REPLY OF RESPONDENT - ARBITRATION

End Sem Assignment

SUBMITTED TO

AMITY LAW SCHOOL, MUMBAI

FOR THE PART FULLFILMENT

OF

[BA LLB – Sem - IX]

By

Erathi Anudeep

Enrolment No. A70611118028

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Adv. C.J Joveson Cheruvathur

AMITY LAW SCHOOL

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2022-2023

 IN THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN
Case Number: 10-99999

B CLAIMANT
AND
A RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE/REPLY OF RESPONDENT

THE CLAIMANT B (CLIENT) ENTERED UPON AN AGREEMENT WITH

RESPONDENT A (SUPPLIER) THAT,

• A, B enter upon an agreement to sell and purchase 30,000 (Thirty

thousand) pieces of N95 masks and gloves.
• Under the Agreement, A is supposed to export the masks and gloves to B
who is in Singapore.
• A exported the material but B, upon finding the goods to be of a much
inferior quality than that was shown to Bs representatives.
• As per the arbitration clause in the contract, the place of Arbitration was
supposed to be either India or Singapore. Accordingly, B initiates
Arbitration in Singapore, but due to the lockdown, A is unable to attend.
• A also defends that the goods were packed and sealed in the presence of
Bs representative and that A has neither sent proof of damage nor made
the payments.
• These superior quality masks were sold by A to B at the rate of Rs. 400
per combo pack of Mask and Gloves. But B has filed a claim for fresh
consignment alleging that the quality of the product is much inferior.
 • The parties are in dispute in respect of the terms and conditions of their
agreement and as alleged by B that A violated the agreement. As a
consequence of which both the parties have referred this dispute for
arbitration for Singapore Arbitration Centre
• Despite numerous requests by claimant the Respondent failed to comply
with his requests for compensation and alternatively he also refused to
deliver a fresh consignment of N95 Masks and gloves.
• Accordingly, Claimant alleges that as a result of Respondent's conduct,
he has suffered damaged in the amount of ₹1,50,000.00.
WHEREFORE RESPONDENT REJECTS CLAIMS MADE BY CLAIMANT
1. The claims made by B are un-just and fabricated.
2. Secondly, B’s representative was present while the goods were being
packed. They could’ve made an objection right there before Shipping.
3. A won’t be compensating B for any monetary losses in his business nor
any punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of this suit, and any
other relief that B wants to claim
4. A also won’t be liable to deliver a fresh consignment of the said N95
masks and gloves to B
5. Respondent requested dismissal of the Statement of Claim in its entirety,
that the cost of this proceeding, including attorneys’ fees, be assessed
against Claimant.
DATED at Singapore Arbitration Centre on this the 11th day of Nov 2010.
Respondent Law Firm,
1st cross, 6th main, Ind
Respondents Attorneys
To,
Singapore Arbitration Centre,
The Arbitrator
And to,
Claimant Law Firm, Singapore,
2nd cross, Shenton way
Claimants Attorneys