RULES FOR INTERMEDIATED SECURITIES 121 (2019). (^7) L'HamidSaadi v. Huan, CA, 246 (Paris 2000).

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 PLEADINGS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | 3 ¶6. Generally, once there is a reference to arbitration, it is a sufficient indication of the intent of the parties to arbitrate, and the arbitration agreement is considered to be valid and enforceable. According to this view, the presumption for the validity of an arbitration agreement should apply, even if the reference to arbitration is a vague or a conflicting one, as this would suffice to show the parties' preference for arbitration.^9 However, it is contended that this approach is too simplistic and that an arbitration agreement should be interpreted restrictively on the basis that parties should not be seen to have given away their rights to national court jurisdiction lightly.^10 II. THE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS UNDERWAY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT IN YEVADU BARS THE JURISDICTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL ¶7. The key objective of insolvency proceedings is to maximize the value of the insolvent estate to ensure equitable treatment of creditors.^11 In fulfilment of these objectives many insolvency laws place mandatory stay or prohibition on the pursuit of individual methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration.^12 ¶8. In the present case, therespondent company is facing insolvency proceedings in the state of Yevadu.^13 By virtue of this, the National Company Law Tribunal of the State of Yevadu has declared a moratorium prohibiting the institution or continuation of pending proceedings against the respondent.^14 ¶9. It is submitted that the insolvency proceedings underway against the Respondent in Yevadu bars the Jurisdiction of this Tribunal, as the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction in prohibited by virtue of the Insolvency law of Yevadu (A);Non- Enforceability of an Award precludes the Arbitral Tribunal’s Jurisdiction. (B) (^9) Cavagna v. La Chartreuse, CA Paris, 404 (2001). (^10) ICC Case No. 2138; ICC Case No. 2321. (^11) Legislative Guide on Insolvency , UNCITRAL (Jan.14, 2020, 11AM) , https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency/legislativeguides/insolvency_law; 15 STEFAN MICHEALKROLL, PERVASIVE PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 359 (Loukas A. Mistelis& Julian David Mathew Lew eds.) (2006). (^12) VESNA LAZIC, CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY AND ARBITRATION 338 (S. Kroll et al. eds.) (2011). (^13) Case record (^14) §14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 PLEADINGS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | 4

A. THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION IS PROHIBITED BY VIRTUE OF THE

INSOLVENCY LAW OF YEVADU

¶10. An arbitral award shall be legally binding.^15 However legal effects can only be derived from national legal systems.^16 International arbitration takes place within the confines of national legal systems.^17 The domain of arbitration is therefore established by national laws. It is submitted that the moratorium imposed upon the respondent under Section 14 of Insolvency and bankruptcy Law inhibits the Jurisdiction of this tribunal.

1. Imposition of Moratorium prohibits the continuation of Arbitration proceedings. ¶11. The mandate under Section 14^18 is very clear in stating that the moment, the moratorium comes into effect under section 14(1) (a) it expressly prohibits institution or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against corporate debtor.^19 the moratorium on initiation and continuation of legal proceedings, including debt enforcement action ensures a stand-still period during which there should be no individual enforcement action which may frustrate the object of the corporate insolvency resolution process.^20 In determining the scope of automatic stay provisions, the purpose attributed to them often turns out to be decisive.^21 creditors.^22 It has, therefore, been suggested that the Code must explicitly preclude the debtor from alienating any of his assets during the moratorium^23 2. The ongoing Arbitration proceedings can affect the assets of the Respondent. ¶12. One of the main duties of an insolvency representative is to take all necessary steps to protect and preserve the assets of the insolvency estate therefore it is (^15) NIGEL BLACKABY et al., REDFERN AND HUNTER ON INTERNTIONAL ARBITRATION 361 (6th (^) ed. 2015); GARY B. BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 567 (2nd^ ed. 2014). (^16) GABRIELLE KAUFMANN- KOHLER & ANTONIO RIGOZZI, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: LAW AND PRACTICE IN SWITZERLAND 160 (3rd^ ed. 2015). (^17) ALAN REDFERN et al., LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 71 (2004). (^18) §14, Insolvency &Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (^20) Report on the Insolvency Law Committee , March 2018, MCAGOI, http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ReportInsolvencyLawCommittee_12042019.pdf. (^21) SIMON VORURGER, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND CROSS BORDER INSOLVENCY: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES 299 (2014). (^22) Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jyoti Structures Ltd., (2018) 246 DLT, 485. (^23) Report on the Insolvency Law Committee, March 2018, MCAGOI, http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ReportInsolvencyLawCommittee_12042019.pdf.

5 TH^ NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 PLEADINGS MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT Page | 5 likely that an insolvency representative would not voluntarily comply with an arbitral award against the insolvent.^24 As such the recognition and enforcement provisions of the New York Convention come into place where the successful party to arbitration wishes to enforce its award against the insolvent.^25 The reason to do so is to safeguard the interests of the parties and render an enforceable award, given the risk of handing down an award that may contravene public policy of lex concursus.

3. It can sabotage the rights of the other creditors of the respondent. ¶13. As Born points out, those matters which are non-arbitrable are those which 'so pervasively involve public rights, or interests of third parties, which are the subjects of uniquely governmental authority, that agreements to resolve such disputes by "private" arbitration should not be given effect'.^26 The general principle adopted by most states is that matters which involve public policy issues should be resolved by state courts and not by arbitration.^27 ¶14. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment passed by a division bench in the case held that institution or continuation of a proceeding after declaring moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is non-est in law i.e. does not exist at all. This opinion has been observed and reiterated by the courts in several cases.^28 (^24) Legislative Guide on Insolvency , UNCITRAL (Jan.14, 2020, 11AM) , https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency/legislativeguides/insolvency_law; Central Bank of India v. Elmot Engineering Co., (1994) 4 S.C.C., 159. (^25) Nina Gumzej, Global Development: New York Convention - Reconsidered: Contribution to the 45d' Anniversary of the Convention: Certain Aspects of Public Policy in the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award ', 2003 CROAT. ARB. Y.B.,39. (^26) GARY B. BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 767 (2014). (^27) JULIAN D.M. LEW et al., COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 188 (2003); BLACKABY et al., REDFERN AND HUNTER ON INTERNTIONAL ARBITRATION 202 (6th^ ed. 2015). (^28) Bank of Baroda v. Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd., (2018) S.C.C., 485; K.S. Oils Ltd. v. The State Trade Corp. of India Ltd. & Anr., (2018) S.C.C., 475; Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2017) S.C.C., 678; Punjab National Bank v. James Hotels, (2017) S.C.C., 456; Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 16 S.C.C., 94; ICC Case No. 7205.