2.-Respondent-Memo-Final-NUJS.doc

 Before

 Before

T

T

 H

 H

’’

 H

 H

 C

 C

 D

 D

, N

, N

 D

 D

A

A

 No _____/2013

 No _____/2013

Athlet!" G"#$e%&&&&&&&&'''&&&&&&&'&&&&&&&&&''' Petto#e( Athlet!" G"#$e%&&&&&&&&'''&&&&&&&'&&&&&&&&&''' Petto#e(

v. v.

Go)e(#*e#t o+ I#"'&&&&&&&&&'''&&&&&&'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Re%-o#e#t Go)e(#*e#t o+ I#"'&&&&&&&&&'''&&&&&&'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Re%-o#e#t

With

With

C

C

 P

 P

 No _____/2013

 No _____/2013

Athlet!" G"#$e%&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'Petto#e( Athlet!" G"#$e%&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'Petto#e(

v. v.

Go)e(#*e#t o+ I#" &&&&&&&&&&'''&&&&''&'&&&''&&& Re%-o#e#t Go)e(#*e#t o+ I#" &&&&&&&&&&'''&&&&''&'&&&''&&& Re%-o#e#t

.

--TTaabblle e oof f CCoonntteennttss-- --RReessppoonnddeen

ntt--T

T

 C

 C

Ta

Table ble of of Contents...Contents... II Index

Index of of Abbreviations...Abbreviations...II...II Index

Index of of Authorities...Authorities...III...III Statement

Statement of of Jurisdiction...Jurisdiction...VII...VII Statement of

Statement of Facts...Facts...VIII..VIII Questions

Questions Presented...Presented...XI..XI Summar

Summar of of Pleadin!s...Pleadin!s...XII...XII Pleadin!s and Authorities...

Pleadin!s and Authorities..." # "" # " #.

#. TT$%$% &  & %SP'()%(T%SP'()%(T ISIS J*STIFI%)J*STIFI%) I(I( &  & %SCI()I(+%SCI()I(+ T$%T$% C C'(T&ACT'(T&ACT A()A() I I (V',I(+ (V',I(+

A

A&-IT&ATI'(&-IT&ATI'(......" ..." # # ""

#.#

#.# The PetiThe Petitioner has faitioner has failed to ma/e necled to ma/e necessar discessar disclosures to the &losures to the &es0ondentes0ondent..." # "..." # " #.1

#.1 The PetitiThe Petitioner has been involved in Crimes of Financiaoner has been involved in Crimes of Financial Im0ro0rietl Im0ro0riet......" 1 "..." 1 " #.2

#.2 The &es0ondThe &es0ondent has not violateent has not violated the Com0an3d the Com0an3s trade secret ri!s trade secret ri!hts...hts..." 4 "..." 4 " 1

1 TT$%$% A A&-IT&A5&-IT&A5 A A6A&)6A&) ISIS ('T ('T 5IA-5%5IA-5% T'T' -%-% S S%T%T A ASI)%SI)%......" 4 ..." 4 ""

1.#

1.# The PetitioThe Petitioner has acce0ted the ner has acce0ted the 7urisdic7urisdiction of the Arbitrattion of the Arbitrator....or..." 8 "..." 8 " 1.1

1.1 The AThe Arbitratorbitrator is the sole 7ud!e of 9ur is the sole 7ud!e of 9ualit and 9uanalit and 9uantit of %vitit of %vidence submidence submitted..." : "tted..." : " 1.2

1.2 The AThe Arbitratorbitrator3s vie; is in /ee0inr3s vie; is in /ee0in! ;ith the Public Poli! ;ith the Public Polic of India...c of India..." < "..." < "

2

2 TT$%$% &  & %SP'()%(T%SP'()%(T ISIS ('T ('T + +*I5T=*I5T= 'F'F C CIVI5IVI5 C C'(T%>PT'(T%>PT 'F'F C C'*&T'*&T..." #2 "..." #2 "

4.

4. TT$%$% &  & %SP'()%(T%SP'()%(T ISIS ('T ('T 5IA-5%5IA-5% F'& F'&  P P%&J*&=%&J*&=..." #8 ..." #8 ""

Praer...

Praer..." ." #? #? ""

.

.E.ORANDU.E.ORANDU.

 for 

 for 

--IInnddeex x oof f AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonnss-- --RReessppoonnddeen

ntt--II

 A

 A

@ @  SectionSection @@ @@  SectionsSections      Para!ra0hPara!ra0h      Para!ra0hsPara!ra0hs A.P.

A.P.  Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh

A.C.

A.C.  A00ellate CasesA00ellate Cases AI& 

AI&   All India &e0orter All India &e0orter  Anr.

Anr.  Another Another 

-om.

-om.  -omba-omba

Cri.5.J

Cri.5.J  Criminal 5a; JournalCriminal 5a; Journal ,.-.

,.-.  ,in!3s -ench,in!3s -ench

>ad.

>ad.  >adras>adras

n.

n.   (ote (ote

'rs.

'rs.  'thers'thers

>>)&

>>)&  >ines >ines and and >inerals >inerals B&e!ulationB&e!ulation and )evelo0ment ActD #E8< and )evelo0ment ActD #E8< SC

SC  Su0reme CourtSu0reme Court

SCC

SCC  Su0reme Court CasesSu0reme Court Cases Sd"

Sd"  Si!nedSi!ned

Su00.

Su00.  Su00lementarSu00lementar

*.P.

*.P.  *ttar Pradesh*ttar Pradesh

*.S.

*.S.  *nited States*nited States

.

.E.ORANDU.E.ORANDU.

 for 

 for 

II II

-Index of Authorities-

-Respondent-I

 A

Cases

#E<4G AC ##2..." ## "

 A.G. v. Walt HamstowD *)C B#?E8 ## T5& 822..." #8 "

 Adikanda wain v. !mperor D AI& #E4< Pat 18#D 0 841H "ali hankar Chatter#ee v. arat Chandra $e%D B#E<< Cal $C( 82?..." #< "

 All India Anna $ravida &unnetra "a'ha(am v. l.". TripathiD B1E 8 SCC 4#<..." #8 "

 As(arall v. !mperor  AI& #E41 (a! ?..." #: "

 Ashish "umar "undu v. A.".Tandon) #EE4 B4 S5& 2#E..." #: "

 Attorne% General v. Guardian *ewspapers +td  #E??G AII %& 848..." ## "

 ,abu Ram Gupta v. udhir ,hasinD AI& #E<E SC #8?1..." #4 "

 ,adat  Co v. !ast India Tradin( CoD AI& #E:4 SC 82?..." #2 "

 ,ha(wati oundation v. Commissioner &C$D 6rit Petition BC (os. #4:..." 1 "

 ,*+ vs. ,W+ Industries /vt. +td .D '.>.P. 4#812..." < "

 ,W+ +td. v. &T*+D 1< B4 A&- 5& 2E? B)elhi..." ? "

Castrol Australian /t% +td v. !mTe0h Asso0iated /t% +td D B#E? 8# F5& #?4..." ## "

Co0o v. A.*. Clark +td D #E:EG &PC 4#..." 4 "

 $harmavir in(h  1rs. v. mt. *avra# indhuD #EE< AI$C 18E..." #8 "

 !dpu(anti ,apanaiah v. ri "..Ra#u  1rsD 1< AP $i!h CourtD Contem0t Case (o.E#8 of 11..." #: "

Gan(a Retreat  Towers +td. v. tate of Ra#asthanD B12 #1 SCC E#..." 1 "

 House of prin( Gardens /oint ,lank D #E?2G FS& 1#2..." 4 "

 In the &atter of the Appli0ation of ederation Internationale de ,asketball for a ubpoena  /ursuant 1? *.S.C.S #<?1..." # "

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-tatement of 2urisdi0tion-

-Respondent- Initial ervi0es +td v. /ueterilsD #E:?G # Q- 2E:..." ## "

 "onrad Wiedemann Gmbh v. tandard Castin(s /vt. +td D #E?8G B# IP5& 142..." 4 "

 "rishna ,ha(%a 2ala *i(am +td. v. Harish0handra Redd%D AI& 1< SC ?#<..." : "

 &./. harma v. atish ChandraD AI& #E84 SC 2..." ## "

 &oor(ate Toba00o Co +td v. /hilips &orris +td D #EE#G AII %& 24#..." ## "

 &uni0ipal Corporation of $elhi v. 2a(an *ath Ashok D B#E?< 4 SCC 4E<..." < "D " #2 "

 *.) 2.) 3.) W.) v. I*AD CAS E?1?..." ? "

 *ara%ana /ani0ker v. The ub 4 $ivisional &a(istrate) ort Coshin  1rsD #E<E ,er 5T 24: ..." #8 "

 *isha "anta Ro% Choudhar% v. mt. aro# ,ashini GohoD AI& #E4? Cal 1E4 B)-..." #4 "

1*GC v. aw /ipesD B12 8 SCC <8..." < " Padarath Sin!h v. &attan Sin!hD B#E1 Pat 4#E..." #: "

 /ooran &al v. $ire0tor of Inspe0tion 5Investi(ation6D B#E<4 # SCC 248D 2:4..." ## "

7ueen v. Ahmed All%D ## 6& 18D 1<..." #: "

 R.&. &alkani v. tate of &aharashtraD B#E<2 # SCC 4<#..." ## "

 R.. 2oshi v. A#it &ills +td) B#E<< 4 SCC E?..." 2 "

 Rashtri%a Ispat *i(am v. $ewan Chand Ram aranD B1#1 8 SCC 2:..." 8 "D " #1 "

 Ratansi $a%a v. !mperor D AI& #E#: Sind < B1..." #: "

 Renusa(ar /vt. Co. +td. v. General !le0tri0 Co.D #EE4 Su00 B# SCC :44..." < "

 C Gupta v. !mperor D AI& #E14 &an! #<..." #: "

.*. &alhotra v. Airport Authorit% of IndiaD 1? B1 A&- 5& <: B)elhi..." : "

.R. ,ommai v. 8nion of IndiaD B#EE4 2 SCC #..." #: "

a0hindra *ath /an#a v. *.+. ,asak) /rin0ipal e0retar%) Govt of West ,en(al D 14 B4 C$( :1..." #8 "

altman !n(9( Co. +td. v. Campbell !n(9( Co. +td.D #E4?G :8 &PC 12..." 4 "

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-tatement of 2urisdi0tion-

-Respondent-hiv Raman Gour v. &adan &ohan "andaD B#EE Cr 5J #22..." #: "

h%ni :ar(hese v tate 5Govt. of *CT of $elhi6D B1? #4< )5T :E# B)el..." ## "

tate 5*CT of $elhi6 v. *av#ot andhuD B18## SCC :..." ## "

tate of &./. v.Ramesh C.harmaD B18 #1 SCC :1?..." ## "

tate of 8ttar /radesh v. Allied Constru0tionsD B12 < SCC 2E:..." 8 "D " #1 "

udarsan Tradin( Co. v. Government of "eralaD B#E?E 1 SCC 2?..." 8 "

Thirupath% "umar "hemka v. CIT D B1< 1# CT& B>ad 1?<..." 2 "

Thomas &arshall v. Guinle)  #E<EG # Ch 12<..." 4 "

8nited tates v. ConteD B(.). Cal. 14..." E "

8A$A v. G.D CAS 14':4E..." E "

8A$A v. &. and IAAD CAS 14':48..." E "

Statutes

Indian Penal CodeD #?:..." #: " The Arbitration and Conciliation ActD #EE:..." 8 " The Arbitration And Conciliation ActD #EE:..." #2 "

The General Clauses A0t D #E<#..." #: "

The Indian !viden0e A0t D #?<1..." ## "D " #2 " The Prevention of >one 5aunderin! ActD 11..." 2 "

Rules

The 1#1 Prohibited 5ist International StandardD The 6orld Anti")o0in! Code..." E " The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD India..." E " The 6orld Anti")o0in! CodeD 1E..." ? "

8

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-tatement of 2urisdi0tion-

-Respondent-James A.&. (afKi!erD LCir0umstantial !viden0e of $opin(; ,A+C1 and ,e%ond< D #: >ar9. S0orts 5. &ev. 48 B18..." E " 'P >alhotra and Indu >alhotraD LThe +aw and /ra0ti0e of Arbitration and Con0iliation< D

5exis (exis -utter;oerths 6adh;aD +ur!aon B1:..." 8 " Patric/ ,. ThorntonD Lports +aw3D Jones and -artlett PublishersD B-oston B1##..." # "

9

$enr Cam0bell -lac/D et.alD ,la0k<s +aw $i0tionar%):th _{%ditionD 0.#<ED St. Paul >inn.}

6est Publishin! Com0anD #EE..." #4 "

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-tatement of 2urisdi0tion-

-Respondent-

 4

The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to two petitions filed  before this Honourable Court, and clubbed together by the Honourable Court. The first  application invokes its territorial ordinary original civil urisdiction under section !"#$% of  the &rbitration &nd Conciliation &ct, $''( read with section )#$% and section )#*% of The  +elhi High Court &ct, $'((. The second Contempt etition invokes its original urisdiction

under section $$ of The Contempt of Court &ct, $'-$. t sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-tatement of a0ts-

-Respondent-

 F

I'

Pan Atheletica Inc. is a com0an incor0orated in the *nited States of America ;ith the  0ur0ose of 0rovidin! a s0ectrum of services in the S0orts Industr.. Pan Athletica set u0 a

research ;in! to investi!ate the local flora and fauna in the nearb AmaKon forests in -raKil. The com0an then set"u0 a research station near the Indo"(e0al border after incor0oratin! a subsidiar in (e0al BAthletic %verest in #E?E. Till no; Pan Athletica did not have a food and nutrition de0artment.

In #EE#D the com0an si!ned a local football team in -raKilD $esvalidos;hichD did ver ;ell. %ventuall ::M 0ercent of the team members ;ent on to become a 0art of the national football team. -e!innin! in #EE1 Athletica >achu si!ned them for a decade. -et;een #EE1 and 11D -raKil ;on the 6orld cu0 t;ice and reached the final once. - no; the com0an had a full functional food de0artment.

II'

The means and methods em0loed b the com0an ;ere /e0t com0letel secret and the  0laers ;ere made to si!n a EE ear non disclosure a!reement. In 1D >r. Sumanto $a7elaD

the Indian >inister for S0orts and International AffairsD a00roached >r. 5aurie to hel0 out ;ith the Indian $oc/e Team. Pan Athletica incor0orated a ;holl o;ned subsidiar in the Caman Islands BAthletica AtlanticaD and Athletica +an!es served as a ;holl o;ned subsidiar of Athletica Atlantica in India . Follo;in! ne!otiations bet;een Pan Athletica and the Indian +overnment Bhereinafter D L+overnment3D ;herein all the !overnment3s concerns ;ere ta/en care ofD the 0arties entered into a contract on an Las is ;here is basis3 throu!h LAthletica +an!es3 Bhereinafter D LCom0an3D in 12. The Contract contained an Arbitration Clause. )urin! the ne!otiationsD the Com0an made it clear that as 0er this contractD the

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-tatement of a0ts-

-Respondent-!overnment ;ould not be allo;ed to com0el the Com0an to reveal its means and methods. Alon! ;ith this contractD members of the Indian $oc/e Team ;ere made to si!n an a!reement containin! a non"disclosure clause. The Indian $oc/e Team fared ;ell bet;een 11 and 1#1.

III'

In 12D the -raKilian +overnment did not re"si!n ;ith Athletica >achu rather an en9uir ;as launched to loo/ into the 0ractices of the com0an and the en9uir lasted over five ears. In Februar 1#1D durin! the celebration in an after 0artD a drun/ member of the Indian $oc/e contin!ent revealed the success to the ma!ic biscuits the com0an !ave. This caused u0roar in the countr. A hi!h level en9uir ;as launched b the +overnmentD ;hile The Indian $oc/e Federation en!a!ed the services of a 0rivate detective com0an. The Indian +overnment also invo/ed the Arbitration clause and served a notice on the com0an.

I'

Athetica +an!es filed a 0etition for interim reliefD to sto0 the +overnment from brea/in! the contract. The )elhi $i!h Court admitted the 0etition and durin! the course of 0roceedin!sD the Addl. Solicitor +eneral ;ho a00eared before the Court !ave an underta/in! that 0endin!  0ro0er resolution of the issue it ;ould not brea/ the contract. In the meantime the -raKillian

en9uir ;as 0ublishedD and relin! on that a local -raKillian Court held Atheletica >achu to  be !uilt of environmental violations and 0ain! several bribes. The *nited States

commenced investi!ations under the Forei!n Corru0t Practices ActD #E<<.

-o;in! to increasin! !lobal 0ressureD the Indian +overnment rescinded the contract and terminated all of the Com0an3s contractual obli!ations.

'

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-tatement of a0ts-

-Respondent-In the on!oin! Arbitration 0roceedin!sD the Arbitrator too/ note of the above facts alon! ;ith -raKilian 7ud!mentD the intimation of the *.S. investi!ationsD the 6A)A !uidelines and 9uotes all as0ects of Indian la;. The +overnment ;as also able to 0resent the re0ort of the  0rivate investi!atorsD ;hich relied on several emails ;hich ;as 0rivile!ed communication

and excer0ts of the -raKilian 7ud!ment. The +overnment also 0roduced the affidavits of the  0laerD Sushant Sin!h 5a//arba!ha. Amon!st the evidence submitted for arbitrationD there

;ere a lar!e number of e"mails ;hich dealt ;ith ver sensitive information about the formula of the food and nutrition 0roducts administered to the athletesD information of ban/ Ac3sD and certain communication ;hich ;ere su00osed to be la;er"client 0rivile!ed information. All these e"mails ;ere for;arded b an e"mail id aceventuraN0anatheletica.us. The com0an ;ent on record to sa that there ;as no 0erson in the em0lo of the com0an b the name of  Ace Ventura. In the affidavit submitted b the athleteD he s0o/e at len!th about the 0rocedure of the trainin! and the diet. The Com0an raised man ob7ections to the 0rocedure of the conduct of the 0roceedin!s and the rules to evidence attachedD but each ob7ection ;as re7ected. The Com0an also filed a Civil Contem0t Petition a!ainst the +overnment.

I'

At the end of the arbitrationD the a;ard held that the com0an ;as indeed en!a!ed in do0in! and that it had both ille!al and unethical means to administer the team. The arbitrator  a;arded unli9uidated dama!es to the tune of O# billion dollars to the +overnment. A!!rieved  b this a;ardD the Com0an a00roached the )elhi $i!h Court in the instant 0etition. The com0an submitted that the entire arbitration ;as a farce as information obtained b the &TI indicated that the decision to brea/ the contract ;as alread ta/en b the minister even before the interim relief a00lication.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-7uestions /resented-

-Respondent-5

 P

The follo;in! 9uestions are 0resented before the court in the instant matter"

#. 6$%T$%& T$% &%SP'()%(T IS J*STIFI%) I( &%SCI()I(+ T$% C'(T&ACT A() I(V',I(+ A&-IT&ATI'(.

1. 6$%T$%& T$% A&-IT&A5 A6A&) IS 5IA-5% T' -% S%T ASI)%.

2. 6$%T$%& T$% &%SP'()%(T IS +*I5T= 'F CIVI5 C'(T%>PT 'F C'*&T.

4. 6$%T$%& T$% &%SP'()%(T $AS C'>>ITT%) T$% 'FF%(S% 'F P%&J*&=.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-ummar% of /leadin(s-

-Respondent-

 P

1' THE R EPONDENT I 4UTIFIED IN R ECINDING THE CONTRACT AND INO7ING ARBITRATION

The &es0ondent submits that the contract ;as rescinded due to there bein! misre0resentation of material facts b Athletica +an!es B 8The Co*-"#9:D as ;ell as the commission of  offences. This !ives rise to a dis0ute ;ith re!ard to the contractD and hence the &es0ondent is  7ustified in invo/in! arbitration. This submission is threefold irstl%) the Com0an did not ma/e necessar disclosures. e0ondl%D the Com0an has been involved in financial im0ro0riet.Thirdl%D the &es0ondent has not violated the Com0an3s trade secret ri!hts.

2' THE ARBITRAL AWARD I NOT LIABLE TO BE ET AIDE

It is humbl submitted that the A;ard is not liable to be set aside under the 0rovisions of  Section 24 of the AC Act. This submission is threefold irstl%D The Petitioner has acce0ted the 7urisdiction of the Arbitrator.e0ondl%D The Arbitrator is the sole 7ud!e of the evidence.

Thirdl%D The Arbitrator3s vie; is in /ee0in! ;ith the Public Polic of India.

3' WHETHER THE R EPONDENT I GUILT6 OF CIIL CONTE.PT OF COURT'

It is submitted to the $on3ble Court that the res0ondent is not !uilt of civil contem0t of  Court. This assertion is t;ofold. irstl%D the im0u!ned order is a consent decree and hence non com0liance of order does not amount to contem0t of court.e0ondl%D the res0ondent has not committed the offence of contem0t even if the decree has bindin! nature.

;' WHETHER THE R EPONDENT GUILT6 OF PER4UR6'

It is submitted to the $on3ble Court that the res0ondent has not committed the act of 0er7ur. &es0ondent has not submitted an false evidence there is also a lac/ of Intention on the 0art of the res0ondent. $ence res0ondent is not !uilt of 0er7ur.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-ummar% of /leadin(s-

-Respondent-.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-ummar% of /leadin(s-

-Respondent-P

 A

1' THE R EPONDENT I 4UTIFIED IN R ECINDING THE CONTRACT AND INO7ING ARBITRATION

The &es0ondent submits that the contract ;as rescinded due to there bein! misre0resentation of material facts b Athletica +an!es Bhereinafter D 8The Co*-"#9: in enterin! into the a!reementD as ;ell as the commission of offences relatin! to financial im0ro0riet. This !ives rise to a dis0ute ;ith re!ard to the contractD and hence the &es0ondent is 7ustified in submittin! the matter to the arbitrator. This submission is threefold irstl%) the Com0an did not ma/e necessar disclosures. e0ondl%D the Com0an has been involved in financial im0ro0riet. ThirdlD the &es0ondent has not violated the Com0an3s trade secret ri!hts.

#.#.#  The /etitioner has failed to make ne0essar% dis0losures to the Respondent;

It has been held b the Su0reme Court# _{that a re0resentation is deemed to have been false}

and therefore a misre0resentationD if it ;as at the material date false in substance and in fact.R The Court also observed that Section #< of the Contract Act defines fraud as act committed  b a 0art to a contract ;ith intent to deceive another. FinallD the Court relied on the landmar/ 7ud!ement on the issue in $err% v. /eek 1 to determine that a fraud is 0roved ;hen it is sho;n that a false re0resentation has been made B# /no;in!lD or B1 ;ithout belief in its truthD or B2 rec/lesslD careless ;hether it be true or false.R

The &es0ondent humbl submits that as 0er the contract ne!otiations entered into b the t;o  0artiesD the +overnment had clearl ex0ressed its concerns re!ardin! the e0isodesR in -raKil. To facilitate contract ne!otiationsD the +overnment had also as/ed the Com0an to submit

#_{hrisht $hawan v. &=s. haw ,rothersD B#EE1 # SCC 824D at  1.} 1 _{$err% v. /eekD B#??E #4 A00 Cas 22<.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-an 0ertinent information on these develo0ments and that the same shall be considered under  the necessar disclosures to be made in the matter. To this the Com0an re0lied on ##"2" 12 that nothin! ;ith re!ard to the issue ;as Lconcrete3. It is also established fact that the -raKilian +overnment had decided not to 0ursue an extension of the Petitioner3s contract after 11D and had in fact launched an investi!ation. $enceD the &es0ondent submits that the Petitioner3s stance that nothin! ;ith re!ard to this issue ;as Lconcrete3 must be construed as a fraudulent misre0resentation as 0er Section #< of the Contract Act.

>oreoverD even in case the contract ;ere to be loo/ed at b the &es0ondent on an Las is ;here is basis3D the acce0ted le!al 0rinci0le is that as is ;here isR cannot be extended to include even lar!e discre0ancies.2 _{$enceD even if the &es0ondent in the instant case did enter} 

into the contract on an Las is ;here is basis3D it did not miti!ate the obli!ation of the Petitioner  to act res0onsibl.4 _{The &es0ondent asserts that en9uiries relatin! to economic crimesD}

environmental la;D and do0in! in -raKil did amount to Llar!e discre0ancies3 that the Petitioner ;as obli!ed to inform the +overnment about as 0er the above le!al 0recedent.

The &es0ondent avers thatD !iven the fraudulent misre0resentation on the 0art of the PetitionerD the &es0ondent ;ould have the o0tion to rescind the contract and see/ dama!es throu!h arbitration. This falls in line ;ith the reasonin! of the Su0reme Court.8

#.#.1  The /etitioner has been involved in Crimes of inan0ial Impropriet%;

The Prevention of >one 5aunderin! Act: _{las do;n that a mone launderin! offender} 

Ldirectl or indirectl attem0ts to indul!e in or /no;in!l assists in or is actuall involved in

2

 &an#u Gupta v. $elhi $evelopment Authorit%D #2 B12 )5T <<:D at  #2.

4 _{,ha(wati oundation v. Commissioner &C$D 6rit Petition BC (os. #4:D at  4#8.} 8_{Gan(a Retreat  Towers +td. v. tate of Ra#asthanD B12 #1 SCC E#D at  14.} : _{The Prevention of >one 5aunderin! ActD 11D @ 2.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-an 0rocess or activit connected ;ith the 0roceeds of crime and 0ro7ectin! it as untainted  0ro0ert.3 AlsoD it has been established b Indian courts< _{that the burden of 0roof re9uired to}

 0rove mens rea in economic offences is not that of Lbeond reasonable doubt3. InsteadD courts have im0osed a burden of no fault strict liabilit in cases dealin! ;ith economic offences. The &es0ondent submits that the Petitioner3s 0arent com0an has in the instant caseD been held !uilt of 0er0etratin! a ran!e of ille!al activities in -raKilD includin! violations of  %nvironmental 5a; and -riber.? _{FurtherD it is asserted b the &es0ondent that not onl has}

the 0arent com0an established a holdin! com0an in the Caman IslandsH but in a letter  dated ##"2"12D the 0romoter of the Com0an statedD =ou seeD ;e ;anted to be sure that all the financial transactions of the Com0an are discreet and handled 0ro0erlDif %ou know what we mean.RE _{FinallD it is note;orth that the Petitioner Com0an has no assets located in}

India#_{D so it can be reasonabl inferred that the ca0ital for its transactions is routed to it}

throu!h the Caman Islands $oldin! Com0an. -ased on the above factsD the &es0ondent submits that the Petitioner has been involved in mone launderin!D and since activities contrar to Indian la; are bein! committed in 0ursuance ;ith obli!ations arisin! out of the

>standard 0ontra0t< ##D it is the &es0ondent3s submission that the +overnment is entitled to rescind the contractD and refer contractual dis0utes to the Arbitrator.

#.#.2  The Respondent has not violated the Compan%<s trade se0ret ri(hts;

<_{Thirupath% "umar "hemka v. CIT D B1< 1# CT& B>ad 1?<D at  4.:H R.. 2oshi v. A#it &ills +td) B#E<< 4}

SCC E?D at  1.

? _{a0t heet D at  #1.}

E _{a0t heet D Annexure T;o.} # _{a0t heet) Annexure T;o.} ## _{a0t heet D Annexure T;o.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-InformationD includin! a formulaD 0atternD com0ilationD 0ro!ram deviceD methodD techni9ue or   0rocess can constitute trade secrete if it 9ualifies three other criteria.#1 _{SecondlD the}

information has commercial value. ThirdlD it has been sub7ect to res0onsible ste0s under the circumstances b the 0erson la;full in control of the informationD to /ee0 it secret. 'nce a trade secret is available in 0ublic domain then it has lost the status as ;ell as the 0rotection.#2

In the instant caseD the information that ;as there in the emails that ;ere 0roduced in front of  the arbitrator did not constitute trade secret as that information ;as available in the 0ublic domain. After the -raKilian 7ud!ementD the trainin!D food and nutrition used b the com0an has come to 0ublic domain throu!h the 7ud!ement and hence lost the status of trade secret. Therefore the !overnment has not breached the confidence of the com0an. - im0licationD the !overnment has not breached the contract.

2'1 THE ARBITRAL AWARD I NOT LIABLE TO BE ET AIDE

This Court has reco!niKed that Lthe la; ;ith res0ect to challen!e to an A;ard under  Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation ActD #EE: Bhereinafter D 8The A<C A!t: is no; ;ell settled. An A;ard can be challen!ed onl if the same is a!ainst the contractual  0rovisions or is ille!al or is so 0erverse that it shoc/s the 7udicial conscience.3 It is note;orth that la;s !overnin! ArbitrationD internationall#4  _{as ;ell as in IndiaD tilt the}

 balance in favour of finalit of the Arbitral A;ard. This is in reco!nition of the >/rin0iple of 

#1  _{Indian Innovation -illD Section 1B2H Co0o v. A.*. Clark +td D #E:EG &PC 4#H Thomas &arshall v. Guinle)}

 #E<EG # Ch 12<H House of prin( Gardens /oint ,lank D #E?2G FS& 1#2.

#2  _{"onrad Wiedemann Gmbh v. tandard Castin(s /vt. +td D #E?8G B# IP5& 142H altman !n(9( Co. +td. v.}

Campbell !n(9( Co. +td.D #E4?G :8 &PC 12.

#4 _{*(CIT&A5 >odel 5a;D Article 8.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent- /art% Autonom%<  that !overns the la; of Arbitration.#8 _{FurtherD it is submitted b the}

&es0ondent that it is a ;ell established 0rinci0le of la; that ;hile ad7udicatin! a 0etition to set aside an arbitral a;ardD the Court cannot substitute its o;n evaluation instead of that of  the Arbitrator .#: _{'nce it is found that the vie; of the arbitrator is a 0lausible oneD the court}

shall refrain itself from interferin! ;ith the a;ard.#<

-ased on these 0resum0tionsD the &es0ondent submits that the Arbitral A;ard is not liable to  be set aside under the 0rovisions of Section 24 of the AC Act. This submission of the &es0ondent is a threefold one irstl%D The Petitioner has acce0ted the 7urisdiction of the Arbitrator. e0ondl%D The Arbitrator is the sole 7ud!e of the 9ualit and 9uantit of evidence.

Thirdl%D The Arbitrator3s vie; is in /ee0in! ;ith the Public Polic of India. #.#.4 The /etitioner has a00epted the #urisdi0tion of the Arbitrator;

The AC Act las do;n that an arbitral a;ard ma be set aside if the a;ard deals ;ith a dis0ute not contem0lated or not fallin! ;ithin the terms of the submission to arbitration.#?

Section #: of the AC Act further las do;n a le!islative acce0tance of the >kompeten'-kompeten'<  0rinci0leD thereb declarin! the Arbitral Tribunal com0etent to rule on its o;n  7urisdiction.#E

#8  _{'P >alhotra and Indu >alhotraD L The +aw and /ra0ti0e of Arbitration and Con0iliation< D 5exis (exis}

-utter;oerths 6adh;aD +ur!aon B1:D at 0!. #?:.

#:_{udarsan Tradin( Co. v. Government of "eralaD B#E?E 1 SCC 2?D at  2#.}

#<_{tate of 8ttar /radesh v. Allied Constru0tionsD B12 < SCC 2E:D at  4H Rashtri%a Ispat *i(am v. $ewan}

Chand Ram aranD B1#1 8 SCC 2:D at 1E.

#? _{The Arbitration and Conciliation ActD #EE:D @ 24B1BaBiv.} #E _{The Arbitration and Conciliation ActD #EE:D @ #:.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-In .*. &alhotra v. Airport Authorit% of India1_{D a division bench of this Court held that}

Sections #: and 24 of the AC Act need to be read to!ether in dealin! ;ith a 0etition for  settin! aside of an arbitral a;ard. The Court in this case relied on 0recedent laid do;n b the Su0reme Court1# _{to establish that in the absence of an ob7ection Section #: of the AC Act}

 bein! raised before the arbitral tribunal re!ardin! the tribunal3s 7urisdictionH the 0art ;aives the ri!ht to ma/e such an a00eal a!ainst the tribunal3s 7urisdiction before the Court under  Section 24 of the AC Act.

In the above mentioned casesD the 0arties see/in! to set aside the a;ard had not raised ob7ections to the arbitral tribunal3s 7urisdiction before the tribunal itself as 0er Section #: of  the AC Act. In factD in these casesD these 0arties had submitted to arbitrationD and had directl raised the 7urisdictional challen!e before the Court. In such a scenarioD Indian Courts have held that the 0arties have ;aived their ri!ht to raise a 7urisdictional challen!e. In this caseD Athletica +an!es has not raised an 7urisdictional challen!e before the arbitrator  himself. ThusD it is submitted b the &es0ondent that the Petitioner has ;aived its ri!ht to challen!e the Arbitrator3s 7urisdiction. $enceD the 0etition to set aside the a;ard under  Section 24B1BaBiv should not be entertained.

1.1  The Arbitrator is the sole #ud(e of ?ualit% and ?uantit% of !viden0e submitted ;

In ,*+ v. ,W+ Industries +td .11 _{the Court noted that the AC Act of #EE: has !one a ste0}

further than the Act of #E4 in em0o;erin! the arbitrator. It ;as observed that the arbitrator  shall be the sole 7ud!e of the 9ualit and 9uantit of evidenceD and that the Court shall not be

1_{.*. &alhotra v. Airport Authorit% of IndiaD 1? B1 A&- 5& <: B)elhiD at  ?.} 1# _{"rishna ,ha(%a 2ala *i(am +td. v. Harish0handra Redd%D AI& 1< SC ?#<D at  <.} 11

 ,*+ vs. ,W+ Industries /vt. +td .D '.>.P. 4#812D at  8.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-dra;n into re"a00raisin! the evidence. It has been reasoned that the 0arties have selected their  o;n forum and thatD in doin! soD the have conceded the 0o;er of a00raisement of the evidence to the arbitrator .12

In the instant caseD the 0arties had a!reed that the Procedure of arbitration ;ould be decided durin! the arbitration. FurthermoreD the Petitioner3s claims ;ith re!ard to the rules of  evidence have alread been loo/ed into and re7ected b the arbitrator.14 _{$enceD it is submitted}

that the Arbitrator has alread considered the 9ualit and 9uantit of evidence in determinin! the arbitral a;ard. The &es0ondent submits that the aforementioned le!al 0rinci0les limit the sco0e of the Court in a00raisin! evidence.

1.2  The Arbitrator<s view is in keepin( with the /ubli0 /oli0% of India ;

In 1*GC v. aw /ipes18 _{Bhereinafter D 8The "= P-e% C"%e:D it ;as held b the Court that}

in addition to the !rounds laid do;n in the Renusa(ar Case1:_{D the Court can set aside an}

a;ard ;hen it finds that the a;ard ;as L0atentl ille!al3.

In the Sa; Pi0es 7ud!ementD the Court had held meanin! of Patent Ille!alit to mean@the ille(alit% must (o to the root of the matter and if ille(alit% was of a trivial nature) it 0annot be held that the award is a(ainst the publi0 poli0%. The award 0ould be set aside if it is so unfair  or unreasonable that it shakes the 0ons0ien0e of the Court.B 

>oreoverD since the Sa; Pi0es CaseD the Courts in India have !iven a ver restrictive meanin! to 0atent ille!alitD in an attem0t to minimiKe the effect of the 7ud!ement.1? _{In the} 12 _{&uni0ipal Corporation of $elhi v. 2a(an *ath Ashok D B#E?< 4 SCC 4E<.}

14 _{a0t heet D at  #4.}

18_{1*GC v. aw /ipesD B12 8 SCC <8.}

1: _{Renusa(ar /vt. Co. +td. v. General !le0tri0 Co.D #EE4 Su00 B# SCC :44.} 1<_{upra *ote 18D at  #:.}

1? _{,W+ +td. v. &T*+D 1< B4 A&- 5& 2E? B)elhi.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-instant caseD ho;everD the &es0ondent submits that none of the conditions 0recedent are satisfied. In order to substantiate this assertionD the &es0ondent shall deal ;ith it in a t;o"  0ron!ed manner. irstl%) The standard of 0roof re9uired in cases of s0orts do0in! is not as hi!h as L0roof beond reasonable doubt3. e0ondl%D the evidence submitted before the arbitrator ma/es the a;ard a L0lausible3 oneD thereb ne!atin! the need for Court interference.

B.D.E. The ,urden of /roof to be dis0har(ed is one of >Comfortable atisfa0tion<;

The Court of Arbitration in S0ortD in its landmar/ decree in (.D J.D =.D 6. vs. FI(A1E_{D held that}

the standard of 0roof a00licable in 0rovin! a Case of do0in! in s0ort is not the hi!h standard of L0roof beond reasonable doubt3 that is used in criminal 7uris0rudenceD but merel one that satisfies the alle!ations to the LComfortable Satisfaction3 of the hearin! bod. This standard of   0roof has also been ado0ted under the 6orld Anti )o0in! A!enc3s Code Bhereinafter) 8the

WADA Coe:2 _{in dealin! ;ith anti"do0in! rule violations. >oreoverD the standard has also}

 been ado0ted in India b the revised Anti")o0in! &ules of the (ational Anti")o0in! A!enc2# _{Bhereinafter D 8the NADA R>le%:D ;hich have been ado0ted in conformance ;ith}

the 6A)A Code. ThereforeD it is considered a rule of custom in International S0orts 5a;.21 _In

 0ursuance ;ith this ;ell established 0rinci0le of s0orts la; 7uris0rudenceD the &es0ondent has submitted the 6A)A !uidelines and relevant as0ects of Indian la; for 0erusal b the arbitrator 22_.

1E

 *.) 2.) 3.) W.) v. I*AD CAS E?1?D at  #2.

2 _{The 6orld Anti")o0in! CodeD 1ED at Article 2.#.}

2# _{The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD IndiaD at Article 2.#.}

21  _{James A.&. (afKi!erD LCir0umstantial !viden0e of $opin(; ,A+C1 and ,e%ond< D #: >ar9. S0orts 5. &ev. 48}

B18.

22 _{a0tsheet at  #4.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent--ased on the above la;D the &es0ondent asserts that in ad7udicatin! ;hether the a;ard is liable to be set aside on the !rounds of it conflictin! ;ith the 0ublic 0olic of IndiaD the Court must loo/ at the arbitral a;ard throu!h the 0rism of ;hether the burden of LComfortable Satisfaction of the hearin! bod Bi.e. the arbitrator3 has been dischar!edD and not ;hether the alle!ations could be 0roved beond reasonable doubt.

B.D.B The Award) based on the eviden0e submitted) is a >plausible< one;

The &es0ondent submits that the 0osition of la; in relation to evidence admissible under  cases 0ertainin! to anti"do0in! rule violationsD es0eciall ;here the dru! administered is Ldifficult to detect3D allo;s for the admissibilit of Circumstantial evidence as o00osed to merel do0e test results.24 _{>oreoverD the 6A)A Code bans !ene do0in! as a 0rohibited}

 0ractice under the 1#1 Prohibited 5istD ;hich has been acce0ted b the (A)A.28 _{AlsoD it is}

;ell /no;n that !ene do0in!D as has been carried out b the Petitioner in the instant caseD is difficult to detect.2:

In the instant caseD the &es0ondent submits that there is enou!h circumstantial evidence in the form of documentsD internal records of the com0anD and testaments !iven b the 0laers to corroborate the alle!ations a!ainst the com0an of committin! anti"do0in! rule violations as  0er Article 1 of the (A)A &ules.2< _{In this li!htD it is submitted that the arbitrator3s findin!s}

;ith re!ard to s0ecific offences includin! traffic/in!2?_{D and the administerin! or attem0ted}

24 _{8A$A v. G.D CAS 14':4EH 8A$A v. &. and IAAD CAS 14':48H Indi0tment D 8nited tates v.}

ConteD B(.). Cal. 14.

28 _{The 1#1 Prohibited 5ist International StandardD The 6orld Anti")o0in! CodeD at >2.} 2:_{upra note 21.}

2< _{The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD IndiaD at Article 1.} 2? _{The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD IndiaD at Article 1.<.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-administerin! of 0erformance enhancin! dru!s2E _{are 7ustified. This vie; is further} 

substantiated b cases arisin! out of the L ,A+C1 Controvers%3D ;herein the CAS and the *S )istrict Court of (orthern California relied on similar circumstantial evidence to establish !uilt of the 0arties.4

ThusD it is submitted b the &es0ondent that the arbitrator has carried out a 7ust evaluation of  the evidence 0resented. This submission is dealt ;ith under the follo;in! heads of evidence that ;ere administered in the arbitral 0roceedin!s

a. :alidit% of the emails produ0ed b% the (overnment.

Private interest of a 0art is not sufficient ;arrant for denial of a00lication on the basis of  confidentialit.4# _{In *orwi0h /harma0al Co v. Commissioners of Customs  !x0ise}41 _{) it ;as}

held that L publi0 interest<  must be the criterion b ;hich %9uit determines ;hether it ;ill  0rotect information ;hich an individual claims as confidential.42

In the instant caseD 0ublic interest of doin! 7ustice over;ei!hs the confidentialit claim of the  0etitioner. The emails form 0art of relevant facts and hence form documentar evidence in

order to attain 7ustice in this case and therefore should be considered.

 In Ar(uendoD Indian %vidence ActD #?<1 0ermits Lrelevan0e3 of evidence as the onl test of  admissibilit of evidence.44 _{The Courts have ta/en a vie; that there is no la; that excludes}

evidence on the !round that it ;as obtained ille!all.48 _{The Su0reme Court has said that  It} 

will be wron( to invoke the supposed spirit of our Constitution for ex0ludin( su0h eviden0e.

2E _{The Anti")o0in! &ulesD The (ational Anti )o0in! A!encD IndiaD at Article 1.?.} 4_{upra note 24.}

4#  _{In the &atter of the Appli0ation of ederation Internationale de ,asketball for a ubpoena /ursuant  1?}

*.S.C.S #<?1 as cited in Patric/ ,. ThorntonD Lports +aw3D Jones and -artlett PublishersD B-oston B1##.

41 _{#E<4G AC ##2 at #?EH Castrol Australian /t% +td v. !mTe0h Asso0iated /t% +td D B#E? 8# F5& #?4.}

42  _{The same ;as also u0held in  Attorne% General v. Guardian *ewspapers +td  #E??G AII %& 848H &oor(ate}

Toba00o Co +td v. /hilips &orris +td D #EE#G AII %& 24#H Initial ervi0es +td v. /ueterilsD #E:?G # Q- 2E:.

44

The Indian !viden0e A0t D #?<1D@ 8.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent- It) therefore) follows that neither b% invokin( the spirit of our Constitution nor b% a strained  0onstru0tion of an% of the fundamental ri(hts 0an we spell out the ex0lusion of eviden0e obtained on an ille(al sear0h.R4:  _{The L privile(e3 of the clients to the communication ;ith}

la;er onl extends to non disclosure b la;er or an of his subordinates.4< _{This 0rivile!e}

does not 0ut a bar on consideration of the evidence if the same is 0rocured b means other  than the la;er or his subordinate.4?

In the !iven factsD the emails have been 0roduced throu!h ille!al methodsD ho;ever the still constitutes evidence and are admissible in the court of la;. The emails ;ere 0roduced in front of the arbitrator b the 0rivate investi!ator. There is nothin! in the fact sheet to su00ort that the la;er disclosed it to him directl or indirectl. Therefore com0an cannot claim  0rotection a!ainst such evidence.

b. :alidit% of the forei(n #ud(ment produ0ed b% the (overnment.

The arbitrator has exercised the discretion as to the la;s of evidence. $e has relied on the forei!n 7ud!ement correctl. The facts of the case ;hen analsed clearl sho;s that the com0an has used the same 0ractices to enhance the 0erformance of the 0laers as done b the subsidiar in -raKil. This can be construed from the fact that the com0an ;as im0ortin! rare bacteria that ;as available in AmaKon 7un!le and the one in the $imalaas to (e0al. The research station in (e0al ;as used to fuse the )(A of the t;o and form a !eneticall modified or!anism. Presum0tion lies in favour of the arbitral a;ard4E_{D so it must be assumed} 48

h%ni :ar(hese v tate 5Govt. of *CT of $elhi6 D B1? #4< )5T :E# B)elH &./. harma v. atish ChandraD AI& #E84 SC 2Htate of &./. v.Ramesh C.harmaD B18 #1 SCC :1?H  R.&. &alkani v. tate of   &aharashtraD B#E<2 # SCC 4<#H tate 5*CT of $elhi6 v. *av#ot andhuD B18## SCC :.

4: _{/ooran &al v. $ire0tor of Inspe0tion 5Investi(ation6D B#E<4 # SCC 248D 2:4D 0ara 12} 4< _{The Indian %vidence ActD #?<1D @ #1<}

4? _Id.

4E _{tate of 8ttar /radesh v. Allied Constru0tions D B12 < SCC 2E:D at  4H  Rashtri%a Ispat *i(am v. $ewan}

Chand Ram aranD B1#1 8 SCC 2:D at 1E.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-that the arbitrator ;ould have corroborated this information ;ith the information of the formula of food 0resent in the emails. The arbitrator has relied on these evidences to a;ard dama!es to the !overnment. Therefore it can be inferred that the Athletica +an!es has used the same !eneticall modified bacteria and hence is liable for do0in!.

 In Ar(uendoD a certified co0 of a forei!n 7ud!ment b the ori!inal le!al /ee0er ;ith a certificate b the Indian Consul is admissible in the court of la;.8 _{The 0resum0tion lies in}

favour of the 7ud!ment if the o00osition has not raised an ob7ection as to its content.8#

In the !iven facts there is no ob7ection raised as to the content of the relevant 0arts of the  7ud!ment. SecondlD the facts are silent on the issue of it bein! certified. $ence the arbitrator 

has correctl relied on the 7ud!ment.

0. :alidit% of the affidavit of the pla%er.

Arbitrator is not bound b the la; of evidence of India.81 _{'b7ection as to manner of adducin!}

evidence is a matter of 0rocedure and it is an established 0rinci0le that 0arties to arbitration have selected their o;n forum and that in doin! soD the have conceded the 0o;er of  a00raisement of the evidence to the arbitrator.82 _{The affidavit in 9uestion !ives corroborative}

evidence of the relevant facts.84  _{In the !iven factsD the com0an has not challen!ed the}

content of the affidavit. Therefore affidavit containin! relevant facts should be ta/en into account b the arbitrator as it !ives relevant evidence as to the manner of do0in! and other   0rocedures ta/en u0 b the com0an for enhancin! the 0erformance of the 0laers. $ence his

reliance on the affidavit is valid.

-ased on all the above la;D the &es0ondents submit that the arbitrator3s vie; is L0lausible3D and henceD not liable to be set aside.

8 _{The Indian %vidence ActD #?<1D @. <?B:}

8# _{The Indian %vidence ActD #?<1D @ ?: H ,adat  Co v. !ast India Tradin( CoD AI& #E:4 SC 82?} 81 _{The Arbitration And Conciliation ActD #EE:D @ #E}

82 _{&uni0ipal Corporation of $elhi v. 2a(an *ath Ashok D B#E?< 4 SCC 4E<.} 84 _{The Indian %vidence ActD #?<1D @ #8:}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-2'; THE R EPONDENT I NOT GUILT6 OF CIIL CONTE.PT OF COURT'

It is submitted that the res0ondent is not !uilt of contem0t. This assertion is t;ofold. irstl%D the order is a consent decree and hence non com0liance of the order is not contem0t of court.

e0ondl%D the res0ondent has not committed the offence of contem0t even if the decree has  bindin! nature.

2.#. The impu(ned order is a 0onsent de0ree.

In a case of consent decree 0assed b a courtD disobedience of the underta/in! recorded in the decree !iven b a 0art to the other does not amount to contem0t.88 _{Consent decree is in the}

nature of a solemn contract of the 0artiesD made under the sanction of the court ;ith a mutual consent of the 0arties.8: _{In the !iven factsD the order of the court is formed b the consent of} 

the 0arties and is in nature of a contract to 0erform the terms of the contract ;ith each other. Therefore an disobedience of the said decree does not amount to contem0t of court.

D.B. The respondent has not 0ommitted the offen0e of 0ontempt even if the de0ree has bindin( nature.

 In Ar(uendoD The res0ondent has not committed the offence of contem0t even if the decree has bindin! nature. This assertion is three fold. irstl%D there ;as no ;ilful disobedience on their 0art. e0ondl%D there ;as 0artial com0liance ;ith the order.  +astl%D the subse9uent chan!es made it difficult to com0l ;ith the orders.

2.1.#. There ;as no L;ilful3 disobedience.

88  _{*isha "anta Ro% Choudhar% v. mt. aro# ,ashini GohoD AI& #E4? Cal 1E4 B)-. ,abu Ram Gupta v.}

udhir ,hasinD AI& #E<E SC #8?1.

8: _{$enr Cam0bell -lac/D et.alD ,la0k<s +aw $i0tionar%) :}th _{%ditionD 0.#<ED St. Paul >inn. 6est Publishin!}

Com0anD #EE.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-There is no strai!ht 7ac/et formula for the meanin! of L;ilful3 and it differs from case to case.8< _{The court has observed that L;ilful3 means an act done voluntaril and intentionall}

and ;ith the s0ecific intent to do somethin! ;hich a la; forbids or ;ith the intent to fail to do somethin! ;hich la; re9uires to be done.8? _{In the !iven fact situationD the res0ondent did}

not voluntaril terminated the contract. From the !iven factsD it can be inferred that the L!lobal 0ressure3 had forced the res0ondent to terminate the contract.

2.1.1. There ;as 0artial com0liance on the 0art of the res0ondent.

Partial com0liance of an order has been considered as a reason for holdin! that there ;as no ;ilful violation.8E _{In the !iven caseD the res0ondent u0held its res0onsibilit till there ;as no}

!lobal 0ressure. ThereforeD it clearl sho;s that there ;as no ;ilful violation and that the res0ondent had com0lied ;ith the order for some time resultin! in 0artial com0liance.

2.1.2. The subse9uent chan!es made it difficult to com0l ;ith the orders.

If a 0art char!ed of contem0t ;ithout fault on his 0art is unable to com0l ;ith the underta/in! thenD there is no contem0t.: _{Conce0t of ;ilful disobedience and contem0t does}

not cover acts beond one3s o;n 0o;er. This re9uires a situation in ;hich the 0art is Lnot able to3 com0l ;ith the order .:# _{Subse9uent develo0ments ma create difficulties in}

im0lementation and com0liance of the order .:1 _{In the instant caseD the !lobal 0ressure after the}

8<_{a0hindra *ath /an#a v. *.+. ,asak) /rin0ipal e0retar%) Govt of West ,en(al D 14 B4 C$( :1.}

8? _{All India Anna $ravida &unnetra "a'ha(am v. l.". TripathiD B1E 8 SCC 4#<.} 8E _{$harmavir in(h  1rs. v. mt. *avra# indhuD #EE< AI$C 18E.}

:  _{*ara%ana /ani0ker v. The ub 4 $ivisional &a(istrate) ort Coshin  1rs D #E<E ,er 5T 24:H A.G. v. Walt}

 HamstowD *)C B#?E8 ## T5& 822.

:#_{.R. ,ommai v. 8nion of IndiaD B#EE4 2 SCC #.}

:1 _{Ashish "umar "undu v. A.".Tandon) #EE4 B4 S5& 2#E.}

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-order had created difficulties for the res0ondent to com0l ;ith the -Respondent-order. $ence it humbl submitted that the res0ondent should not be held liable for civil contem0t of court.

4. THE R EPONDENT I NOT LIABLE FOR  PER4UR6.

*nderta/in! !iven to court is an affidavit.:2_{. An affidavit includes affirmation and}

declaration in the case of 0ersons b la; allo;ed to affirm or declare instead of s;earin!.:4

6hoever in an declaration made b him to an court of 7usticeD ma/es an statement ;hich is falseD and ;hich he believes to be either false or does not believe to be trueD touchin! an  0oint material to the ob7ect for ;hich the declaration is made shall be 0unishable in a !rave

manner as if he !ave false evidence.:8 _{To establish false evidenceD it must be sho;n that the}

false statement char!ed a!ainst the accused is Lliterall3 false. There must be statement of fact ;hich is false. It is no offence if the fact stated is true but some circumstance is su00ressedD ;ith a result that the ;ron! inference can be deduced.:: _{Intention is an im0ortant in!redient}

for 0rosecution of 0er7ur.:< _{If there ;as a reasonable 0ossibilit that the defence stor is}

trueD then the essential in!redient of the 0rosecution case ;ould not be established and hence ;ill not be !uilt of 0er7ur.:? _{In the instant caseD the facts stated b the res0ondent ;ere true}

that the ;ere u0holdin! the contract till then. Intention of the res0ondent before the court order can be ta/en as to terminate the contract. -ut there is nothin! to construe the same

:2

 !dpu(anti ,apanaiah v. ri "..Ra#u  1rsD 1< AP $i!h CourtD Contem0t Case (o.E#8 of 11.

:4_{The General Clauses A0t D #E<# @ 2B2.}

:8 _{Indian Penal CodeD #?:D @ #EE  Read With @ 1.}

::  _{Ratansi $a%a v. !mperor D AI& #E#: Sind < B1D 0 <#H 7ueen v. Ahmed All%D ## 6& 18D 1<H Padarath Sin!h}

v. &attan Sin!hD B#E1 Pat 4#EH  C Gupta v. !mperor D AI& #E14 &an! #<

:<_{hiv Raman Gour v. &adan &ohan "anda D B#EE Cr 5J #22D 0 #24 BP$.}

:?  _{Adikanda wain v. !mperor D AI& #E4< Pat 18#D 0 841H "ali hankar Chatter#ee v. arat Chandra $e%D}

B#E<< Cal $C( 82?D 0 841.

.E.ORANDU.

 for 

-/leadin(s and Authorities-

-Respondent-intention to continue after the order. A court order can be 0resumed to chan!e the -Respondent-intention of  the res0ondent causin! fear for liabilitD unless 0roven to the contrar. It is humbl submitted to the $on3ble court that res0ondent shouldn3t be held !uilt of 0er7ur.

.E.ORANDU.

 for