1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4 OF 2015

In the matter of Sections 11(5) read

with 11(9) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”)

ETIOLE CREATIONS ……….PETITIONER

VS

SARL DANSET DECO ..…… RESPONDENT

Name: Siddharth Singh

Roll No: 116

Course: B.L.S. L.L.B. (5 yrs Course) Sem- X

Subject: Moot Court Practical Training –IV

College: Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi-Mumbai.

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Arbitration Petition 2-6
2. Vakalatnama 7
3. Last Page 8
 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4 OF 2015

In the matter of Sections 11(5) read with

11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (the “Act”)

ETOILE CREATIONS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT C-291, SURAJ MAL VIHAR,
DELHI ..... PETITIONER

VERSUS

SARL DANSET DECO

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 240,
RUE DA LA LYS 59250,
HALLUIN, FRANCE. …… RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

It is most respectfully submitted for and on behalf of the Respondent above named as
under:

1. The Respondent is engaged, in the business of purchase and sale of the product
relating to home furnishing and upholstery, having its office at 240, Rue Da La Lys
59250, Halluin, France.

2. The Respondent states that, Petitioner is a proprietorship firm having its registered
office at C-291, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi which is engaged, in the business of
manufacturing of products relating to home furnishing and upholstery.
 3

3. The Respondent states that, dispute arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent
is related to Buyers Agreement dated 18.10.2012 executed between them.

4. The Respondent states that, Petitioner and Respondent having the business
relationship and ‘Buyers Agreement’ was executed between the Petitioner and the
Respondent at New Delhi on 18.02.2012. As per the ‘Buyers Agreement’, the
Petitioner has been selling/supplying its aforesaid products and the Respondent has
been buying/purchasing the products for resale/ sale in the territory of France.

PARA WISE REPLY

As to Para No.1
The Respondent states that, the Petitioner filed the present Petition with the ulterior
motive and illegal intention to extort the present Respondent.

As to Para No.2
The Respondent denied the specific averments of Petitioner in para No.2, i.e., the
claim made by the Petitioner is false and frivolous, and as per the clause 14.1 of the
Buyers agreement

i. 14.1 Any dispute, difference, controversy or claim (“Dispute”) arising between

the Parties out of or in relation to or in connection with this Agreement, or the
breach, termination, effect, validity, interpretation or Petition of this Agreement
or as to their rights, duties or liabilities hereunder, shall be settled by the
Parties by mutual negotiations and agreement. If, for any reason, such Dispute
cannot be resolved amicably by parties, the same shall be referred to and
settled by way of arbitration proceedings by three arbitrators, one to be
nominated by each Party and the third to be appointed by the two appointed
arbitrators. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in accordance with the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any subsequent enactment or
amendment thereto (the “Arbitration Act”) by a sole arbitrator appointed by
the First Party. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon
the Parties. The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be Delhi. The language
of the arbitration and the award shall be English.
 4

According to this clause the Petitioner has alternate remedy of settling dispute by
mutual negotiations and agreement and after if for any reason dispute cannot be
resolved amicably by the parties, the same shall be referred to and settled by way of
arbitration proceedings by three arbitrators, one to be nominated by each Party and
the third to be appointed by the two appointed arbitrators but the Petitioner did not
even tried to settle the dispute amicably, instead of this just to extort the Respondent,
the Petitioner has filed the present Petition Before the Hon’ble court. The ground that
the notice for arbitration served upon the respondent is not a proper one and that the
claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation.

AS TO PARA NO. 3
The Respondent denied the specific averments made by the Petitioner in his Petition
as per the clause 14.1 the Petitioner has alternate remedy of settling dispute by mutual
negotiations and agreement and after if for any reason dispute cannot be resolved
amicably by the parties, the same shall be referred to and settled by way of arbitration
proceedings by three arbitrators, one to be nominated by each Party and the third to
be appointed by the two appointed arbitrators but the Petitioner did not even tried to
settle the dispute amicably, instead of this just to extort the Respondent, the
Petitioner has filed the present Petition Before the Hon’ble court. The ground that the
notice for arbitration served upon the respondent is not a proper one and that the
claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation.

AS TO PARA NO. 4
The Respondent denied the specific averments made by the Petitioner in para No.4
the notice for arbitration served upon the respondent is not a proper one and that the
claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation. As per the clause 14.1 the
Petitioner has alternate remedy of settling dispute by mutual negotiations and
agreement and after if for any reason dispute cannot be resolved amicably by the
parties, the same shall be referred to and settled by way of arbitration proceedings by
three arbitrators, one to be nominated by each Party and the third to be appointed by
the two appointed arbitrators but the Petitioner did not even tried to settle the dispute
amicably, instead of this just to extort the Respondent, the Petitioner has filed the
present Petition Before the Hon’ble court.

AS TO PARA NO. 5
The Respondent admits the Para No.5 partly as the Petitioner has filed the petition in
Commercial court in Lille for seizure of all the bank accounts of the Respondent.
 5

The Respondent admits that the Petitioner filed a claim before Tribunal DE-
COMMERCIAL DE LILLE METROPOLIS however the Tribunal dismissed the
claim of the petitioner vide its order dated 30.01.2014.
The Respondent admits that the Petitioner then filed an Appeal No. Minute
14/389/RG 14?1147 before the Appellate court , Douai, France against order dated
30.01.2014 passed by the President of the Commercial Court of LILLE, which also
came to be dismissed by its judgment dated 25.09.2014. The Appellate court declared
the appeal inadmissible on the issue of jurisdiction in view of the arbitration
agreement and also held that there was no emergency to approach the court instead of
seeking remedy under the Arbitration Act.

5. The Petitioner states and submits that the petitioner has paid the requisite court fees
payable on the present Petition.

6. The Petitioner states and submits the Petitioner has not preferred any other petition
before any other Court other than this Hon’ble Court seeking the same reliefs.

7. The Respondent, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased:

(a) To dismiss the present Petition.

(b) To invoke clause 14.1 of the Buyers agreement and settle the dispute by mutual
negotiations and agreement..
(c) And for such other orders and directions as may be deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE RESPONDENTS SHALL DUTYBOUND

EVER PRAY.

Sd/-

Advocate for Respondent Respondent

 6

VERIFICATION

I, Ricky ponting, aged: 45 years, France habitant, Proprietor of Sarl Danset Deco, having
office at 240 Rue De Lys. 59250, Halluin, France, do hereby state that whatever is stated
in foregoing Para No. 1 to 7 of the Reply is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

Solemnly declared at Delhi )

Dated 4th day of March , 2021 )

Sd/-

Advocate for Respondent

Respondent
 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) NO.4 OF 2015

ETIOLE CREATIONS .........PETITIONER

VS

SARL DANSET DECO …… RESPONDENT

To,

The Officer,
Supreme Court of India.

VAKALATNAMA

I, Ricky Ponting, Proprietor of the Respondent firm do hereby appoint Mr. Siddharth
Singh, Advocate acting, appearing and pleading on behalf of the Petitioner in the above
Arbitration Petition.
In witness whereof, I, have set and subscribed my hand to this writing at New Delhi.

Dated this 4th day of March, 2021 Accepted

Mr. Siddharth Singh Sd/-

Advocate for the Respondent Respondent

Course: B.L.S. L.L.B. (5 yrs Course) Sem- X

Subject: Moot Court Practical Training –IV

College: Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi-Mumbai.

 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ARBITRATION PETITION
(CIVIL) NO. 4 OF 2015

ETIOLE CREATIONS

…PETITIONERS
VERSUS

SARL DANSET DECO.

….RESPONDENTS

ARBITRATION PETITION

Dated this 4th day of March 2021.

Mr.Siddharth Singh
Advocate for the Petitioners, Roll No: 136
Course: B.L.S. L.L.B. (5yrs) Course) Sem- X
Subject: Moot Court Practical Training –IV
College: Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi-
Mumbai.