Before

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI,

APPLICATION NO. _____/2013
Athleti! G!"#e$%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%.%%%%%%%%%... Petiti&"e'
v.
G&(e'")e"t &* I"+i! .............%%%%%...%%%%%%............................ Re$,&"+e"t
With
CONTE-PT PETITION NO. _____/2013
Athleti! G!"#e$...%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%..%%%Petiti&"e'
v.
G&(e'")e"t &* I"+i!..............................................%%..%.%%%..%%% Re$,&"+e"t
0
TABLE OF CONTENT.
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................II
Index of Abbreviations.............................................................................................................III
Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................IV
Statement of Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................VIII
Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................IX
Questions resented..............................................................................................................XIII
Summar! of leadin"s..........................................................................................................XIV
leadin"s....................................................................................................................................#
1. THERE WA. NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B/ THE PETITIONER0..........................#
#.#. The Last-Shot Rule would apply in interpreting Contractual Negotiations$...........#
#.%. The obligation to satisfy itself lay on the Government as the Contract was entered
into on an as is where is basis!........................................................................................%
#.&. The Company is not liable for any crimes of financial impropriety$.......................&
#.'. The Government has violated its contractual obligations relating to "etitioners
Trade Secret$......................................................................................................................'
2. THE ARBITRAL AWARD I. LIABLE TO BE .ET A.IDE0.................................................(
#$%$ The &ward by the &rbitrator is perverse and patently illegal!................................(
#$#$ 'n &rguendo( The "rocedure followed did not comply with the &rbitration
&greement!.......................................................................................................................#%
3. WHETHER THE RE.PONDENT I. GUILT/ OF CI1IL CONTE-PT...............................#&
2. WHETHER THE RE.PONDENT HA. CO--ITTED THE OFFEN.E OF PER3UR/.........#'
ra!er.......................................................................................................................................#(
INDE4 OF ABBRE1IATION.
) 0 Section
)) 0 Sections
* 0 ara"ra+h
** 0 ara"ra+hs
A.. 0 Andhra radesh
A.C. 0 A++ellate Cases
AI, 0 All India ,e+orter
Anr. 0 Another
-om. 0 -omba!
Cri...J. 0 Criminal .a/ Journal
0.-. 0 0in"1s -ench
2ad. 0 2adras
n. 0 3ote
4rs. 0 4thers
.C.A. 0 revention of Corru+tion Act
SC 0 Su+reme Court
SCC 0 Su+reme Court Cases
Sd56 0 Si"ned
Su++. 0 Su++lementar!
7.. 0 7ttar radesh
7.S. 0 7nited States
7.T. 0 7nion Territor!
v. 0 Versus
INDE4 OF AUTHORITIE.
STATUTES
Indian enal Code8 #9(0..........................................................................................................#'
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(...............................................................................(
The Contem+t of Court Act8 #:;#............................................................................................#&
The <eneral Clauses Act8 #9:;................................................................................................#'
The Indian =vidence Act8 #9;%..................................................................................................:
The revention of 2one! .aunderin" Act8 %00%.......................................................................&
CAS=S
&$N$Gouda v$ State of )arnata*a( >#::9? Cr .J ';@(.............................................................#'
&shish )umar )undu v$ &$)$ Tandon8 #::' >'? S., &#:........................................................#&
+abu Ram Gupta v$ Sudhir +hasin8 AI, #:;: SC #@9%..........................................................#&
+an* of +aroda v$ Sadruddin ,asan -aya8 >%00'? # SCC &(0...............................................#&
+SNL v$ +"L .obile Cellular Ltd 8 >%009?#& SCC @:;..............................................................#
-utler 2achine Tool v. =x6Cell64 Cor+oration8 A#:;:B # C., '0# Court of A++eal..............#
Coco v$ &$N$ Clar* Ltd8 A#:(:B ,C '#.....................................................................................@
Commonwealth v$ /ohn 0airfa1 2 Sons Ltd8 >#:90? #'; C., &:.............................................@
3dpuganti +apanaiah v$ Sri )$S$ Ra4u &nd Two 5rs8 %00; A Di"h Court8 Contem+t Case
3o.:#@ of %00%.....................................................................................................................#'
,ouse of spring gardens point blan*8 A#:9&B FS, %#&..............................................................@
'6bal &hmed Saeed v$ State of ." 8 C. A. 3o. (0'5#::@............................................................&
/agdish v$ "remlata -evi8 AI, #::0 ,aE 9;.............................................................................##
)uldip Singh v$ State of "un4ab( >#:9'? # Crimes #0&& >FD?...............................................#%
Laliteshwar "rasad Sahai v$ +ateshwar "rasad8 AI, #:(( SC @90.........................................:
L'C of 'ndia v$ Ra4a 7asireddy )omalavalli )amba 2 5rs 8 >#:9'? % SCC ;#:........................#
-'nde1 of &uthorities- -"etitioner-
Lord &shburton v$ "ape8 A#:#&B % Ch '(:..................................................................................@
.$S$ Narayanagouda v$ Giri4amma 8 AI, #:;; 0ant. @9...........................................................;
.urray &nd Co v$ &sho* )$R$ Newatia8 >%00%? % SCC &(;.....................................................#&
N$( /$( 8$( 9$( v$ 0'N& 8 CAS :95%09............................................................................................(
Narendra Singh and &nother v$ State of ." 8 >%00'? #0 SCC (::.............................................'
5NGC v$ Saw "ipes8 >%00&? @ SCC ;0@....................................................................................(
"earse v$ "earse( #9'(8 #( .J Ch #@&.....................................................................................#0
"rabhu v$ State of Ra4asthan8 >#:9'? # Crimes #0%0 >,aE? >G-?............................................#%
R$ v$ Collins8 >#:9;? # SC, %(@>Can SC?................................................................................#0
R$ v$ Stillman8 >#::;? # SC, (0; >Can SC?.............................................................................#0
Radha )ishan v$ Navratan .al8 AI, #::0 ,aE #%;.................................................................##
Ra4 )ishore v$ State of :ttar "radesh8 #:99 AII Cr Cas ##.....................................................##
Ra4inder )umar )indra v$ -elhi &dministration 8 >#:9'? ' SCC (&@........................................9
Ra*apali Ra4a Rama Gopala Rao v$ Naragani Govinda Sehararao8 >#:9:? ' SCC %@@........#&
Sachindra Nath "an4a v$ N$L$ +asa*( "rincipal Secretary( Goverment of 9est +engal8 %00'
>'? CD3 (0%.........................................................................................................................#'
Saltaman 3ngineering v$ Campbell 3ngineering8 >#:'9? (@ ,C %0& >CA?.............................@
Sharad +udhichand Sharda v$ State of .aharashtra8 AI, #:9' SC #(%%................................:
Siman La*ra v$ Sudhis "rasad8 #::& >#? .J, ':&.................................................................#&
State of )erala v$ .$.$ .athew8 AI, #:;9 SC #@;#..............................................................#%
State of Ra4asthan v$ .ohan Singh8 #::@ Su++ >%? SCC #@&..................................................#&
State of :" v$ Su*hbasi8 AI, #:9@ SC #%%'............................................................................#%
The Government of NCT of -elhi vs$ Shri )hem Chand and &nother 8 AI, %00& Gelhi &#'. .#%
The Security "rinting and .inting Corporation of 'ndia v$ Gandhi 'ndustrial Corporation 8
>%00;? #& SCC %&(.................................................................................................................9
IV
-'nde1 of &uthorities- -"etitioner-
Thomas .arshall v$ Guinle8 A #:;:B # Ch %&;...........................................................................@
Three Rivers -istrict Council 2 5rs v$ Governor 2 Company of the +an* of 3ngland8 A%00&B
=CCA Civ ';'....................................................................................................................#0
:nion +an* of 'ndia v$ 5fficial Li6uidator 8 >#::'? # SCC @;@.................................................%
:nited States v$ Conte8 >3.G. Cal. %00'?...................................................................................9
:S&-& v$ G 8 CAS %00'545(':..................................................................................................9
:S&-& v$ .$ and '&&0 8 CAS %00'545('@................................................................................9
7$ Sambandan v$ The "un4ab National +an* 8 C.. 3o. #:@@; of %00: F 2.. 3o. # of %00:.%
7odafone 'nternational ,oldings + 7 vs$ :nion of 'ndia 8 >%0#%? ( SCC (#&...........................'
BOOKS
James A.,. 3afHi"er8 ICircumstantial 3vidence of -oping! +&LC5 and +eyond8 #( 2arJ.
S+orts .. ,ev. '@ >%00@?........................................................................................................;
4 2alhotra And Indu 2alhotra81 The Law and "ractice of &rbitration and Conciliation8
.exis 3exis -utter/oerths Cadh/a8 <ur"aon >%00(?8.........................................................;
Sir JF Stefen81-igest of 3vidence18 Vol #8 Third =dn8 #:'08ublished b! .ittle8 -ro/n F Co8
-oston Arts...........................................................................................................................##
RULES
The Anti6Go+in" ,ules8 The 3ational Anti Go+in" A"enc!8 India8..........................................;
The Corld Anti6Go+in" Code8 %00: .......................................................................................;
V
.TATE-ENT OF 3URI.DICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for two petitions filed before this
Honourable Court clubbed together by the Honourable Court. The first application
invokes its territorial ordinary original civil jurisdiction under section !"#$ of the
%rbitration %nd Conciliation %ct& #''( read with section )"#$ and section )"*$ of The +elhi
High Court %ct& #'((. The second Contempt Petition invokes original jurisdiction under
section ## of The Contempt of Court %ct& #',#. -t sets forth the facts and the laws on
which the claims are based.
.TATE-ENT OF FACT.
I.
an Atheletica Inc. is a com+an! incor+orated in the 7nited States of America /ith the
+ur+ose of +rovidin" a s+ectrum of services in the S+orts Industr!. In #:998 a subsidiar! /as
set u+ in eru >Atheltica 2achu? to cater to the "ro/in" .atin American clientele. an
Athletica set u+ a research /in" to investi"ate the local flora and fauna in the nearb! AmaHon
forests in -raHil. The com+an! then set6u+ a research station near the Indo63e+al border after
incor+oratin" a subsidiar! in 3e+al >Athletic =verest? in #:9:. Till no/ an Athletica did not
have a food and nutrition de+artment.
In #::#8 the com+an! si"ned a local football team in -raHil8 -esvalidos /hich8 did ver! /ell.
=ventuall! ((K +ercent of the team members /ent on to become a +art of the national
football team. -e"innin" in #::% Athletica 2achu si"ned them for a decade. -et/een #::%
and %00%8 -raHil /on the Corld cu+ t/ice and reached the final once. -! no/ the com+an!
had a full! functional food de+artment.
II.
an Athletica1s success in -raHil hel+ed it maLe an entr! in a lar"e number of develo+in"
economies. Do/ever8 the means and methods em+lo!ed b! them /ere Le+t com+letel! secret
and the +la!ers /ere made to si"n a :: !ear non disclosure a"reement.
In %0008 2r. Sumanto DaEela8 the Indian 2inister for S+orts and International Affairs8
a++roached 2r. .aurie >one of the +romoters of an Athletica? to hel+ out /ith the Indian
DocLe! Team. In order to com+l! /ith the <overnment1s condition of doin" business onl!
/ith an Indian Com+an!8 an Athletica incor+orated a /holl! o/ned subsidiar! in the
Ca!man Islands >Athletica Atlantica?8 and Athletica <an"es served as a /holl! o/ned
subsidiar! of Athletica Atlantica. Follo/in" ne"otiations bet/een an Athletica and the
Indian <overnment >hereinafter8 I<overnment1?8 /herein all the "overnment1s concerns /ere
-Statement of 0acts- -"etitioner-
taLen care of8 the +arties entered into a contract on an Ias is /here is basis1 throu"h IAthletica
<an"es1 >hereinafter8 ICom+an!1?8 in %00&. The Contract contained an Arbitration Clause.
Gurin" the ne"otiations8 the Com+an! made it clear that as +er this contract8 the "overnment
/ould not be allo/ed to com+el the Com+an! to reveal its means and methods. Alon" /ith
this contract8 members of the Indian DocLe! Team /ere made to si"n an a"reement
containin" a non6disclosure clause. The Indian DocLe! Team fared /ell bet/een %00% and
%0#%.
III.
In %00&8 the -raHilian <overnment did not re6si"n /ith Athletica 2achu because of rumours
that Athletica 2achu /as involved in ille"al activities. An enJuir! /as launched to looL into
these rumours and the enJuir! lasted over five !ears.
In Februar! %0#%8 durin" the celebration +art! after an 4l!m+ics Jualif!in" match8 a drunLen
member of the Indian DocLe! contin"ent attributed the success to the ma"ic biscuits the
com+an! "ave. This caused u+roar in the French8 -ritish and Indian media8 leadin" to much
embarrassment for the <overnment and the Indian DocLe! Federation. A hi"h level enJuir!
/as launched b! the <overnment8 /hile The Indian DocLe! Federation en"a"ed the services
of a +rivate detective com+an!. The Indian <overnment also invoLed the Arbitration clause
and served a notice on the com+an!.
I1.
Athetica <an"es filed a +etition for interim relief8 to sto+ the <overnment from breaLin" the
contract. The Gelhi Di"h Court admitted the +etition and durin" the course of +roceedin"s8
the Addl. Solicitor <eneral /ho a++eared before the Court "ave an undertaLin" that +endin"
+ro+er resolution of the issue it /ould not breaL the contract. The Arbitration be"an.
-Statement of 0acts- -"etitioner-
In the meantime the -raHillian enJuir! /as +ublished8 and rel!in" on that a local -raHillian
Court held Atheletica 2achu to be "uilt! of environmental violations and +a!in" several
bribes. The 7nited States commenced investi"ations under the Forei"n Corru+t ractices Act8
#:;;.
-o/in" to increasin" "lobal +ressure8 the Indian <overnment rescinded the contract and
terminated all of the Com+an!1s contractual obli"ations.
1.
In the on"oin" Arbitration +roceedin"s8 the Arbitrator tooL note of the above facts. 2oreover8
the Indian <overnment submitted +arts of the -raHilian Eud"ement8 the intimation of the 7.S.
investi"ations8 the CAGA "uidelines and Juotes all as+ects of Indian la/. These /ere
considered b! the Arbitrator. The <overnment /as also able to +resent the re+ort of the
+rivate investi"ators8 /hich relied on several emails /hich /as +rivile"ed communication
and excer+ts of the -raHilian Eud"ement. In addition8 the <overnment +roduced the affidavits
of the +la!er8 Sushant Sin"h .aLLarba"ha.
Amon"st the evidence submitted for arbitration8 there /ere a lar"e number of e6mails /hich
dealt /ith ver! sensitive information about the formula of the food and nutrition +roducts
administered to the athletes8 information of banL A5c1s8 and certain communication /hich
/ere su++osed to be la/!er6client +rivile"ed information. All these e6mails /ere for/arded
b! an e6mail id aceventuraM+anatheletica.us. In the arbitration +roceedin"8 the com+an!
/ent on record that there /as no +erson in the em+lo! of the com+an! b! the name of Ace
Ventura and that no existin" member of the com+an! ever intended to for/ard these emails.
In the affidavit submitted b! the athlete8 Sushant Sin"h .aLLarba"ha8 he s+oLe at len"th
about the +rocedure of the trainin" and the diet.
-Statement of 0acts- -"etitioner-
The Com+an! continued to raise man! obEections to the +rocedure of the conduct of the
Arbitration +roceedin"s and the rules to evidence attached8 but each obEection /as reEected.
The Com+an! also filed a Civil Contem+t etition a"ainst the <overnment.
1I.
At the end of the arbitration8 the a/ard held that the com+an! /as indeed en"a"ed in do+in"
and that it had both ille"al and unethical means to administer the team. The enforcement of
the contract /ould lead to much distress and /as clearl! a"ainst la/ and +ublic +olic! and it
further /ent on to a/ard unliJuidated dama"es to the tune of N# billion dollars to the
<overnment.
A""rieved b! this a/ard8 the Com+an! a++roached the Gelhi Di"h Court in the instant
+etition. The com+an! submitted that the entire arbitration /as a farce as information
obtained b! the ,TI indicated that the decision to breaL the contract /as alread! taLen b! the
minister even before the interim relief a++lication. -! an order of the Court8 the contem+t
+etition has been clubbed8 and the Court has issued notice but at the same time has Le+t the
Juestion o+en as to /hether this factual matrix +resents a scenario of +erEur!8 contem+t or
neither of the above.
5UE.TION. PRE.ENTED
#.# CD=TD=, TD=,= CAS A -,=ACD 4F C43T,ACT -O TD= =TITI43=,P
%.# CD=TD=, TD= A,-IT,A. ACA,G IS .IA-.= T4 -= S=T ASIG=P
&.# CD=TD=, TD= ,=S43G=3T IS <7I.TO 4F CIVI. C43T=2T 4F C47,TP
'.# CD=TD=, TD= ,=S43G=3T DAS C422ITT=G TD= 4FF=3S= 4F =,J7,OP
.U--AR/ OF PLEADING.
THERE WA. NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B/ THE PETITIONER0
The etitioner submits that there /as no breach of contract on the +art of Athletica <an"es
>hereinafter8 6The C&),!"78?8 and in the absence of an! dis+ute8 there /as no "round for
the <overnment to invoLe Arbitration. This submission is fourfold. 0irstly8 the common la/
+rinci+le of Ilast6shot rule1 in inter+retin" contractual ne"otiations is a++licable 9!:Q Secondly8
since the contract /as entered into on an Ias is /here is1 basis8 it +laced an obli"ation on the
,es+ondents to satisf! themselves beforehand 9;:Q Thirdly( the burden of +roof reJuired to
+rove crimes of financial im+ro+riet! has not been met 9:Q and 0ourthly( if at all there has
been a breach of contract8 it has been on the ,es+ondents1 +art for havin" violated the
Com+an!1s Trade Secret ,i"hts9+:$
THE ARBITRAL AWARD I. LIABLE TO BE .ET A.IDE0
The etitioner humbl! submits that the Arbitral A/ard is liable to be set aside under the
"rounds laid do/n in the AFC Act. This assertion is t/ofold$ 0irstly( the conclusion arrived
at b! the arbitrator is +erverse and +atentl! ille"al 9!:Q and Secondly8 the rocedure follo/ed
b! the arbitrator /as not in accordance /ith the arbitration a"reement 9;:.
THE RE.PONDENT I. GUILT/ OF CI1IL CONTE-PT
The ,es+ondent is "uilt! of Contem+t of Court because it has /ilfull! breached an
undertaLin" submitted to the court. The undertaLin" in the +resent case is of bindin" nature.
,es+ondent b! rescindin" the contract before +ro+er resolution throu"h arbitration
+roceedin"s has made them "uilt! of civil contem+t of court.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
THE RE.PONDENT HA. CO--ITTED THE OFFEN.E OF PER3UR/
The ,es+ondent has "iven an undertaLin" statin" that the! /ill not rescind the contract /here
as the decision to rescind the contract had alread! been taLen b! the res+ondent. Choever in
an! declaration made b! him to an! court of Eustice8 maLes an! statement /hich is false8 and
/hich he believes to be either false or does not believe to be true8 touchin" an! +oint material
to the obEect for /hich the declaration is made shall be +unishable in a "rave manner as if he
"ave false evidence. Therefore the ,es+ondent has committed the offense of +erEur!.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
PLEADING.
1. THERE WA. NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B/ THE PETITIONER0
The etitioner submits that there /as no breach of contract on the +art of Athletica <an"es
>hereinafter8 6The C&),!"78?8 and therefore there /as no "round for the <overnment to
invoLe Arbitration. This submission is fourfold. 0irstly8 the common la/ +rinci+le of last-
shot rule in inter+retin" contractual ne"otiations is a++licable 9!:Q Secondly8 a contract
entered into on an as is where is basis8 +laces an obli"ation on the <overnment to satisf!
itself beforehand 9;:Q Thirdly( the burden of +roof reJuired to +rove crimes of financial
im+ro+riet! has not been met 9:Q and 0ourthly( if at all there has been a breach of contract8 it
has been on the ,es+ondents1 +art 9+:$
#.#. The Last-Shot Rule would apply in interpreting Contractual Negotiations $
In +utler .achine Tool v$ 31-Cell-5 Corporation
#
( it was held that ;Chere there is a battle
of the forms /hereb! each +art! submits their o/n terms8 the Ilast-shot rule a++lies /hereb!
a contract is concluded on the terms submitted b! the +art! /ho is the last to communicate
those terms before +erformance of the contract commences.R This common la/ doctrine has
been subscribed to b! India in the A+ex Court1s decrees in L'C of 'ndia v$ Ra4a 7asireddy
%
and +SNL v$ +"L .obile Cellular Ltd8
&
in inter+retin" Section ;>#? of the Indian Contract
Act8 /herein it /as held that if one /ere to alter or modif! the terms of the contract8 Sit /as
reJuired to be done either b! ex+ress a"reement or b! necessar! im+lication /hich /ould
ne"ate the a++lication of the doctrine of Iacceptance sub silentio1.R
#
+utler .achine Tool v$ 31-Cell-5 Corporation( A#:;:B # C., '0# Court of A++eal.
%
L'C of 'ndia v$ Ra4a 7asireddy )omalavalli )amba 2 5rs 8 >#:9'? % SCC ;#:8 at *#9.
&
+SNL v$ +"L .obile Cellular Ltd 8 >%009?#& SCC @:;8 at * &0.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
In the instant case8 durin" the ne"otiation of the contract8 the +arties disa"reed on the
<overnment1s concern re"ardin" /hat it referred to as the Ie+isodes in -raHil1. The
<overnment8 in its letter dated %(6##6%00# stated that it reJuired the Com+an! to maLe all
Inecessar! disclosures1 in this re"ard.
'
In res+onse to this concern8 the Com+an! res+onded
statin" that the Com+an! /ould reJuire the <overnment to +oint out the facts /ith re"ard to
the -raHilian rumours. 2oreover8 the etitioner raised an obEection to the Inecessar!
disclosure1 obli"ations that the <overnment sou"ht to im+ose8 and instead added the term that
the contract /ould be entered into b! the <overnment on an as is where is basis.
@
This
ne"otiation /ould be construed as a counter offer as +er the above case la/. If the
<overnment /as to modif! these terms8 it /ould have had to do so either b! ex+ress
a"reement or necessar! im+lication that /ould ne"ate the a++lication of the doctrine of
acceptance sub silentio. Since no such modification /as forthcomin" from the <overnment8
the Ilast-shot rule /ould be a++licable8 and hence8 the Icounter6offer1 submitted b! the
Com+an! should be construed as the enforceable terms of the contract.
#.%. The obligation to satisfy itself lay on the Government as the Contract was
entered into on an as is where is basis!
Chile inter+retin" a contract entered into on an as is where is basis8 Indian Courts have
held that SIt is for the intendin" +urchaser to satisf! himself in all res+ects as to the title8
encumbrances and so forth of the immovable +ro+ert! that he +ro+oses to +urchase.R
(
As has alread! been submitted in sub6contention #.#.8 the contract in the instant case /as
entered into b! the +arties in a manner similar to a contract for immoveable +ro+ert! entered
into on an as is where is basis. Therefore8 it is asserted b! the etitioner that on a++lication
of the above la/ "overnin" obli"ations arisin" out of an as is where is contract8 the
'
0actsheet8 Annexure #.
@
0actsheet8 Annexure %.
(
:nion +an* of 'ndia v$ 5fficial Li6uidator 8 >#::'? # SCC @;@8 at * #@Q 7$ Sambandan v$ The "un4ab National
+an* 8 C.. 3o. #:@@; of %00: F 2.. 3o. # of %00:8 at * #0.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
<overnment should have8 usin" its o/n devices8 satisfied itself re"ardin" an! concerns it had
/ith re"ard to the -raHilian rumours. Thus8 the Com+an! submits that it has entered into the
contract /ith clean hands8 /ithout an! Lind of misre+resentation as to the material factsQ and
has therefore not been in breach of the a"reement entered into /ith the <overnment.
#.&. The Company is not liable for any crimes of financial impropriety $
It is the submission of the etitioner that if the <overnment /ere to ar"ue that the Com+an!
had been in breach of the contract due to the +ossibilit! of crimes of financial im+ro+riet!8 it
/ould be an unfounded claim. It is submitted b! the +etitioner that the onl! +lausible
alle"ation that could be made b! the <overnment in this re"ard is one of mone! launderin"8
/hich cannot be entertained as the evidence submitted b! the <overnment does not in an!
/a! satisf! the burden necessar! to +rove such a tall claim. In order for Imone! launderin"1
to be +roved8 the revention of 2one! .aunderin" Act
;
reJuires the offender to have
Idirectl! or indirectl! attem+ted to indul"e in or Lno/in"l! assist in an! +rocess or activit!
connected /ith the +roceeds of crime and +roEectin" it as untainted +ro+ert!.1
In '6bal &hmed Saeed v$ State of ."
9
8 a case relatin" to offences under the revention of
Corru+tion Act8 the /ell established +rinci+le of criminal Euris+rudence that ISus+icion
ho/soever stron" ma! be8 cannot taLe +lace of +roof and /hen sli"htest sus+icion is there8
benefit should be "iven to accused81 /as a++licable. It is therefore submitted b! the
+etitioner that this +rinci+le is a++licable even in cases involvin" economic crimes such as
mone! launderin". 2oreover8 the Su+reme Court has held that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence8 ho/ever stron" the +ieces of evidence ma! be8 it is /ell Lno/n
that all linLs in the chain must be +roved.
:
Finall!8 in the landmarL Eud"ement "iven in
;
The revention of 2one! .aunderin" Act8 %00%8 ) &.
9
'6bal &hmed Saeed v$ State of ." 8 C. A. 3o. (0'5#::@8 at * #9 and * #:.
:
Narendra Singh and &nother v$ State of ." 8 >%00'? #0 SCC (::8 at * &%.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
7odafone 'nternational ,oldings +7 v$ :nion of 'ndia
#0
8 the Su+reme Court noted that
Sman! of the offshore com+anies use the facilities of 4ffshore Financial Centers situate in
2auritius8 Ca!man Islands etc. 2an! of these offshore holdin"s and arran"ements are
undertaLen for sound commercial and le"itimate tax +lannin" reasons8 /ithout an! intent
to conceal income or assets from the home countr! tax Eurisdiction and India has al/a!s
encoura"ed such arran"ements8 unless it is fraudulent or fictitious.R
-ased on the above la/8 it is humbl! submitted b! the etitioner that the mere existence of a
holdin" com+an! in the Ca!man Islands cou+led /ith the fact that Athletica 2achu /as held
liable for offences in -raHil does not automaticall! dra/ the inference that the etitioner /as
involved in mone! launderin". In the instant case8 there is no +roof as to the linL bet/een
+rofits "ained from offences committed b! Athletica 2achu8 and the transactions entered into
bet/een Athletica <an"es and the Indian <overnment. In the absence of this linL bein"
+roved8 the etitioner asserts that the "overnment has not satisfied the heav! burden of +roof.
#.'. The Government has violated its contractual obligations relating to
"etitioners Trade Secret $
Information8 includin" a formula8 +attern8 com+ilation8 +ro"ram device8 method8 techniJue or
+rocess can constitute trade secrete if it Jualifies three other criteria.
##
If this information is
"enerall! not Lno/n or readil! accessible to +ersons /ithin circles that normall! deal /ith
the Lind of information in Juestion. Secondl!8 the information has commercial value. Thirdl!8
it has been subEect to res+onsible ste+s under the circumstances b! the +erson la/full! in
control of the information8 to Lee+ it secret. If the res+ondent is +roved to have used this
information directl! or indirectl! obtained from the +etitioner8 /ithout his consent ex+ress or
im+lied8 he /ould be "uilt! of infrin"ement of the +laintiff1s ri"ht.
#%
The +rinci+le of
#0
7odafone 'nternational ,oldings + 7 vs$ :nion of 'ndia 8 >%0#%? ( SCC (#& at * #'%.
##
Indian Innovation -ill8 ) %>&?Q Coco v$ &$N$ Clar* Ltd8 A#:(:B ,C '#Q Thomas .arshall v$ Guinle8 A #:;:B #
Ch %&;Q ,ouse of spring gardens point blan*8 A#:9&B FS, %#&.
#%
Saltaman 3ngineering v$ Campbell 3ngineering8 >#:'9? (@ ,C %0& >CA?.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
infrin"ement of ri"ht is a++licable in cases /here the information /as obtained im+ro+erl! as
breach of confidence.
#&

In the instant case8 the emails that /ere +roduced as evidence constitute trade secrets. The!
contained information of trainin"8 food and nutrition. The same had commercial value as it
contained the Imantra of successes1 of the team. The com+an! has taLen all the reasonable
ste+s to Lee+ it a secret liLe non6disclosure a"reement /ith +la!ers.
The "overnment has breached the confidence of the com+an! b! obtainin" those emails
throu"h ille"al means and hence breached the contract.
Therefore8 the etitioner submits that in the absence of a breach of the contract b! the
etitioner8 no dis+ute re"ardin" the contract can be said to have arisen. Dence8 the Arbitrator8
in renderin" his a/ard on the matter has acted be!ond the sco+e of his authorit! under
Section %9>&? of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::( >hereinafter( 6The A<C At8?.
2. THE ARBITRAL AWARD I. LIABLE TO BE .ET A.IDE0
The etitioner humbl! submits that the Arbitral A/ard is liable to be set aside under the
"rounds laid do/n in the AFC Act. This assertion is t/ofold$ 0irstly8 the conclusion arrived
at b! the arbitrator is +erverse and +atentl! ille"al 9!:Q and Secondly8 the rocedure follo/ed
b! the arbitrator /as not in accordance /ith the arbitration a"reement 9;:.
#$%$ The &ward by the &rbitrator is perverse and patently illegal!
It is averred b! the etitioner that the A/ard is liable to be set aside under Section &'>%?>b? of
the AFC Act
#'
as it is in conflict /ith +ublic +olic! of India. For this8 the etitioner relies on
the landmarL Eud"ement b! the Su+reme Court in 5NGC v$ Saw "ipes
#@
>hereinafter8 6The
#&
Commonwealth v$ /ohn 0airfa1 2 Sons Ltd8 >#:90? #'; C., &: at @0Q 4+inion of =ad! .J in Lord
&shburton v$ "ape8 A#:#&B % Ch '(: at ';@.
#'
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) &'>%?>b?.
#@
5NGC v$ Saw "ipes8 >%00&? @ SCC ;0@8 at * %#.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
.!= Pi,e$ C!$e8? /herein it /as held that an arbitral a/ard is liable to be set aside in case it
suffers from a +atent ille"alit!. This submission shall be dealt /ith in a t/o6+ron"ed manner$
0irstly8 the standard of +roof to be com+lied /ith in a case concernin" an Anti6Go+in" rule
violation is the stee+ standard of IComfortable Satisfaction1. Secondly8 the a/ard has been
made in conscious violation of the +leadin"s and the evidence8 and is therefore +erverse.
%.#.#. The -urden of roof to be dischar"ed is one of IComfortable Satisfaction1$
The Court of Arbitration in S+ort8 in its landmarL decree in N$( /$( 8$( 9$ v$ 0'N&
#(
8 held that
the standard of +roof a++licable in +rovin" a Case of do+in" in s+ort is one that establishes a
heav! burden of IComfortable Satisfaction1 of the hearin" bod!. The case further ex+lained
that the burden of +roof reJuired to be dischar"ed under this standard is more than a mere
balance of +robabilities and is more aLin to that of Ibe!ond reasonable doubt1. This standard
of +roof has also been ado+ted under the Corld Anti Go+in" A"enc!1s Code >hereinafter(
6the WADA C&+e8?
#;
in dealin" /ith anti6do+in" rule violations. 2oreover8 the standard has
also been ado+ted in India b! the revised Anti6Go+in" ,ules of the 3ational Anti6Go+in"
A"enc!
#9
>hereinafter8 6the NADA R>le$8?8 /hich have been ado+ted in conformance /ith
the CAGA Code. Therefore8 it is considered a rule of custom in International S+orts .a/.
#:
Finall!8 the etitioner submits that "iven the ,es+ondents themselves have submitted the
CAGA "uidelines and relevant as+ects of Indian la/ for +erusal b! the arbitrator
%0
Q an
inference ma! be dra/n as to their acce+tance of this hi"h burden of +roof.
-ased on the above la/8 the etitioner asserts that in adEudicatin" as to /hether the a/ard is
liable to be set aside on the "rounds of it conflictin" /ith the +ublic +olic! of India8 the Court
16
N$( /$( 8$( 9$( v$ 0'N& 8 CAS :95%098 at * #&.
#;
The Corld Anti6Go+in" Code8 %00:8 at Article &.#.
#9
The Anti6Go+in" ,ules8 The 3ational Anti Go+in" A"enc!8 India8 at Article &.#.
#:
James A.,. 3afHi"er8 ICircumstantial 3vidence of -oping! +&LC5 and +eyond8 #( 2arJ. S+orts .. ,ev. '@
>%00@?.
%0
0actsheet at * #'.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
must looL at the arbitral a/ard throu"h the +rism of /hether the heav! burden of
IComfortable Satisfaction1 has been dischar"ed.
%.#.%. The A/ard is in violation of the +leadin"s and the evidence8 and hence +erverse$
A /ell established "round for settin" aside an arbitral a/ard is I+erversit!1.
%#
In .S
Narayanagoudas Case8 it /as held that a decision made in conscious violation of the
+leadin"s and the la/ is a +erverse decision and it cannot be allo/ed to stand uncorrected.
%%
In addition to this the Su+reme Court
%&
has held that /here an arbitrator records findin"s
based on no le"al evidence8 and the findin"s are either his ipse di1it or based on conEectures
or surmises8 the enJuir! suffers from the added infirmit! of non6a++lication of mind and
stands vitiated.
The etitioner further asserts that althou"h recent develo+ments in relation to evidence
admissible under cases +ertainin" to anti6do+in" rule violations have allo/ed for the
admissibilit! of Circumstantial evidence as o++osed to merel! do+e test results8 there is a
ver! hi"h burden of +roof associated /ith the admissibilit! of such circumstantial evidence8
as o++osed to the +resum+tion associated /ith do+e test results.
%'
In the instant case8 the etitioner submits8 that there is no direct evidence in the form of do+e
test results that linLs the Com+an! /ith alle"ations of committin" anti6do+in" rule violations
as +er Article % of the 3AGA ,ules.
%@
The etitioner also asserts that a distinction must be
dra/n /ith res+ect to cases arisin" out of the I+&LC5 Controversy18 /herein the CAS and
the 7S Gistrict Court of 3orthern California relied on admissions of "uilt and uncontroverted
%#
4 2alhotra And Indu 2alhotra81 The Law and "ractice of &rbitration and Conciliation8 .exis 3exis
-utter/oerths Cadh/a8 <ur"aon >%00(?8 at +". ##:&.
%%
.$S$ Narayanagouda v$ Giri4amma 8 AI, #:;; 0ant. @98 at * ##.
%&
Ra4inder )umar )indra v$ -elhi &dministration 8 >#:9'? ' SCC (&@. &lso See The Security "rinting and
.inting Corporation of 'ndia v$ Gandhi 'ndustrial Corporation 8 >%00;? #& SCC %&(8 at * 9.
%'
:S&-& v$ G 8 CAS %00'545(':Q :S&-& v$ .$ and '&&0 8 CAS %00'545('@Q 'ndictment8 :nited States v$
Conte8 >3.G. Cal. %00'?.
%@
The Anti6Go+in" ,ules8 The 3ational Anti Go+in" A"enc!8 India8 at Article %.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
/itness testimon!.
%(
These forms of evidence also find mention under the CAGA Code.
%;
In
the instant case8 ho/ever8 the arbitrator has relied on mere documentar! evidenceQ /hich the
etitioner submits is not sufficient to dischar"e the heav! burden of +roof reJuired in usin"
circumstantial evidence in such cases.
It is submitted b! the etitioner that the Arbitrator should have follo/ed the =vidence Act
durin" the Arbitral roceedin"s. This is because8 since this /as not an International
Commercial Arbitration
%9
8 it /ould be "overned b! art I of the Arbitration Act /hose
+rovisions la! do/n that in such a case8 the substantive la/ /ould be Indian
%:
. In addition8
the Arbitration A"reement +rovides that the +rocedure of the arbitration shall be determined
in the arbitration itself.
&0
Ges+ite all this8 in the Arbitration A"reement8 the +arties have
ex+ressl! a"reed to use Indian .a/.
&#
This8 the +etitioner submits is indicative of the +arties1
intent to use the Indian .a/ relatin" to =vidence.
The etitioner also avers that an a++raisal of the evidence relied on b! the Arbitrator sho/s
that the a/ard suffers from +erversit! as laid do/n in the aforementioned la/. This is dealt
/ith under the follo/in" heads of evidence that /ere administered in the arbitral
+roceedin"s$
a? 7alidity of the emails produced by the government$
In 7$ Satyavathi v$ " 7en*ataratnam
&%
8 it /as held that if the +roof of the evidence is in the
Juestion viH. a viH. +rovin" the "enuineness of the content b! +roducin" the same8 it /ould
not be sufficient to +rove the truth of the contents of the documents
&&
unless the /riter of the
%(
Supra8 note %0.
%;
The Corld Anti6Go+in" Code8 %00:8 at Article &.%.
%9
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) %>#?>f?.
%:
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) %9>#?>a?.
&0
0actsheet8 Annexure Three8 Clause #9'.;.
&#
0actsheet8 Annexure Three8 Clause #9'.:.
&%
#:99 >#? A.T :#@Q Nunna 7en*ateswara Rao vs Tota 7en*ateswara Rao 2 5rs( %00; >'? A.G ;''
&&
The Indian =vidence Act8 #9;%8 ) (@- >#?.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
document is examined. It onl! constitutes hearsa! evidence. Dearsa! evidence is not
admissible.
&'
In the "iven facts8 there is no em+lo!ee named as Ace Ventura. Dence there is no author to
the emails. Therefore the emails should not be considered b! the arbitrator.
'n &rguendo8 /hen the documents are +roduced in order to seeL le"al advice b! the client8
then these documents are Iprotected1 under le"al advice +rivile"e.
&@
The court should looL at
the facts of the case8 /ei"hin" the harm to societ! caused b! disclosure a"ainst the harm
caused to the administration of Eustice in case of full information not available.
&(
.ate 0ni"ht
-ruce 8.J observed that +rotection of the client for the communication bet/een him and his
la/!er need to be +reserved in order to ensure the soundness of the +rocess of Eustice.
&;
Therefore evidence collected b! violation of ri"hts and freedoms of individual should not be
admitted as it /ill brin" the +rocess of Eustice into disre+ute in the e!es of reasonable man.
&9
In the "iven facts the com+an! has claimed those emails to be la/!er client +rivile"e
information as it /as created to seeL le"al advice and therefore should not have been taLen
into consideration b! the arbitrator.
b? 7alidity of the +ra<ilian /udgement produced by the government$
Indian =vidence Act8 #9;% deals /ith the admissibilit! of a co+! of a forei"n Eud"ment8
la!in" do/n certain reJuirements
&:
. Firstl!8 it has to be certified b! the le"al Lee+er of the
ori"inal Eud"ement. Secondl!8 there should be a certificate under the seal of the Indian
counsel certif!in" that the co+! /as certified b! the le"al Lee+er of the ori"inal. The
&'
Sharad +udhichand Sharda v$ State of .aharashtra8 AI, #:9' SC #(%%Q Laliteshwar "rasad Sahai v$
+ateshwar "rasad8 AI, #:(( SC @90.
&@
Three Rivers -istrict Council 2 5rs v$ Governor 2 Company of the +an* of 3ngland8 A%00&B =CCA Civ ';'.
&(
2cCormicL8 I=vidence18 >#:9'? #9(6#9;Q .a/ Commission ,e+ort8 3e/Healand8 &vailable at
htt+$55///.la/com."ovt.nH5sites5default5files5+ublications5#::'50@5ublicationT@9T#;(T%&.+df .ast Visited
on Januar! (
th
8 %0#&.
&;
"earse v$ "earse( #9'(8 #( .J Ch #@&.
&9
R$ v$ Collins8 >#:9;? # SC, %(@>Can SC?Q R$ v$ Stillman8 >#::;? # SC, (0; >Can SC?.
&:
The Indian =vidence Act8 #9;%8 ) ;9>(?.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
Eud"ement /ithout certificate can onl! constitute secondar! evidence for /hich /hen
contents +roved8 it ma! be received.
'0
In the "iven facts8 it can no/here be inferred from the
facts that the Eud"ement +roduced is certified and hence should not be admissible.
'n &rguendo8 a dru" to sho/ certain reactions in the bod! reJuire certain method of
administration and certain time +eriod to react to sho/ the reJuired result. 4n the basis of
facts8 the reliance of arbitrator on the forei"n Eud"ement can be challen"ed. The forei"n court
has clearl! stated that nature of the dru" to be administered is in liJuid form and the time
+eriod reJuired for effect is %' hrs. In India8 the biscuit alle"ed to contain the dru" is solid
form and is administered Eust before the match. Therefore it cannot be +resumed that the
com+an! has indul"ed in the same activit! as in case of the -raHil subsidiar!.
c= 7alidity of the affidavit given by the player!
Affidavits are not included in the definition of Ievidence1 in s.& of I=A8#9;%.
'#
Affidavits
filed b! the +arties /ithout "ivin" the o++ortunit! to the o++osition to cross examine the
de+onent cannot be treated as evidence under s # and & of I=A8 #9;%.
'%
In the instant case8 the affidavit on /hich the arbitrator has relied cannot be admissible as the
+la!er /ho has "iven the affidavit is ver! much alive and the ri"ht of cross examination b!
the o++osition has been violated.
'n &rguendo8 /hen the affidavit is bein" considered b! the arbitrator8 here is no mention of
administration of +erformance enhancin" dru" to the +la!ers. The +la!er has clearl! stated
that the Jualit! of trainin" and food and nutrition is much better. The onl! Isus+icious1 food
item seem to be the s/eet biscuit. Stron" sus+icions and "rave doubts cannot taLe +lace of
'0
Sir JF Stefen81-igest of 3vidence18 Vol #8 Third =dn8 #:'08ublished b! .ittle8 -ro/n F Co8 -oston Arts at *
(;and ;'.
'#
Ra4 )ishore v$ State of :ttar "radesh8 #:99 AII Cr Cas ##Q /agdish v$ "remlata -evi8 AI, #::0 ,aE 9;.
'%
Radha )ishan v$ Navratan .al8 AI, #::0 ,aE #%;.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
le"al +roof.
'&
The Isweet biscuit can be com+ared to chocolate or an ener"! drinL /hich also
"ive a Icharge of rush.
''

-ased on all of the above mentioned la/8 the etitioner humbl! submits that the Arbitral
A/ard is liable to be set aside on the "round that it conflicts /ith +ublic +olic! of India
'@
due
to +atent ille"alit!Q and "iven the +erversit! of the a/ard8 the Court cannot allo/ it to stand
uncorrected.
%.%. 'n &rguendo( the "rocedure followed did not comply with the &rbitration &greement!
In <overnment of NCT of -elhi v$ Shri )hem Chand
'(
8 this court has held that acts of
misconduct b! the arbitrator8 such as uneJual treatment of the +arties covered b! Section #9
of the AFC Act
';
shall be a le"itimate "round to set aside the a/ard under Section &'>%?>a?
>v?.
It is humbl! submitted b! the etitioner that the Arbitration A"reement +rovided that the
+rocedure for arbitration shall be decided durin" arbitration. Do/ever8 the etitioner1s
obEections /ith re"ard to the conduct of arbitration +roceedin"s /ere disre"arded b! the
arbitrator.
'9
Thus8 the of +rocedure follo/ed cannot be held to be in accordance /ith
a"reement of the +arties
':
This also indicates ho/ the etitioner /as not afforded eJual
o++ortunit! to be heard. Dence8 it is the etitioner1s humble submission that the a/ard be set
aside on the above "rounds.
3. WHETHER THE RE.PONDENT I. GUILT/ OF CI1IL CONTE-PT.
'&
State of )erala v$ .$.$ .athew8 AI, #:;9 SC #@;#Q State of :" v$ Su*hbasi8 AI, #:9@ SC #%%'Q "rabhu v$
State of Ra4asthan8 >#:9'? # Crimes #0%0 >,aE? >G-?Q )uldip Singh v$ State of "un4ab( >#:9'? # Crimes #0&&
>FD?.
''
htt+$55conference.!ouths+ortsn!.or"5reference5"oldber"er.+df $ Last 7isited on Januar!8 (
th
%0#&.
'@
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) &'>%?>b?.
'(
The Government of NCT of -elhi vs$ Shri )hem Chand and &nother 8 AI, %00& Gelhi &#'8 at * #@.
';
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) #9.
'9
0actsheet8 at * #'.
':
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) &'>%?>a?>v?.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
Civil contem+t of court has been defined as I/ilful1 disobedience to an! Eud"ment8 decree8
direction8 order8 /rit or other +rocess of a court or /ilful breach of an undertaLin" "iven to a
court.
@0
In a case /here undertaLin" is recorded in the manner a"reed b! the +arties in a
court1s order8 it "ains a bindin" nature.
@#
Court has defined I/ilful1 as intentional8 deliberate
and conscious.
@%
It is also submitted that for contem+t of court8 advanta"e to the contemnor is
not necessar!.
@&
In the "iven factual matrix8 the Additional Solicitor <eneral "ave an undertaLin" /ith re"ard
to com+liance of the contract till the dis+ute is resolved in arbitration. The said undertaLin"
has been incor+orated b! the court1s order.
@'
Therefore noncom+liance /ith the order b!
terminatin" the contract constitutes contem+t of court. The res+ondent should be held liable
for civil contem+t of court.
Futher8 the defence of subseJuent chan"es cannot be taLen b! the res+ondent.
@@
The court has
distin"uished cases of im+ossibilit! from cases of difficult.
@(
Therefore the court has to "o
into the facts of the case in order to decide u+on the offence of contem+t of court.
@;
In the instant case8 there mi"ht have been "lobal +ressure to terminate the contract8 but it
cannot be construed that situations /ere created /here the +erformance of contract /ould
become im+ossible. Therefore it is humbl! submitted to the court that the res+ondent should
be held liable for contem+t.
2. WHETHER THE RE.PONDENT HA. CO--ITTED THE OFFEN.E OF PER3UR/ .
@0
The Contem+t of Court Act8 #:;#8 ) % >b?.
@#
+an* of +aroda v$ Sadruddin ,asan -aya8 >%00'? # SCC &(0Q +abu Ram Gupta v$ Sudhir +hasin8 AI, #:;:
SC #@9%.
@%
Ra*apali Ra4a Rama Gopala Rao v$ Naragani Govinda Sehararao8 >#:9:? ' SCC %@@.
@&
.urray &nd Co v$ &sho* )$R$ Newatia8 >%00%? % SCC &(;.
@'
0act Sheet8 Annexure (.
@@
&shish )umar )undu v$ &$)$ Tandon8 #::' >'? S., &#:.
@(
State of Ra4asthan v$ .ohan Singh8 #::@ Su++ >%? SCC #@&Q See &lso Siman La*ra v$ Sudhis "rasad8 #::&
>#? .J, ':&.
@;
Sachindra Nath "an4a v$ N$L$ +asa*( "rincipal Secretary( Goverment of 9est +engal8 %00' >'? CD3 (0%.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
7ndertaLin" "iven to court is an affidavit.
@9
. An UaffidavitU includes affirmation and
declaration in the case of +ersons b! la/ allo/ed to affirm or declare instead of s/earin".
@:
Choever in an! declaration made b! him to an! court of Eustice8 maLes an! statement /hich
is false8 and /hich he believes to be either false or does not believe to be true8 touchin" an!
+oint material to the obEect for /hich the declaration is made shall be +unishable in a "rave
manner as if he "ave false evidence.
(0
In the "iven factual matrix8 an undertaLin" /as "iven b! the counsel of the res+ondent. It
declared that that the res+ondent /ill not terminate the contract till +ro+er resolution /ould
be sou"ht b! the arbitrator. Another fact note/orth! here is that the res+ondent had alread!
decided to terminate the contract. This constitutes that the res+ondent "ave false declaration
as to not terminatin" the contract till the arbitration +roceedin"s are com+leted. Dence the!
are liable for +erEur!.
Further to be noted8 that Counsel re+resents the client. In case of uncertaint!8 it is the dut! of
the client to inform his counsel and conseJuentl! if false statements are made in +leadin"s8
the res+onsibilit! /ill devolve /holl! and com+letel! on the +art!.
(#
Cith re"ard to the ambi"uit! to counsel1s Lno/led"e8 the la/ has clearl! laid the dut! on to
the +art!. Therefore the res+ondent cannot /ash a/a! their hands b! taLin" the defence that
the Counsel did not Lne/ about the decision and hence no +erEur! /as committed.
PRA/ER
@9
3dpuganti +apanaiah v$ Sri )$S$ Ra4u &nd Two 5rs8 %00; A Di"h Court8 Contem+t Case 3o.:#@ of %00%
@:
The <eneral Clauses Act8 #9:;8 ) &>&?.
(0
Indian enal Code8 #9(08 ) #:: Read 9ith ) %00.
(#
&$N$Gouda v$ State of )arnata*a( >#::9? Cr .J ';@(.
-Summary of "leadings- -"etitioner-
In the li"ht of ar"uments advanced and authorities cited8 the etitioner humbl! submits
that the Don1ble Court ma! be +leased to adEud"e and declare that$
%$ The arbitral award be set aside$
#$ The Respondent be held guilty of civil contempt of court$
>$ The Respondent be held guilty of per4ury$
%ny other order as it deems fit in the interest of e.uity& justice and good
conscience.
F&' Thi$ At &* ?i"+"e$$, the Petiti&"e' .h!ll D>t7 B&>"+ F&'e(e' P'!7.
Sd56
>Counsel for the etitioner?