3rd INTRA MEDIATION COMPETITION 2021

Team Code: 100

Written Strategy for (Party Name): Ms. Garima Naidu
STRENGTHS: /10

1. DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. had conducted their part of due diligence
before signing the contract. Thus, they must be aware of the fact the mining
was under sub-lease. The ‘Caveat Emptor Doctrine’ lays the responsibility
of the buyer’s choice on themselves. Thus, it is one of the settled maxims
which states that the buyer is bound by actual or constructive knowledge to
know of any defect in the property or which might have been known by
due diligence.
2. The demand letters went unanswered because Ms. Garima Naidu was busy
sorting out the lease suspension.
3. The demand letters issued by DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. were
criminally intimidating in nature.

WEAKNESSES: /10

1. Ms. Garima Naidu carried out the mining activities with a sub-lease. The
sub-lease is illegal under the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 thus the lease
given to Ms. Sansa Reddy was suspended as she had sub-leased the mines
to Ms. Garima Naidu.
2. Ms. Garima Naidu kept biding time even though she knew that her lease
was suspended and she knew she could no longer continue mining
3. Dishonour of two cheques that were given as security for the loan.

POSITION: /15

1. DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. should finance the lease. The quarry will be
a valuable asset to DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd.
2. DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. should retract the criminal case filed
against her, as a sign of goodwill to uphold business relations.

INTERESTS: /15

1. The relationship between Ms. Garima Naidu and DK Marble & Granite
Pvt. Ltd. was so strained that the partnership started sliding into ruinous
litigation. Should DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. agree to finance the lease
the business relations between Ms. Garima Naidu and DK Marble &
Granite Pvt. Ltd. will not be damaged. Furthermore, if DK Marble &
Granite Pvt. Ltd. doesn’t finance the lease and the case goes to litigation
then Ms. Garima Naidu will not be able to repay the amount.
2. Any criminal proceedings initiated against Ms. Garima Naidu will have a
negative impact on the already strained business relations between the two.
Considering the present status of the business relationship.
POSSIBLE OFFERS FOR SETTLEMENT: /20

1. As a sign of goodwill, Ms. Garima Naidu will retract the case filed against
DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. for criminal intimidation and forgery under
section 503 and section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. In good faith, Ms. Garima Naidu is willing to pay 50 crores against the
non-delivery of goods due to cancellation of lease of Ms Sansa Reddy, and
30 crores against the loss incurred by DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd.
because of non-delivery of goods.

BATNA: /20

1. If the Mediation was to fail then the best alternative available for Ms.
Garima Naidu would be to proceed with the Criminal Intimidation case
against DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. under section 503 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. If the case was to go for litigation Ms. Garima Naidu is willing to pay 65
crores for the loss incurred by DK Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. during the
course of the contract.