Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appellant
Appellant
HOGSMEADE INTELLIGENSIA..................................................................................APPELLANT 1
EUROWELFARE INCORPORATION.............................................................................APPELLANT 2
VERSUS
i|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUES RAISED.................................................................................................................... ix
[1.1] Interpretation and scope of Operational Debt under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
.......................................................................................................................................... 11
[1.2] Debt under the insolvency and bankruptcy code do not covers equitable principles
.......................................................................................................................................... 13
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................ 15
ii | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
iii | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
2. Enercon (India) Ltd. and Others v. Enercon GMBH and Another, (2014) 5 SCC…….2
6. Prima Paint Corporation v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395………………...3
7. National Agricultural Coop. Marketing Federation India Ltd. v. Gains Trading Ltd….4
10. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Saw Pipes Ltd, AIR 2003 SC 2629……………….5
11. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd vs M/S Jain Studios Limited, (2006) 2 SCC 628……….5
17. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v Rani Construction (P) Ltd, (2002) 2 SSC 388.7
18. P Manohar Reddy & Bros. v. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.8
19. Food Corporation of India v Indian Council of Arbitration, AIR 2003 SC 3011………8
21. Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Others………………..10
iv | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
22. Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 5070…………………..10
23. Col. Vinod Awasthy v. AMR Infrastructures Ltd., C.P. No. (IB)-10(PB)/2017……..11
24. Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. UIC Udyog Ltd, CP (IB) No. 547/KB/2017….11
25. K. Kishan v. M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. Civil appeal no. 21824 OF 2017..12
27. Mrs. Pramod Yadav and Anr. v. Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., No. IB-209/ND/2017…..12
LEGISLATIONS:
BOOKS:
v|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory
of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
may file an appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law arising out of such order
under this Code within forty-five days from the date of receipt of such order.
(2) The Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that a person was prevented by sufficient cause
from filing an appeal within forty-five days, allow the appeal to be filed within a
vi | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
STATEMENT OF FACTS
INTRODUCTION:
Grimmauldia is a republic in South Asia and Hogwarts is the administrative as well as business
a youthful population and is a huge investment market for electronics and smartphones.
(b) Felix Felicis Private Limited (FFPL) & Felix Felicis Incorporation (FFI)
CAUSE OF ACTION:
(1) HI is a private limited company which is involved in providing legal policy research,
United States. FFI established FFPL as a wholly owned subsidiary in Grimmauldia for
business expansion. FFPL engaged HI for their services regarding the PDP Bill, 2018
(2) After some time, differences arose between the HI and FFPL. They both resolved and
discharged their obligations under the respective contracts. FFPL pursued the recovery
of advance paid to which HI did not respond and FFPL filed an application before the
NCLT under Section 9 of the IBC. NCLT accepted the application and later HI filed
an appeal in NCLAT which again upheld the decision of the subordinate court.
vii | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
(3) Meanwhile, HI sent a notice to FFPL invoking the arbitration clause under the contract.
the High Court of Hogwarts under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 to appoint an arbitrator. The High Court refused to appoint the tribunal.
TIMELINE:
DATE EVENT
March 1, 2019 FFPL sent a notice for the recovery of the advance paid
March 12, 2019 FFPL filed an application in NCLT under S. 9 of IBC, 2016
CURRENT STATUS:
Aggrieved by the decision of the NCLAT and High Court of Hogwarts, HI filed respective
appeals under Section 62 of IBC and Article 136 of the Constitution of Grimmauldia to the
Supreme Court. Hence, Supreme Court decided to club both the appeals and is now posted for
final hearing.
viii | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
ISSUES RAISED
~ISSUE I~
~ISSUE II~
~ISSUE III~
ix | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
~ISSUE I~
It is contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the prayers sought by the SLP appellant
before the Supreme Court is maintainable as under Art. 136. As the agreement suffices all the
essentials and the ingredients, the contract between HI and FFPL is perfectly valid and
enforceable. Hence, under this contract FFPL is bound to perform his part of the contract and
~ISSUE II~
It is humbly contended that even if the underlying contract is assumed to be unenforceable but
still the court has to send the matter to the Arbitration Tribunal to decide the validity itself in
the first place because of the Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle and with the Separability clause
x|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
~ISSUE III~
It is contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the prayers sought by the SLP appellant
before the Supreme Court is maintainable as under Art. 136. High court have the power to grant
appropriate remedy to the petitioners which the former failed to provide. Hence the arguments
to justify the same comes in a Two-fold Manner: Interpretation and scope of operational debt
under insolvency and bankruptcy code. Debt will not come under the scope of operational debt
as services were not provided fully. Debt under the insolvency and bankruptcy code covers
Equitable Principles. Debt under this code do not cover equitable principle as commercial
xi | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
a contract.
(2) The essentials for a valid contract are given under Section 102-
Proposal is defined3 as- When one person signifies to another his willingness to
do or to abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the assent of that
Acceptance is defined4 as- When the person to whom the proposal is made
signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when
Agreement is defined5 as- Every promise and every set of promises forming the
FFPL approached HI to engage their services and to seek their advice with respect to the
obligations under the various provisions of and for research and suggestions on the PDP Bill
1
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 2 (h).
2
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 10.
3
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 2 (a).
4
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 2 (b).
5
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 2 (e).
1|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
(b) Competency -
Every person who is of the age of majority which is given under Indian Majority Act6 and who
is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.
‘Person’ includes legal person such as company, statutory incorporations etc. Hence, FFPL and
such nature that, if permitted, would defeat the provisions of any law; or (iii) is fraudulent; or
(iv) Involves or implies, injury to person or property of another; or (v) Court regards it as
immoral, or opposed to public policy.”7 The object of the agreement is to seek advice and
suggestions for the PDP Bill and the consideration from the FFPL was Rs. 50,00,000 as an
advance and the remaining Rs. 50,00,000 is payable on the passage of the PDP Bill.8
First, that in order to constitute a contract, both the parties must consent to the agreement, and
secondly, even if both the parties have consented to the agreement, consent of one of them may
not be said to be free if the same had been obtained by coercion, undue influence,
misrepresentation, fraud.9 It is very clear from the facts that both the parties consented to the
6
Indian Majority Act, 1875, Section 3.
7
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 23.
8
Article IV, Annexure 2, Moot Compromise.
9
Mulla & Pollock, The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (14th Ed.).
2|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
If the agreement is declared void by the Contract Act under the sections 23-30 or by any other
(3) As the agreement suffices all the essentials and the ingredients, the contract between HI
and FFPL is perfectly valid and enforceable. Hence, under this contract FFPL is bound to
perform his part of the contract and make full payment to HI.
(4) If a dispute arises associated with or arising from this contract, it will be resolved according
Assuming but not admitting that the agreement is null and void under section 23 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, the arbitration clause stands effective. [2.1] The ‘Doctrine of Separability’
and [2.2] ‘Kompetenz-Kompetenz’ principle applies along with the [2.3] restrictive scope of
(5) The separability doctrine provides that an arbitration agreement, even though included in
agreement.
10
Moot Compromise, Annexure 2, Article IX.
11
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11.
3|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
(6) Indeed, the arbitration clause and the underlying agreement are two different agreements
despite the fact that both exist within the same text and the two should be assessed together.
While the underlying agreement creates a relationship of obligation between the parties, the
arbitration agreement solely addresses the settlement of disputes between the parties. It can be
said that, when the parties to an agreement containing an arbitration clause enter into that
agreement, they conclude not one but two agreements, the arbitral agreement survives any
(7) The position with respect to whether an arbitration agreement contained in a contract is
separable is a settled law and the separability doctrine is respected by all courts.13
The failure of the main contract constitutes the occasion for the application of the arbitration
clause. The main contract does not become irrelevant. That still provides the framework within
which the rights and liabilities of the parties would be determined.14 This principle has been
recognized and enshrined in countries like Switzerland15, England16, United States17, France18.
(8) The Indian law of Arbitration, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, also
“(1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections
with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose, --
12
Heyman v. Darwins, (1942) A C 356 (A).
13
Enercon (India) Ltd. and Others v. Enercon GMBH and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 1.
14
National Thermal Power Corporation v Singer Company, (1992) 3 SCC 551.
15
Swiss Private International Law Act, 1987.
16
Heyman v. Darwins Ltd, (1942) A C 356 (A); Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
17
Prima Paint Corporation v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395.
18
Mayer P., The Limits of Severability of the Arbitration Clause, Kluwer Law International, 14th International
Council for Commercial Arbitration; 1998.
19
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 16 (1).
4|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
(a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement
independent of the other terms of the contract; and (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that
the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.”
(9) The Indian courts have frequently relied upon the separability presumption to reject
jurisdictional challenges, but these decisions cannot properly be considered final, substantive
Federation India Ltd. v. Gains Trading Ltd.20 , the Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause
is a collateral term in the contract, which relates to resolution of disputes, and not performance.
and Healthcare Ltd.21, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the decisions upholding
allocation of competence to render an initial decision on the jurisdictional dispute. The Indian
Act has adopted the doctrine in a way to minimize the intervention of courts in the arbitration
(10) The “separability doctrine” was articulated comprehensively by the United States
Supreme Court in Prima paint Corp v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co. where the Court
ruled that arbitration clauses can be ‘separable’ from the contracts in which they are included.
The rationale for the separability doctrine is that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate consists of
promises that are distinct and independent from the underlying contract.
20
(2007) 5 SCC 692
21
(2007) 5 SCC 510.
5|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
(11) When the Supreme Court revisited this doctrine in 2006 in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc.
v. Cardegna22, it set down three guiding principles that should have made quick work of both
of these cases:
from the remainder of the contract. Second, unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause
itself, the issue of the contract’s validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance.
(12) Arbitration rules derive their authority from the intentions of the parties who refer to them
in their arbitration agreement. Consequently, where the parties have referred to arbitration rules
which states the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement, those parties are
presumed to have intended that the arbitration agreement be treated separately from the main
contract. When the terms of the contract are clear and ambiguous then its meaning is to be
gathered only from the words used therein.23 The Arbitration Clause clearly states that any
dispute or question arising related to the existence or validity will also be settled by the
arbitration.24
(13) The proper test for deciding validity or otherwise of an agreement or order is 'substantial
severability' and not 'textual divisibility'. It is the duty of the court to severe and separate trivial
or technical part by retaining the main or substantial part and by giving effect to the latter if it
is legal, lawful and otherwise enforceable. In such cases, the Court must consider the question
whether the parties could have agreed on the valid terms of the agreement had they known that
the other terms were invalid or unlawful. If the answer to the said question is in the affirmative,
22
546 U.S. 440 (2006).
23
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Saw Pipes Ltd, AIR 2003 SC 2629.
24
Moot Compromise, Annexure 2, Article IX.
6|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
the doctrine of severability would apply and the valid terms of the agreement could be enforced,
(14) It is not the law that arbitrators, if their jurisdiction is challenged or questioned, are bound
immediately to refuse to act until their jurisdiction has been determined by some court which
has power to determine it finally.26 They are entitled to inquire into the merits of the issue
whether they have jurisdiction or not, not for the purpose of reaching any conclusion but for
the purpose of satisfying themselves of the preliminary matter about whether they ought to go
on with the reference or not.27 The court of appeal held that the arbitration clause was wide
enough to include such ques and the arbitrator was not precluded from determining the issue
the contract was voidable was sufficient to terminate the arbitration clause as well.29
(15) In order to conduct arbitration proceedings, the arbitration clause should remain
unaffected by the claim of invalidity. Conferment of such power on the arbitral tribunal has
been done with the intention of and objective of setting the arbitral proceedings in motion
without any hurdles in future also.30 An arbitration does not cease to be binding because the
contract has been discharged.31 The other possible view was that the arbitrator may decide the
preliminary ques of law as well. If his decision was not according to law, it could be brought
before the court. The Supreme Court has considered this course to be proper that the
preliminary question should also be decided by the arbitrator.32 Even where the question is
25
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd vs M/S Jain Studios Limited, (2006) 2 SCC 628.
26
Christopher Brown Ltd v. Genassenschaft O.W.R. GmbH, (1954) 1 QB 8
27
Ibid.
28
Harbour Insurance Co. UK v Ransa General International Ins Co., [1993] 1 Llyod’s Rep 445 CA.
29
Law and Practice of International Arbitration, Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter, Fourth Edition, pp- 3-60.
30
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v M. Keshava Raju, AIR 2004 Kant 104.
31
Heyman v Darwins Ltd., (1942) A C 356 (A).
32
Avtar Singh, Law of Arbitration and Conciliation (7th Ed.).
7|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
pending before the court, the arbitral tribunal can go on with the reference as provided in
arbitration. According to that principle, an arbitral tribunal is competent to decide its own
competence. In other words, the tribunal has jurisdiction to decide its own jurisdiction. That
principle demands, in turn, that the arbitral tribunal, and not the court, should in the first
(17) Arbitrators’ power to continue with arbitral proceedings despite one party’s challenge to
tribunal to continue with the proceedings even where the existence or validity of the arbitration
agreement has been challenged by one of the parties for reasons directly affecting the
arbitration agreement, and not simply on the basis of allegations that the main contract is void
or otherwise ineffective. The principle of the arbitration agreement is autonomous of the main
contract is sufficient to resist a claim that the arbitration agreement is void, because the contract
containing it is invalid, but it does not enable the arbitrators to proceed with the arbitration
where the allege invalidity directly concerns the arbitration agreement. That is a consequence
33
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 8 (3).
34
Supra, note 32.
8|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
(18) Objections regarding applicability of the arbitration clause in the agreement to the facts of
the case, though go to the root of the jurisdiction, even so they must be raised before the
arbitrator for decisions.35 Without this rule, an arbitral tribunal would always be precluded from
hearing any dispute which raised a question about the validity or existence of the contract
containing the arbitration agreement.36 Parties are granted liberty to raise and pursue all
objections and contentions before him as envisaged under section 16 of the act and also on
merits.37
(19) In case of any dispute, the arbitrator appointed as per the arbitration clause, has the
competence to separate the arbitration clause from the underlying contract, and decide the
issues and provide the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any
Thus, this doctrine was recognised mainly in the context of ensuring jurisdiction of the Arbitral
Tribunal so appointed, to adjudicate upon the matter, irrespective of the challenges to the
underlying contract.39
35
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, AIR 2003 SC 2881; Konkan Railway
Corporation Limited v Rani Construction (P) Ltd, (2002) 2 SSC 388.
36
P Manohar Reddy & Bros. v. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 1776.
37
Food Corporation of India v Indian Council of Arbitration, AIR 2003 SC 3011.
38
National Power Corporation. v. Westinghouse, DFT 119 II 380.
39
Roman Feehily, The effect of invalidity of underlying contract on the Arbitration Clause: A Critique on the
Doctrine of separability in Arbitration, Arbitration International, Volume 34, Issue 3, September 2018, Pages
355–383.
9|Page
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
(20) The nature and scope of issues arising for consideration in an application under Section
11 of the Act for appointment of arbitrators, are far narrower than those arising in an application
under Section 8 of the Act, seeking reference of the parties to a suit to arbitration.40
(21) While deciding the application under section 11, the chief justice or his designate would
not look into the arbitrability of the subject matter of the agreement. If there exists an arbitration
agreement, the court is bound to leave the issue of arbitrability to the Arbitral tribunal.
(22) Addition made to the Section 11 (6) by the 2015 Amendment, reads as follows:
11. (6-A) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, while
section (6), shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court,
From a reading of Section 11(6-A), the intention of the legislature is crystal clear i.e. the court
should and need only look into one aspect the existence of an arbitration agreement.42 After
the amendment, all that the courts need to see is whether an arbitration agreement exists nothing
(23) It is humbly contended before the honorable Supreme Court, that the refundable advance
paid to the HI cannot be considered as operational debt under Insolvency and bankruptcy code
40
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Others, AIR 2011 SC 2507.
41
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11 (6-A).
42
Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 5070.
10 | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
2016. Hence the arguments to justify the same comes in a three-fold Manner: [1.1]
Interpretation and scope of operational debt under insolvency and bankruptcy code [1.2] Debt
BANKRUPTCY CODE
(24) The term “operational debt” is defined in section 5(21) of IBC 43. According to section
5(21), “operational debt” means: “a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services
including employment or a debt in respect of the repayment of dues arising under any law for
the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any
local authority.” In the case of Col. Vinod Awasthy v. AMR Infrastructures Ltd.44, stated
“operational debt does not include debt other than a financial debt and is confined to only four
categories, viz. goods, services, employment and government dues. NCLT held that since the
advances were sought to be recovered on account of delay in possession (and the debt did not
arise on account of these four categories), the applicants are not operational creditors of the
companies”.
(25) In the present case, the respondent is also contending that the advance for the contract is
operational debt and comes under the ambit of section 9 of insolvency and bankruptcy code,
201645. In the case of Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. UIC Udyog Ltd 46, UIC udyog
made advance payments for certain materials, for which there was a short supply. An
application was, therefore, filed under section 9 of the IBC, but the matter was dismissed on
43
Insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2016.
44
Col. Vinod Awasthy v. AMR Infrastructures Ltd., C.P. No. (IB)-10(PB)/2017.
45
Moot Compromis, Para 16, line 4.
46
Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. UIC Udyog Ltd, CP (IB) No. 547/KB/2017.
11 | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
the ground that the amount due to the applicant did not fall under any of the aforementioned
elements of the definition of operational debt, and hence, there exists no operational debt at
all47.
(26) To determine whether the application is at all maintainable, the NCLT deliberated on the
term “operational debt” as contained in the IBC. According to section 5(21), “operational debt”
means48:
(a) claim in respect of provision of- (i) goods or (ii) services, including employment; or
(b) debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and
payable to- (i) the Central Government,(ii) any State Government; or (iii) any local authority.
(27) If the claim of debt falls within one of the three categories as listed above can such a claim
be categorized as an operation debt49. In case if the amount claimed does not fall under any of
the categories mentioned as above, the claim cannot be categorized as an operational debt, and
even though there might be a liability or obligation due from one person, namely Corporate
Debtor to another, namely Creditor other than the Government or local authority, such a
creditor cannot categorize itself as an “operational creditor” as defined under Section 5(21) of
IBC, 201650.
(28) The respondent could definitely not be categorized as Central Government, any State
Government or any local authority. The next question for consideration was whether the debt
would fall under the ambit of “claim in respect of the provision of goods or services or
employment.” It can be observed that the applicant has not complete service, nor provided any
47
K. Kishan v. M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. Civil appeal no. 21824 OF 2017.
48
SHRM Biotechnologies Private Limited v. VAB Commercial Private Limited,CP (IB) No. 799/KB/2018.
49
Mrs. Pramod Yadav and Anr. v. Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., No. IB-209/ND/2017.
50
Sajive Kanwar v. AMR Infrastructure, C.P(IB) No. 06/KB/2017.
12 | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
goods to the corporate debtor. Thus, the respondent’s contention of operational debt against
appellant is unacceptable.
(29) Even if the appellant assumes that the debt comes under the ambit of section 9 of IBC and
is operational debt. Then it means that the respondent is operational creditor and the appellant
is operational debtor and to the relationship of operational debtor and operational creditor, both
must be in the valid contract. Operational creditor is defined under Section 5(20) of the IBC to
mean "any person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such
debt has been legally assigned or transferred". And on the other side the respondent is
contending that the contract itself is unenforceable. Thus, the respondent’s argument of
[1.2] DEBT UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE DO NOT COVERS EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES
(30) The uncertainty of the general duty of equitable principles has been attributed as one of
the most prominent reasons why the doctrine has remained at the backstage. Uncertainty is a
word used when situation are not predictable. Commercial transaction relies on certainty. The
general duty of equity which is one of the outcomes of equity comes with it the non-
predictability associated with most if not all doctrines of equity. Where the law is not
predictable, that is, the courts do not work with precedents there is a very high tendency for the
judicial system to be abused and it will weaken the certainty that comes with commercial
transactions, highlighted this by stating “such a vague principle invites judges to act on their
own idiosyncratic views of fair dealings” It is evidence that no two people think alike if the
facts of case are left at the mercy of the judge in question for interpretation then there can never
13 | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
be any two decisions alike. The globalization of businesses has even made it even more difficult
for the equitable doctrine of equitable principles to find a place in English law.
(31) Also in commercial transaction “…if the law is certain, the outcome of a dispute may be
predicted and the parties may resolve it without resort to litigation” Where the outcome of
contractual defaults can be predictable it will serve as a check and deterrent for the contracting
parties because then the strict interpretation of common law unlike the loose nature of equitable
principle gives the parties an idea of what to expect should they breach their own side of the
bargain. But where the law is not predictable people will be more willing to gamble. Lord
Borough Council51 warned against the importation of the equitable principles into commercial
transaction for its lack of speed and certainty. Lord Ackner clearly pointed this out in the case
of Walford v Miles52 where he argued that negotiation in equitable principles was full of
uncertainty and quite difficult to enforce an would be inherently repugnant to the ‘adversarial
position of the parties when involved in negotiations’. So in the present case also, Debt will
51
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council, HL 22 MAY 1996.
52
Walford v Miles, [1992] 1 EGLR 207.
14 | P a g e
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION 2019
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited may this
1) HOLD the contract valid and order the payment of remaining Rs. 50, 00,000.
2) SET ASIDE the order of the High Court of Hogwarts and invoke arbitration clause if
dispute arises.
3) DECLARE that debt do not comes under the ambit of operational debt
AND/OR
Pass any other Order, Direction, Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,
For this act of Kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray
Sd/-
15 | P a g e