Before THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI,
APPLICATION NO. _____/2013 Athleti! G!"#e$%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%.%%%%%%%%%... Petiti&"e' v. G&(e'")e"t &* I"+i! .............%%%%%...%% .............%%%%%...%%%%%%...... %%%%............................ ...................... Re$&"+e"t
With
CONTE-PT PETITION NO. _____/2013 Athleti! G!"#e$...%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%..%%%Petiti&"e' v. G&(e'")e"t &* I"+i!................................... I"+i!..............................................%%..% ...........%%..%.%%%..%% .%%%..%%% % Re$&"+e"t
0
TABLE OF CONTENT Table Table of Contents........................... Contents.................................................. .............................................. .............................................. ..............................................II .......................II Index of Abbreviations........................... Abbreviations.................................................. .............................................. .............................................. .................................... .............III III Index of Authorities......................................................... Authorities................................................................................ ................................................. .................................IV .......IV Statement of Jurisdiction.................................... Jurisdiction........................................................... .............................................. ............................................VIII .....................VIII Statement of Facts............................................. Facts.................................................................... .............................................. ................................................IX .........................IX Questions resented................................ resented....................................................... .............................................. ............................................... ................................ ........XIII XIII Summar! of leadin"s............................... leadin"s...................................................... .............................................. ................................................. .............................XIV ...XIV leadin"s....................................................................................................................................# 1.
THERE WA WA NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B THE PETITIONER ..........................#
#.#.
The Last-Shot Rule would apply in interpreting Contractual Negotiations $...........#
#.%.
The obligation to satisfy itself lay on the Government as the Contract was entered
into on an ‘as is where is basis! ........................................................................................%
#.&.
The Company is not liable for any crimes of financial impropriety $.......................&
#.'.
The Government has violated its contractual obligations relating to "etitioners
$......................................................................................................................' Trade Secret $......................................................................................................................' 2.
THE ARBITRAL AWARD I LIABLE TO BE ET AIDE.................................................(
#$%$ #$%$
The &w &ward by by the &rbit &rbitrat rator or is pervers perversee and paten patently tly illeg illegal! al!................................(
#$#$
'n &rgu &rguendo endo(( The "roc "rocedur eduree followed followed did did not comply comply with the the &rbitrat &rbitration ion
&greement!.......................................................................................................................#% 3.
WHETHER THE HETHER THE R EPONDENT EPONDENT I GUILT OF CIIL CONTE-PT...............................#&
.
WHETHER THE HETHER THE R EPONDENT EPONDENT HA CO--ITTED THE OFFENE OF PERUR.........#'
ra!er.......................................................................................................................................#(
INDE4 OF ABBREIATION )
Section
))
Sections
*
ara"ra+h
**
ara"ra+hs
A..
Andhra radesh
A.C.
A++ellate Cases
AI,
All India ,e+orter
Anr.
Another
-om.
-omba!
Cri..J.
Criminal a/ Journal
.-.
in"1s -ench
2ad.
2adras
n.
3ote
4rs.
4thers
.C.A.
revention of Corru+tion Act
SC
Su+reme Court
SCC
Su+reme Court Cases
Sd56
Si"ned
Su++.
Su++lementar!
7..
7ttar radesh
7.S.
7nited States
7.T.
7nion Territor!
v.
Versus
INDE4 OF AUTHORITIE STATUTES
Indian enal Code8 #9(0..........................................................................................................#' The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(...............................................................................( The Contem+t of Court Act8 #:;#............................................................................................#& The
#::9? Cr J ';@(.............................................................#' &shish )umar )undu v$ &$)$ Tandon 8 #::' >'? S, &#:........................................................#& +abu Ram Gupta v$ Sudhir +hasin 8 AI, #:;: SC #@9%..........................................................#& +an* of +aroda v$ Sadruddin ,asan aya 8 >%00'? # SCC &(0...............................................#& +SNL v$ +"L .obile Cellular Ltd8 >%009?#& SCC @:;..............................................................#
-utler 2achine Tool v. =x6Cell64 Cor+oration8 #:;:B # , '0# Court of A++eal..............# Coco v$ &$N$ Clar* Ltd 8 #:(:B ,C '#.....................................................................................@ Commonwealth v$ /ohn 0airfa1 2 Sons Ltd 8 >#:90? #'; C, &:.............................................@ 3dpuganti +apanaiah v$ Sri )$S$ Ra4u &nd Two 5rs 8 %00; A Di"h Court8 Contem+t Case
3o.:#@ of %00%.....................................................................................................................#' ,ouse of spring gardens point blan* 8 #:9&B FS, %#&..............................................................@ '6bal &hmed Saeed v$ State of ." 8 C. A. 3o. (0'5#::@............................................................& /agdish v$ "remlata evi8 AI, #::0 ,aE 9;.............................................................................## )uldip Singh v$ State of "un4ab( >#:9'? # Crimes #0&& >D?...............................................#% Laliteshwar "rasad Sahai v$ +ateshwar "rasad 8 AI, #:(( SC @90.........................................: L'C of 'ndia v$ Ra4a 7asireddy )omalavalli )amba 2 5rs 8 >#:9'? % SCC ;#:........................#
-'nde1 of &uthorities-
-"etitioner-
Lord &shburton v$ "ape 8 #:#&B % Ch '(:..................................................................................@ .$S$ Narayanagouda v$ Giri4amma 8 AI, #:;; ant. @9...........................................................; .urray &nd Co v$ &sho* )$R$ Newatia 8 >%00%? % SCC &(;.....................................................#& N$( /$( 8$( 9$( v$ 0'N&8 CAS :95%09............................................................................................( Narendra Singh and ¬her v$ State of ." 8 >%00'? #0 SCC (::.............................................' 5NGC v$ Saw "ipes 8 >%00&? @ SCC ;0@....................................................................................( "earse v$ "earse ( #9'(8 #( J Ch #@&.....................................................................................#0 "rabhu v$ State of Ra4asthan 8 >#:9'? # Crimes #0%0 >,aE? >G-?............................................#% R$ v$ Collins8 >#:9;? # SC, %(@>Can SC?................................................................................#0 R$ v$ Stillman8 >#::;? # SC, (0; >Can SC?.............................................................................#0 Radha )ishan v$ Navratan .al 8 AI, #::0 ,aE #%;.................................................................## Ra4 )ishore v$ State of :ttar "radesh8 #:99 AII Cr Cas ##.....................................................## Ra4inder )umar )indra v$ elhi &dministration 8 >#:9'? ' SCC ([email protected] Ra*apali Ra4a Rama Gopala Rao v$ Naragani Govinda Sehararao 8 >#:9:? ' SCC %@@........#& Sachindra Nath "an4a v$ N$L$ +asa*( "rincipal Secretary( Goverment of 9est +engal 8 %00'
>'? CD3 (0%.........................................................................................................................#' Saltaman 3ngineering v$ Campbell 3ngineering 8 >#:'9? (@ ,C %0& >CA?.............................@ Sharad +udhichand Sharda v$ State of .aharashtra 8 AI, #:9' SC #(%%................................: Siman La*ra v$ Sudhis "rasad 8 #::& >#? J, ':&.................................................................#& State of )erala v$ .$.$ .athew8 AI, #:;9 SC #@;#..............................................................#% State of Ra4asthan v$ .ohan Singh 8 #::@ Su++ >%? SCC #@&..................................................#& State of :" v$ Su*hbasi 8 AI, #:9@ SC #%%'............................................................................#% The Government of NCT of elhi vs$ Shri )hem Chand and ¬her 8 AI, %00& Gelhi &#'..#% The Security "rinting and .inting Corporation of 'ndia v$ Gandhi 'ndustrial Corporation 8
>%00;? #& SCC %&(.................................................................................................................9
IV
-'nde1 of &uthorities-
-"etitioner-
Thomas .arshall v$ Guinle 8 #:;:B # Ch %&;...........................................................................@ Three Rivers istrict Council 2 5rs v$ Governor 2 Company of the +an* of 3ngland 8 %00&B
=CA Civ ';'....................................................................................................................#0 :nion +an* of 'ndia v$ 5fficial Li6uidator 8 >#::'? # SCC @;@.................................................% :nited States v$ Conte8 >3.G. Cal. %00'?...................................................................................9 :S&& v$ G8 CAS %00'545(':..................................................................................................9 :S&& v$ .$ and '&&0 8 CAS %00'545('@................................................................................9 7$ Sambandan v$ The "un4ab National +an* 8 .. 3o. #:@@; of %00: 2.. 3o. # of %00:. % 7odafone 'nternational ,oldings + 7 vs$ :nion of 'ndia 8 >%0#%? ( SCC (#&...........................' BOOKS
James A.,. 3afHi"er8 Circumstantial 3vidence of oping! +&LC5 and +eyond 8 #( 2ar. S+orts . ,ev. '@ >%00@?........................................................................................................; 4 2alhotra And Indu 2alhotra81 The Law and "ractice of &rbitration and Conciliation 8 exis 3exis -utter/oerths adh/a8 %00(?8.........................................................; Sir JF Stefen81 igest of 3vidence18 Vol #8 Third =dn8 #:'08ublished b! ittle8 -ro/n Co8 -oston Arts...........................................................................................................................##
RULES
The Anti6Go+in" ,ules8 The 3ational Anti Go+in" A"enc!8 India8..........................................; The orld Anti6Go+in" Code8 %00: .......................................................................................;
V
TATE-ENT OF URIDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for two petitions filed before this Honourable Court clubbed together by the Honourable Court. The first application invokes its territorial ordinary original civil jurisdiction under section !"#$ of the %rbitration %nd Conciliation %ct& #''( read with section )"#$ and section )"*$ of The +elhi High Court %ct& #'((. The second Contempt Petition invokes original jurisdiction under section ## of The Contempt of Court %ct& #',#. -t sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.
TATE-ENT OF FACT I. an Atheletica Inc. is a com+an! incor+orated in the 7nited States of America /ith the +ur+ose of +rovidin" a s+ectrum of services in the S+orts Industr!. In #:998 a subsidiar! /as set u+ in eru >Atheltica 2achu? to cater to the "ro/in" atin American clientele. an Athletica set u+ a research /in" to investi"ate the local flora and fauna in the nearb! AmaHon forests in -raHil. The com+an! then set6u+ a research station near the Indo63e+al border after incor+oratin" a subsidiar! in 3e+al >Athletic =verest? in #:9:. Till no/ an Athletica did not have a food and nutrition de+artment. In #::#8 the com+an! si"ned a local football team in -raHil8 esvalidos /hich8 did ver! /ell. =ventuall! ((K +ercent of the team members /ent on to become a +art of the national football team. -e"innin" in #::% Athletica 2achu si"ned them for a decade. -et/een #::% and %00%8 -raHil /on the orld cu+ t/ice and reached the final once. -! no/ the com+an! had a full! functional food de+artment. II.
an Athletica1s success in -raHil hel+ed it maLe an entr! in a lar"e number of develo+in" economies. Do/ever8 the means and methods em+lo!ed b! them /ere Le+t com+letel! secret and the +la!ers /ere made to si"n a :: !ear non disclosure a"reement. In %0008 2r. Sumanto DaEela8 the Indian 2inister for S+orts and International Affairs8 a++roached 2r. aurie >one of the +romoters of an Athletica? to hel+ out /ith the Indian DocLe! Team. In order to com+l! /ith the Athletica Atlantica?8 and Athletica hereinafter 8
-Statement of 0acts-
-"etitioner-
taLen care of8 the +arties entered into a contract on an as is /here is basis1 throu"h Athletica hereinafter 8 Com+an!1?8 in %00&. The Contract contained an Arbitration Clause. Gurin" the ne"otiations8 the Com+an! made it clear that as +er this contract8 the "overnment /ould not be allo/ed to com+el the Com+an! to reveal its means and methods. Alon" /ith this contract8 members of the Indian DocLe! Team /ere made to si"n an a"reement containin" a non6disclosure clause. The Indian DocLe! Team fared /ell bet/een %00% and %0#%. III.
In %00&8 the -raHilian
Athetica
-Statement of 0acts-
-"etitioner-
In the meantime the -raHillian enuir! /as +ublished8 and rel!in" on that a local -raHillian Court held Atheletica 2achu to be "uilt! of environmental violations and +a!in" several bribes. The 7nited States commenced investi"ations under the Forei"n Corru+t ractices Act8 #:;;. -o/in" to increasin" "lobal +ressure8 the Indian
In the on"oin" Arbitration +roceedin"s8 the Arbitrator tooL note of the above facts. 2oreover8 the Indian
-Statement of 0acts-
-"etitioner-
The Com+an! continued to raise man! obEections to the +rocedure of the conduct of the Arbitration +roceedin"s and the rules to evidence attached8 but each obEection /as reEected. The Com+an! also filed a Civil Contem+t etition a"ainst the
At the end of the arbitration8 the a/ard held that the com+an! /as indeed en"a"ed in do+in" and that it had both ille"al and unethical means to administer the team. The enforcement of the contract /ould lead to much distress and /as clearl! a"ainst la/ and +ublic +olic! and it further /ent on to a/ard unliuidated dama"es to the tune of N# billion dollars to the
5UETION PREENTED
#.# D=TD=, TD=,= AS A -,=ACD 4F C43T,ACT -O TD= =TITI43=, P %.# D=TD=, TD= A,-IT,A AA,G IS IA-= T4 -= S=T ASIG=P &.# D=TD=, TD= ,=S43G=3T IS <7ITO 4F CIVI C43T=2T 4F C47,TP '.# D=TD=, TD= , =S43G=3T DAS C422ITT=G TD= 4FF=3S= 4F =,J7,OP
U--AR OF PLEADING THERE WA NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B THE PETITIONER
The etitioner submits that there /as no breach of contract on the +art of Athletica hereinafter 8 6The C&)!"78?8 and in the absence of an! dis+ute8 there /as no "round for the
The etitioner humbl! submits that the Arbitral A/ard is liable to be set aside under the "rounds laid do/n in the AC Act. This assertion is t/ofold$ 0irstly( the conclusion arrived at b! the arbitrator is +erverse and +atentl! ille"al 9!: and Secondly8 the rocedure follo/ed b! the arbitrator /as not in accordance /ith the arbitration a"reement 9;:. THE R EPONDENT I GUILT OF CIIL CONTE-PT
The ,es+ondent is "uilt! of Contem+t of Court because it has /ilfull! breached an undertaLin" submitted to the court. The undertaLin" in the +resent case is of bindin" nature. ,es+ondent b! rescindin" the contract before +ro+er resolution throu"h arbitration +roceedin"s has made them "uilt! of civil contem+t of court.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
THE R EPONDENT HA CO--ITTED THE OFFENE OF PERUR
The ,es+ondent has "iven an undertaLin" statin" that the! /ill not rescind the contract /here as the decision to rescind the contract had alread! been taLen b! the res+ondent. hoever in an! declaration made b! him to an! court of Eustice8 maLes an! statement /hich is false8 and /hich he believes to be either false or does not believe to be true8 touchin" an! +oint material to the obEect for /hich the declaration is made shall be +unishable in a "rave manner as if he "ave false evidence. Therefore the ,es+ondent has committed the offense of +erEur!.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
PLEADING 1. THERE WA NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT B THE PETITIONER
The etitioner submits that there /as no breach of contract on the +art of Athletica hereinafter 8 6The C&)!"78?8 and therefore there /as no "round for the
entered into on an ‘as is where is basis8 +laces an obli"ation on the
The Last-Shot Rule would apply in interpreting Contractual Negotiations $
In +utler .achine Tool v$ 31-Cell-5 Corporation# ( it was held that ; here there is a battle of the forms /hereb! each +art! submits their o/n terms8 the last-shot rule a++lies /hereb! a contract is concluded on the terms submitted b! the +art! /ho is the last to communicate those terms before +erformance of the contract commences.R This common la/ doctrine has been subscribed to b! India in the A+ex Court1s decrees in L'C of 'ndia v$ Ra4a 7asireddy% and +SNL v$ +"L .obile Cellular Ltd 8& in inter+retin" Section ;>#? of the Indian Contract Act8 /herein it /as held that if one /ere to alter or modif! the terms of the contract8 it /as reuired to be done either b! ex+ress a"reement or b! necessar! im+lication /hich /ould ne"ate the a++lication of the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio1.R
#
+utler .achine Tool v$ 31-Cell-5 Corporation( #:;:B # , '0# Court of A++eal.
%
L'C of 'ndia v$ Ra4a 7asireddy )omalavalli )amba 2 5rs8 >#:9'? % SCC ;#:8 at *#9.
&
+SNL v$ +"L .obile Cellular Ltd8 >%009?#& SCC @:;8 at * &0.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
In the instant case8 durin" the ne"otiation of the contract8 the +arties disa"reed on the
the last-shot rule /ould be a++licable8 and hence8 the counter6offer1 submitted b! the Com+an! should be construed as the enforceable terms of the contract. #.%.
The obligation to satisfy itself lay on the Government as the Contract was entered into on an ‘as is where is basis!
hile inter+retin" a contract entered into on an ‘as is where is basis 8 Indian Courts have held that It is for the intendin" +urchaser to satisf! himself in all res+ects as to the title8 encumbrances and so forth of the immovable +ro+ert! that he +ro+oses to +urchase.R( As has alread! been submitted in sub6contention #.#.8 the contract in the instant case /as entered into b! the +arties in a manner similar to a contract for immoveable +ro+ert! entered into on an ‘as is where is basis . Therefore8 it is asserted b! the etitioner that on a++lication of the above la/ "overnin" obli"ations arisin" out of an ‘as is where is contract8 the '
0actsheet 8 Annexure #.
@
0actsheet 8 Annexure %.
(
:nion +an* of 'ndia v$ 5fficial Li6uidator 8 >#::'? # SCC @;@8 at * #@ 7$ Sambandan v$ The "un4ab National
+an*8 .. 3o. #:@@; of %00: 2.. 3o. # of %00:8 at * #0.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
The Company is not liable for any crimes of financial impropriety $
It is the submission of the etitioner that if the
;
The revention of 2one! aunderin" Act8 %00%8 ) &.
9
'6bal &hmed Saeed v$ State of ."8 C. A. 3o. (0'5#::@8 at * #9 and * #:.
:
Narendra Singh and ¬her v$ State of ." 8 >%00'? #0 SCC (::8 at * &%.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
7odafone 'nternational ,oldings +7 v$ :nion of 'ndia #08 the Su+reme Court noted that
man! of the offshore com+anies use the facilities of 4ffshore Financial Centers situate in 2auritius8 Ca!man Islands etc. 2an! of these offshore holdin"s and arran"ements are undertaLen for sound commercial and le"itimate tax +lannin" reasons8 /ithout an! intent to conceal income or assets from the home countr! tax Eurisdiction and India has al/a!s encoura"ed such arran"ements8 unless it is fraudulent or fictitious.R -ased on the above la/8 it is humbl! submitted b! the etitioner that the mere existence of a holdin" com+an! in the Ca!man Islands cou+led /ith the fact that Athletica 2achu /as held liable for offences in -raHil does not automaticall! dra/ the inference that the etitioner /as involved in mone! launderin". In the instant case8 there is no +roof as to the linL bet/een +rofits "ained from offences committed b! Athletica 2achu8 and the transactions entered into bet/een Athletica
The Government has violated its contractual obligations relating to
"etitioners Trade Secret$ Information8 includin" a formula8 +attern8 com+ilation8 +ro"ram device8 method8 techniue or
+rocess can constitute trade secrete if it ualifies three other criteria.## If this information is "enerall! not Lno/n or readil! accessible to +ersons /ithin circles that normall! deal /ith the Lind of information in uestion. Secondl!8 the information has commercial value. Thirdl!8 it has been subEect to res+onsible ste+s under the circumstances b! the +erson la/full! in control of the information8 to Lee+ it secret. If the res+ondent is +roved to have used this information directl! or indirectl! obtained from the +etitioner8 /ithout his consent ex+ress or im+lied8 he /ould be "uilt! of infrin"ement of the +laintiff1s ri"ht.#% The +rinci+le of #0
7odafone 'nternational ,oldings + 7 vs$ :nion of 'ndia 8 >%0#%? ( SCC (#& at * #'%.
##
Indian Innovation -ill8 ) %>&? Coco v$ &$N$ Clar* Ltd 8 #:(:B ,C '# Thomas .arshall v$ Guinle8 #:;:B # Ch %&; ,ouse of spring gardens point blan* 8 #:9&B FS, %#&.
#%
Saltaman 3ngineering v$ Campbell 3ngineering 8 >#:'9? (@ ,C %0& >CA?.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
infrin"ement of ri"ht is a++licable in cases /here the information /as obtained im+ro+erl! as breach of confidence.#& In the instant case8 the emails that /ere +roduced as evidence constitute trade secrets. The! contained information of trainin"8 food and nutrition. The same had commercial value as it contained the mantra of successes1 of the team. The com+an! has taLen all the reasonable ste+s to Lee+ it a secret liLe non6disclosure a"reement /ith +la!ers. The "overnment has breached the confidence of the com+an! b! obtainin" those emails throu"h ille"al means and hence breached the contract. Therefore8 the etitioner submits that in the absence of a breach of the contract b! the etitioner8 no dis+ute re"ardin" the contract can be said to have arisen. Dence8 the Arbitrator8 in renderin" his a/ard on the matter has acted be!ond the sco+e of his authorit! under Section %9>&? of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::( >hereinafter( 6The A
The etitioner humbl! submits that the Arbitral A/ard is liable to be set aside under the "rounds laid do/n in the AC Act. This assertion is t/ofold$ 0irstly8 the conclusion arrived at b! the arbitrator is +erverse and +atentl! ille"al 9!: and Secondly8 the rocedure follo/ed b! the arbitrator /as not in accordance /ith the arbitration a"reement 9;:. #$%$ The &ward by the &rbitrator is perverse and patently illegal!
It is averred b! the etitioner that the A/ard is liable to be set aside under Section &'>%?>b? of the AC Act#' as it is in conflict /ith +ublic +olic! of India. For this8 the etitioner relies on the landmarL Eud"ement b! the Su+reme Court in 5NGC v$ Saw "ipes #@ >hereinafter 8 6The
#&
Commonwealth v$ /ohn 0airfa1 2 Sons Ltd 8 >#:90? #'; C, &: at @0 4+inion of =ad! J in Lord &shburton v$ "ape8 #:#&B % Ch '(: at ';@.
#'
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) &'>%?>b?.
#@
5NGC v$ Saw "ipes 8 >%00&? @ SCC ;0@8 at * %#.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
!= Pie$ C!$e8? /herein it /as held that an arbitral a/ard is liable to be set aside in case it
suffers from a +atent ille"alit!. This submission shall be dealt /ith in a t/o6+ron"ed manner$ 0irstly8 the standard of +roof to be com+lied /ith in a case concernin" an Anti6Go+in" rule
violation is the stee+ standard of Comfortable Satisfaction1. Secondly8 the a/ard has been made in conscious violation of the +leadin"s and the evidence8 and is therefore +erverse. %.#.#. The -urden of roof to be dischar"ed is one of Comfortable Satisfaction1$ The Court of Arbitration in S+ort8 in its landmarL decree in N$( /$( 8$( 9$ v$ 0'N& #(8 held that the standard of +roof a++licable in +rovin" a Case of do+in" in s+ort is one that establishes a heav! burden of Comfortable Satisfaction1 of the hearin" bod!. The case further ex+lained that the burden of +roof reuired to be dischar"ed under this standard is more than a mere balance of +robabilities and is more aLin to that of be!ond reasonable doubt1. This standard of +roof has also been ado+ted under the orld Anti Go+in" A"enc!1s Code >hereinafter( 6the WADA C&+e8 ?#; in dealin" /ith anti6do+in" rule violations. 2oreover8 the standard has
also been ado+ted in India b! the revised Anti6Go+in" ,ules of the 3ational Anti6Go+in" A"enc!#9 >hereinafter 8 6the NADA R>le$8?8 /hich have been ado+ted in conformance /ith the AGA Code. Therefore8 it is considered a rule of custom in International S+orts a/.#: Finall!8 the etitioner submits that "iven the ,es+ondents themselves have submitted the AGA "uidelines and relevant as+ects of Indian la/ for +erusal b! the arbitrator %0 an inference ma! be dra/n as to their acce+tance of this hi"h burden of +roof. -ased on the above la/8 the etitioner asserts that in adEudicatin" as to /hether the a/ard is liable to be set aside on the "rounds of it conflictin" /ith the +ublic +olic! of India8 the Court 16
N$( /$( 8$( 9$( v$ 0'N&8 CAS :95%098 at * #&.
#;
The orld Anti6Go+in" Code8 %00:8 at Article &.#.
#9
The Anti6Go+in" ,ules8 The 3ational Anti Go+in" A"enc!8 India8 at Article &.#.
#:
James A.,. 3afHi"er8 Circumstantial 3vidence of oping! +&LC5 and +eyond 8 #( 2ar. S+orts . ,ev. '@
>%00@?. %0
0actsheet at * #'.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
must looL at the arbitral a/ard throu"h the +rism of /hether the heav! burden of Comfortable Satisfaction1 has been dischar"ed. %.#.%. The A/ard is in violation of the +leadin"s and the evidence8 and hence +erverse$ A /ell established "round for settin" aside an arbitral a/ard is +erversit!1.%# In .S Narayanagoudas Case 8 it /as held that a decision made in conscious violation of the
+leadin"s and the la/ is a +erverse decision and it cannot be allo/ed to stand uncorrected.%% In addition to this the Su+reme Court%& has held that /here an arbitrator records findin"s based on no le"al evidence8 and the findin"s are either his ipse di1it or based on conEectures or surmises8 the enuir! suffers from the added infirmit! of non6a++lication of mind and stands vitiated. The etitioner further asserts that althou"h recent develo+ments in relation to evidence admissible under cases +ertainin" to anti6do+in" rule violations have allo/ed for the admissibilit! of Circumstantial evidence as o++osed to merel! do+e test results8 there is a ver! hi"h burden of +roof associated /ith the admissibilit! of such circumstantial evidence8 as o++osed to the +resum+tion associated /ith do+e test results.%' In the instant case8 the etitioner submits8 that there is no direct evidence in the form of do+e test results that linLs the Com+an! /ith alle"ations of committin" anti6do+in" rule violations as +er Article % of the 3AGA ,ules. %@ The etitioner also asserts that a distinction must be dra/n /ith res+ect to cases arisin" out of the +&LC5 Controversy 18 /herein the CAS and the 7S Gistrict Court of 3orthern California relied on admissions of "uilt and uncontroverted %#
4 2alhotra And Indu 2alhotra81 The Law and "ractice of &rbitration and Conciliation 8 exis 3exis
-utter/oerths adh/a8 %00(?8 at +". ##:&. %%
.$S$ Narayanagouda v$ Giri4amma 8 AI, #:;; ant. @98 at * ##.
%&
Ra4inder )umar )indra v$ elhi &dministration8 >#:9'? ' SCC (&@. &lso See The Security "rinting and
.inting Corporation of 'ndia v$ Gandhi 'ndustrial Corporation 8 >%00;? #& SCC %&(8 at * 9. %'
:S&& v$ G 8 CAS %00'545(': :S&& v$ .$ and '&&0 8 CAS %00'545('@ 'ndictment 8 :nited States v$
Conte8 >3.G. Cal. %00'?. %@
The Anti6Go+in" ,ules8 The 3ational Anti Go+in" A"enc!8 India8 at Article %.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
/itness testimon!.%( These forms of evidence also find mention under the AGA Code.%; In the instant case8 ho/ever8 the arbitrator has relied on mere documentar! evidence /hich the etitioner submits is not sufficient to dischar"e the heav! burden of +roof reuired in usin" circumstantial evidence in such cases. It is submitted b! the etitioner that the Arbitrator should have follo/ed the =vidence Act durin" the Arbitral roceedin"s. This is because8 since this /as not an International Commercial Arbitration%98 it /ould be "overned b! art I of the Arbitration Act /hose +rovisions la! do/n that in such a case8 the substantive la/ /ould be Indian%:. In addition8 the Arbitration A"reement +rovides that the +rocedure of the arbitration shall be determined in the arbitration itself.&0 Ges+ite all this8 in the Arbitration A"reement8 the +arties have ex+ressl! a"reed to use Indian a/.&# This8 the +etitioner submits is indicative of the +arties1 intent to use the Indian a/ relatin" to =vidence. The etitioner also avers that an a++raisal of the evidence relied on b! the Arbitrator sho/s that the a/ard suffers from +erversit! as laid do/n in the aforementioned la/. This is dealt /ith under the follo/in" heads of evidence that /ere administered in the arbitral +roceedin"s$ a? 7alidity of the emails produced by the government $ In 7$ Satyavathi v$ " 7en*ataratnam &%8 it /as held that if the +roof of the evidence is in the uestion viH. a viH. +rovin" the "enuineness of the content b! +roducin" the same8 it /ould not be sufficient to +rove the truth of the contents of the documents&& unless the /riter of the %(
Supra8 note %0.
%;
The orld Anti6Go+in" Code8 %00:8 at Article &.%.
%9
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) %>#?>f?.
%:
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) %9>#?>a?.
&0
0actsheet 8 Annexure Three8 Clause #9'.;.
&#
0actsheet 8 Annexure Three8 Clause #9'.:.
&%
#:99 >#? AT :#@ Nunna 7en*ateswara Rao vs Tota 7en*ateswara Rao 2 5rs( %00; >'? AG ;''
&&
The Indian =vidence Act8 #9;%8 ) (@- >#?.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
document is examined. It onl! constitutes hearsa! evidence. Dearsa! evidence is not admissible.&' In the "iven facts8 there is no em+lo!ee named as Ace Ventura. Dence there is no author to the emails. Therefore the emails should not be considered b! the arbitrator. 'n &rguendo8 /hen the documents are +roduced in order to seeL le"al advice b! the client8 then these documents are protected 1 under le"al advice +rivile"e.&@ The court should looL at the facts of the case8 /ei"hin" the harm to societ! caused b! disclosure a"ainst the harm caused to the administration of Eustice in case of full information not available.&( ate ni"ht -ruce 8J observed that +rotection of the client for the communication bet/een him and his la/!er need to be +reserved in order to ensure the soundness of the +rocess of Eustice.&; Therefore evidence collected b! violation of ri"hts and freedoms of individual should not be admitted as it /ill brin" the +rocess of Eustice into disre+ute in the e!es of reasonable man.&9 In the "iven facts the com+an! has claimed those emails to be la/!er client +rivile"e information as it /as created to seeL le"al advice and therefore should not have been taLen into consideration b! the arbitrator. b? 7alidity of the +ra
Sharad +udhichand Sharda v$ State of .aharashtra 8 AI, #:9' SC #(%% Laliteshwar "rasad Sahai v$
+ateshwar "rasad 8 AI, #:(( SC @90. &@
Three Rivers istrict Council 2 5rs v$ Governor 2 Company of the +an* of 3ngland 8 %00&B =CA Civ ';'.
&(
2cCormicL8 =vidence18 >#:9'? #9(6#9; a/ Commission ,e+ort8 3e/Healand8 &vailable at
htt+$55///.la/com."ovt.nH5sites5default5files5+ublications5#::'50@5ublication@9#;(%&.+df ast Visited on Januar! (th 8 %0#&. &;
"earse v$ "earse ( #9'(8 #( J Ch #@&.
&9
R$ v$ Collins8 >#:9;? # SC, %(@>Can SC? R$ v$ Stillman8 >#::;? # SC, (0; >Can SC?.
&:
The Indian =vidence Act8 #9;%8 ) ;9>(?.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
Eud"ement /ithout certificate can onl! constitute secondar! evidence for /hich /hen contents +roved8 it ma! be received.'0 In the "iven facts8 it can no/here be inferred from the facts that the Eud"ement +roduced is certified and hence should not be admissible. 'n &rguendo8 a dru" to sho/ certain reactions in the bod! reuire certain method of administration and certain time +eriod to react to sho/ the reuired result. 4n the basis of facts8 the reliance of arbitrator on the forei"n Eud"ement can be challen"ed. The forei"n court has clearl! stated that nature of the dru" to be administered is in liuid form and the time +eriod reuired for effect is %' hrs. In India8 the biscuit alle"ed to contain the dru" is solid form and is administered Eust before the match. Therefore it cannot be +resumed that the com+an! has indul"ed in the same activit! as in case of the -raHil subsidiar!. c= 7alidity of the affidavit given by the player!
Affidavits are not included in the definition of evidence1 in s.& of I=A8#9;%.'# Affidavits filed b! the +arties /ithout "ivin" the o++ortunit! to the o++osition to cross examine the de+onent cannot be treated as evidence under s # and & of I=A8 #9;%.'% In the instant case8 the affidavit on /hich the arbitrator has relied cannot be admissible as the +la!er /ho has "iven the affidavit is ver! much alive and the ri"ht of cross examination b! the o++osition has been violated. 'n &rguendo8 /hen the affidavit is bein" considered b! the arbitrator8 here is no mention of administration of +erformance enhancin" dru" to the +la!ers. The +la!er has clearl! stated that the ualit! of trainin" and food and nutrition is much better. The onl! sus+icious1 food item seem to be the s/eet biscuit. Stron" sus+icions and "rave doubts cannot taLe +lace of
'0
Sir JF Stefen81 igest of 3vidence18 Vol #8 Third =dn8 #:'08ublished b! ittle8 -ro/n Co8 -oston Arts at * (;and ;'.
'#
Ra4 )ishore v$ State of :ttar "radesh8 #:99 AII Cr Cas ## /agdish v$ "remlata evi8 AI, #::0 ,aE 9;.
'%
Radha )ishan v$ Navratan .al 8 AI, #::0 ,aE #%;.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
le"al +roof .'& The sweet biscuit can be com+ared to chocolate or an ener"! drinL /hich also "ive a charge of rush .'' -ased on all of the above mentioned la/8 the etitioner humbl! submits that the Arbitral A/ard is liable to be set aside on the "round that it conflicts /ith +ublic +olic! of India'@ due to +atent ille"alit! and "iven the +erversit! of the a/ard8 the Court cannot allo/ it to stand uncorrected. %.%. 'n &rguendo( the "rocedure followed did not comply with the &rbitration &greement! In %?>a? >v?. It is humbl! submitted b! the etitioner that the Arbitration A"reement +rovided that the +rocedure for arbitration shall be decided durin" arbitration. Do/ever8 the etitioner1s obEections /ith re"ard to the conduct of arbitration +roceedin"s /ere disre"arded b! the arbitrator.'9 Thus8 the of +rocedure follo/ed cannot be held to be in accordance /ith a"reement of the +arties': This also indicates ho/ the etitioner /as not afforded eual o++ortunit! to be heard. Dence8 it is the etitioner1s humble submission that the a/ard be set aside on the above "rounds. 3. WHETHER THE R EPONDENT I GUILT OF CIIL CONTE-PT. '&
State of )erala v$ .$.$ .athew 8 AI, #:;9 SC #@;# State of :" v$ Su*hbasi8 AI, #:9@ SC #%%' "rabhu v$
State of Ra4asthan 8 >#:9'? # Crimes #0%0 >,aE? >G-? )uldip Singh v$ State of "un4ab( >#:9'? # Crimes #0&&
>D?. ''
htt+$55conference.!ouths+ortsn!.or"5reference5"oldber"er.+df $ Last 7isited on Januar!8 (th %0#&.
'@
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) &'>%?>b?.
'(
The Government of NCT of elhi vs$ Shri )hem Chand and ¬her 8 AI, %00& Gelhi &#'8 at * #@.
';
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) #9.
'9
0actsheet 8 at * #'.
':
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act8 #::(8 ) &'>%?>a?>v?.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
Civil contem+t of court has been defined as /ilful1 disobedience to an! Eud"ment8 decree8 direction8 order8 /rit or other +rocess of a court or /ilful breach of an undertaLin" "iven to a court.@0 In a case /here undertaLin" is recorded in the manner a"reed b! the +arties in a court1s order8 it "ains a bindin" nature.@# Court has defined /ilful1 as intentional8 deliberate and conscious.@% It is also submitted that for contem+t of court8 advanta"e to the contemnor is not necessar!.@& In the "iven factual matrix8 the Additional Solicitor
The Contem+t of Court Act8 #:;#8 ) % >b?.
@#
+an* of +aroda v$ Sadruddin ,asan aya8 >%00'? # SCC &(0 +abu Ram Gupta v$ Sudhir +hasin 8 AI, #:;:
SC #@9%. @%
Ra*apali Ra4a Rama Gopala Rao v$ Naragani Govinda Sehararao 8 >#:9:? ' SCC %@@.
@&
.urray &nd Co v$ &sho* )$R$ Newatia8 >%00%? % SCC &(;.
@'
0act Sheet 8 Annexure (.
@@
&shish )umar )undu v$ &$)$ Tandon 8 #::' >'? S, &#:.
@(
State of Ra4asthan v$ .ohan Singh 8 #::@ Su++ >%? SCC #@& See &lso Siman La*ra v$ Sudhis "rasad 8 #::&
>#? J, ':&. @;
Sachindra Nath "an4a v$ N$L$ +asa*( "rincipal Secretary( Goverment of 9est +engal 8 %00' >'? CD3 (0%.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
7ndertaLin" "iven to court is an affidavit.@9. An UaffidavitU includes affirmation and declaration in the case of +ersons b! la/ allo/ed to affirm or declare instead of s/earin".@: hoever in an! declaration made b! him to an! court of Eustice8 maLes an! statement /hich is false8 and /hich he believes to be either false or does not believe to be true8 touchin" an! +oint material to the obEect for /hich the declaration is made shall be +unishable in a "rave manner as if he "ave false evidence.(0 In the "iven factual matrix8 an undertaLin" /as "iven b! the counsel of the res+ondent. It declared that that the res+ondent /ill not terminate the contract till +ro+er resolution /ould be sou"ht b! the arbitrator. Another fact note/orth! here is that the res+ondent had alread! decided to terminate the contract. This constitutes that the res+ondent "ave false declaration as to not terminatin" the contract till the arbitration +roceedin"s are com+leted. Dence the! are liable for +erEur!. Further to be noted8 that Counsel re+resents the client. In case of uncertaint!8 it is the dut! of the client to inform his counsel and conseuentl! if false statements are made in +leadin"s8 the res+onsibilit! /ill devolve /holl! and com+letel! on the +art!. (# ith re"ard to the ambi"uit! to counsel1s Lno/led"e8 the la/ has clearl! laid the dut! on to the +art!. Therefore the res+ondent cannot /ash a/a! their hands b! taLin" the defence that the Counsel did not Lne/ about the decision and hence no +erEur! /as committed.
PRAER
@9
3dpuganti +apanaiah v$ Sri )$S$ Ra4u &nd Two 5rs 8 %00; A Di"h Court8 Contem+t Case 3o.:#@ of %00%
@:
The &?.
(0
Indian enal Code8 #9(08 ) #:: Read 9ith ) %00.
(#
&$N$Gouda v$ State of )arnata*a( >#::9? Cr J ';@(.
-Summary of "leadings-
-"etitioner-
In the li"ht of ar"uments advanced and authorities cited8 the etitioner humbl! submits that the Don1ble Court ma! be +leased to adEud"e and declare that$
%$ The arbitral award be set aside$ #$ The Respondent be held guilty of civil contempt of court$ >$ The Respondent be held guilty of per4ury$
%ny other order as it deems fit in the interest of euity& justice and good conscience.
F&' Thi$ At &* ?i"+"e$$, the Petiti&"e' h!ll D>t7 B&>"+ F&'e(e' P'!7.
Sd56 >Counsel for the etitioner?
