MOOT COURT COMMITTEE

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

3RD RMLNLU

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
st rd
[21 - 23 FEBRUARY, 2025]

IN COLLABORATION WITH

THEME INSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATE

SPONSOR PARTNER SPONSORS

MOOT
PROPOSITION
 Raymond Reddington
Rechtsanwalt
221-B, Dembe Strasse, Frankfurt, Germany
Tel: +49-24353456
[email protected]

By email and courier

Registrar,
Singapore International Arbitration Centre
28 Maxwell Road
#03-01, Maxwell Chambers Suites,
Singapore 069120

August 09, 2024

Notice of Arbitration
(Under Rule 3 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules, 2016)
Splash The Rock GmBH v. JVNL

Dear Registrar,

On behalf of my client, Splash The Rock GmBH, I submit the enclosed Notice of Arbitration
pursuant to Rule 3 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules, 2016. It is clear that the respondent, JVNL, has
illegally withheld payment after issuing the completion certificate. Despite repeated reminders, the
respondent has not paid my client’s legitimate dues and is also liable to pay for loss of profit, idling
of machines and labour, and overheads due to prolongation of the contract. Therefore, my client is
invoking arbitration in pursuance of the dispute resolution clause.

In line with the arbitration agreement, the claimant nominates Ms. Tara Soft as the arbitrator. Her
declaration of impartiality, independence, and availability is attached to this notice.
Regards,

Raymond Reddington

Attachments:
(a)Notice of Arbitration with Exhibits
(b) Declaration of impartiality and independence of Ms. Tara Soft (not reproduced)

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 2 of 21

 Raymond Reddington
Rechtsanwalt
221-B, Dembe Strasse, Frankfurt, Germany
Tel: +49-24353456
[email protected]

Notice of Arbitration
(pursuant to Rule 3 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules, 2016)
in the Arbitral Proceedings between
Splash The Rock GmBH v. JVNL

Splash The Rock GmBH

4, Schiesse Strasse, Frankfurt,
Germany
Claimant
JVNL
1, Tunde Street, Lucknow,
India
Respondent

Statement of Facts

1. The claimant, Splash The Rock GmBH (“STR”), is a limited liability company, having its
registered office located at 4, Schiesse Strasse, Frankfurt, Germany represented through its
Director, Mr. Walter White.

2. The respondent, JVNL, is a 100% government owned unlisted public company.

3. STR was started by Mr. Walter White after his initial years working as an Engineer with a
hydropower company in Germany. During his time at the company, he first came to India in 2010
to execute a 2 MW hydropower project in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Mr. White was
fascinated by the Indian topography and its potential to be the leader in clean energy. One day,
while working on the project, he was introduced to Mr. Vijay Challya and Mr. Kirav Sodi.

4. Mr. Challya was the CEO of a multi-million company called Fly High Pvt. Ltd. (“Fly High”),
and Mr. Sodi was the CEO of a company called Diamonds Forever Pvt. Ltd. (“Diamonds”). Both
companies had received several government tenders for executing several power projects in the
country. In the meeting between Mr. White, Mr. Challya, and Mr. Sodi, the three of them had a
passionate discussion about the future of the Indian infrastructure sector and the bright prospects
of doing business in India, especially in the power sector.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 3 of 21

5. Years later, in 2017, Mr. White set up STR and started the business of hydropower generation
and wind turbines. STR was very successful and, within years, scaled to become a reputed
company in the power generation business. True to known German efficiency and punctuality,
they delivered all projects on time.

6. By divine providence, Mr. Sodi and Mr. White were seated next to each other on a flight from
Frankfurt to Dubai. They greeted each other and started discussing business prospects. Mr. Sodi
told him about EPC contracts being given by the States in India to cater to a rising demand for
electricity. Mr. Sodi also told Mr. White how contractors are minting money in EPC contracts
since the Government usually does not have site access but is constrained to announce projects
and invite tenders for political reasons. Government’s delay leads to the prolongation of
contracts, and arbitrators, who do not appreciate much of the technical nuances of commercial
contracts, often award exorbitant amounts applying the Hudson or Eichleay formulae.

7. Mr. White was shocked after listening the reality of doing business in India. He jokingly
remarked, ‘Make in India, but do not litigate in India!’. Finally, the conversation ended with an
exchange of business cards. A few months later, while attending a fare in Munich, Mr. White ran
into Mr. Challya who presented a rather promising and rosy picture of doing business in India
and the country’s strong commitment to make India an ‘arbitration hub’. Somehow Mr. Challya
convinced Mr. White to consider taking up projects in India, especially those financed by the
World Bank as in such contracts, FIDIC contracts are mandatory. This news brought comfort
and reassured Mr. White about the prospects of his business avenues in India.

8. On 12.09.2021, right after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, JVNL invited bids to construct
the 22 MW Dev Bhumi Hydro Power Plant (“Project”) on a ‘turnkey’ basis (“Tender”). The
contract was to be awarded in two parts, i.e., (a) civil works, and (b) operation and maintenance
(“O&M”) for two years post-completion based on a Bill of Quantities (“BOQ”) and a lump-sum
for O&M.

9. Mr. Challya shared the link of the Public Procurement Website with the instructions to bidders
to Mr. White on Whatsapp. Mr. White immediately got on the phone with Mr. Challya and Mr.
Sodi and intensely negotiated for a joint venture to submit a bid. However, the discussions did not
materialize, and all three bidders ended up submitting separate bids.

10. Only three bidders, i.e., STR, Fly High and Diamonds, met the qualification criteria when the
tenders were opened. STR emerged as the L-1 bidder and was consequently awarded the contract
on 18.11.2021 with a completion period of 24 months (“Contract”). Mr. White was thrilled and
immediately mobilized resources to execute the Contract.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 4 of 21

11. Unfortunately, as time passed, Mr. White realized that Mr. Sodi’s description of doing business
in India was true as the respondent did not have complete access to the site and approach road
where the plant was to be built. Mr. White’s repeated correspondence for handing over the site fell
on deaf ears. Instead, he kept receiving frivolous letters from the respondent about the lack of
adequate manpower and machinery. After several in-person meetings with the respondent’s
officers, the request for extension of time (“EOT”) was granted, and the plant was successfully
commissioned on 27.03.2024.

12. Till the date of commissioning, the claimant had raised invoices to the tune of INR 46 crores,
against which payment for INR 30 crores had already been paid after the measurement of work
being recorded in the Measurement Book (“MB”) maintained by the respondent. However, the
respondent failed to record all of the works and is illegally withholding INR 16 crores, alleging
delay in execution and consequently has imposed liquidated damages of INR 5 crores.

13. The claimant is entitled to the balance payment, along with loss of profit, idling of machinery
and labour due to delay in handing over of the site, lack of approach road, and overheads for
prolongation of the Contract.

Legal Evaluation

Jurisdiction and Nomination of Arbitrator

14. The dispute is to be decided in accordance with the SIAC Arbitration Rules, 2016 by a sole
arbitrator. The Parties have included in their Contract the following arbitration clause:

Clause 75:

“75. 1 Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach,
termination or invalidity thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the SIAC
Arbitration Rules, 2016.

75.2. The governing law is Indian law, and the seat of arbitration is India. The language to be used in
the arbitral proceedings shall be English.”

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 5 of 21

Merits

15. The claimant was awarded the Tender and consequently entered into a Contract for building
the Project on a ‘turnkey’ basis. The Project was to be completed within 24 months but was
completed on 27.03.2024 solely because of the delay caused by the respondent in handing over the
Project site and the lack of an approach road. The claimant has duly performed the Contract, and
the plant has been commissioned. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to payment as per the invoices,
along with loss of profit, idling of machinery and labour due to delay in handing over of the site,
lack of approach road, and overheads for prolongation of the Contract. Thus, the respondent is in
clear breach of the terms of the Contract.

Statement of Relief Sought

Based on the above, the claimant requests the Arbitral Tribunal:

1. to declare that the respondent breached the Contract;

2. to direct the respondent to pay the balance invoices of INR 16 crores;
3. to award damages due to breach and prolongation to the tune of INR 25 crores;
4. to order the respondent to bear the costs of the arbitration.

Raymond Reddington
Enclosures: Claimant’s Exhibit C1

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 6 of 21

 Exhibit C1

“23: Payment on Account

23.1 Running Account/ Interim bills shall be submitted by the Contractor monthly on or before the
date fixed by the Engineer-In-Charge for the work executed. The Engineer-In-Charge shall then verify
the bills with reference to the measurements recorded in the measurement book(s).

23.2 Payment on account for amount admissible shall be made on the Engineer-In-Charge certifying
the sum to which the contractor is considered entitled by way of interim payment for the work
executed, after deducting there from the amounts already paid, the security deposit and such other
amounts as may be withheld/ deductible or recoverable in terms of the Contract.

23.3 Payment of the Contractor's bills shall be made by the Employer within 30 days from the date of
submission of the bill subject to the acceptance of the Engineer-in-charge.

44: Measurements

44.1 The Engineer-In-Charge shall except as otherwise stated ascertain and determine by
measurement, the value of work done in accordance with the Contract.

44.2 Notwithstanding any provision in the relevant standard method of measurement or any general or
local custom, measurement of work done under the Contract shall be taken in accordance with the
procedure set forth in the Technical Specifications or Bill of Quantities under the Contract. In the case
of items of work, which are not covered by the Technical Specifications or Bill of Quantities,
measurement shall be taken in accordance with the relevant standard methods of measurements laid
down by the Bureau of INDIAN Standards (BIS).

44.3 All items having a financial value shall be entered in measurement book, level book, etc.,
prescribed by the Employer so that a complete record is maintained of all work performed under the
Contract.

44.4 Measurement shall be taken jointly by the Engineer-in-charge or his representative and by the
Contractor or his authorized representative.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 7 of 21

44.5 Before taking measurement of any works, the Engineer-in-charge or his representative, shall give
a reasonable notice to the Contractor. If the Contractor fails to attend or send an authorized
representative for measurement after such a notice or fails to countersign or to record the objection
within a week from the date of taking the measurements, then in that event the measurements taken by
the Engineer-in-charge shall be taken to be correct and final measurements of such work.

44.6 The Contractor shall, without extra charge, provide assistance with every appliance, labour and
other appliances (theodolite, level, etc.) and things necessary for measurement.

44.7 Measurement shall be signed and dated by both parties on the Site on completion of measurement.
If the Contractor objects to any of the measurements recorded by the representative of the Engineer-
In-Charge a note to that effect shall be made in the measurement book against the item objected to and
such note shall be signed and dated by both parties engaged in taking the measurement. The decision of
the Engineer-in-charge on any such dispute or difference or interpretation shall be final and binding on
the contractor in respect of all contract items, substituted items, extra items and deviations. Provided
that items of work which are not susceptible to measurement at the later date must be measured jointly
and signed accordingly by both the parties at the time of execution of such items.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 8 of 21

 Rathi Simsan Singh
Counsel
16, Daryaganj, Lucknow
Tel: +91-7624353456
[email protected]

By email and courier

Registrar,
Singapore International Arbitration Centre
28 Maxwell Road
#03-01, Maxwell Chambers Suites,
Singapore 069120

Splash the Rock GmBH

4, Schiesse Strasse, Frankfurt,
Germany

Claimant

JVNL
1, Tunde Street, Lucknow,
India

Respondent
August 30, 2024

RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ARBITRATION

(Under Rule 4 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules, 2016)

Introduction

1. In its Notice of Arbitration, the claimant has concealed material facts and is not entitled to any
relief. A First Information Report (“FIR”) has been lodged on 17.08.2024 at Daryaganj Police
Station for fraud and cheating against STR, Fly High and Diamonds and their directors. The
claimant, along with other bidders, was involved in ‘tender pooling’ and submission of a fraudulent
bid. Hence, the Contract was terminated on 16.08.2024.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab

Page 9 of 21
Statement of Facts

2. The claimant has conveniently laid down an elaborate tale of the meetings between Mr. White,
Mr. Challya and Mr. Sodi. However, the claimant has concealed the fact that all three demand
drafts submitted by STR, Fly High, and Diamonds against the Earnest Money Deposit (“EMD”)
for applying for the Tender were obtained from Fly High's bank account. (Exhibit R1)

3. It is important to note Clause 12 of the Instructions to Bidder (Exhibit R2). Further, all three
bidders had given an affidavit along with their bid that there was no financial connection between
the bidders. The fact that the demand drafts were procured from Fly High’s account is sufficient to
show that the three bidders were actively colluding and were involved in bid-rigging. They
deliberately submitted false affidavits to obtain the Tender. Hence, the Contract is void on account
of material misrepresentation amounting to fraud.

4. Since the claimant submitted a collusive bid with the other bidders, the respondent could not
have evaluated the bid as per the terms of the ITB which eventually affected the sanctity and
transparency of the entire tender process undertaken by the respondent.

5. After lodging the FIR, Mr. Challya issued a press release (Exhibit R3) clarifying that the demand
drafts were procured based on the legal advice of the in-house counsel of STR. On asking Mr.
Challya about the details of the in-house counsel, the respondent learned that Ms. Munjya,
originally from India, who had completed her master’s from Switzerland, was hired only for the
Project as Mr. White wanted an Indian lawyer to be on board from the beginning.

Nomination of Arbitrator and Jurisdiction of the Sole Arbitrator

6. The respondent accepts the claimant’s proposal to appoint Ms. Tara Soft as the sole arbitrator.
However, without prejudice to the above, the sole arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to proceed as the
matter pertains to serious fraud and is inarbitrable. No arbitration agreement exists between the
parties, as the Contract is void. Even otherwise, the Contract stands terminated per Clause 38 of
the Contract (Exhibit R4). Therefore, the alleged claim is not maintainable in the eyes of the law.

7. The respondent reserves the right to bring a counter-claim against the claimant before the
appropriate court as per law.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 10 of 21

Legal Evaluation

8. The present claim is not legally maintainable as all claims arise from the Contract. Since the
Contract was obtained by fraud and is void, no rights can accrue to the claimant from such a
Contract. Even otherwise, without prejudice, the Contract has been duly terminated, and the sole
arbitrator has no power in law to restore a terminated Contract. In the absence of restoration of the
Contract, none of the claims are maintainable.

9. The reliefs prayed for cannot be granted by this tribunal. First, the claims arise from the matter is
inarbitrable as it relates to serious fraud. Second, without prejudice, the Contract is void ab inito.
The claims are liable to be dismissed with heavy costs in favour of the respondent.

Rathi Simsan Singh

Enclosures:

Exhibits

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 11 of 21

 Exhibit R1

Direct Bank of Commerce

Date: August 11, 2024

To Whom It May Concern

This is to confirm that the following demand drafts were procured from the account of Fly High
Private Limited, account number 983704422111, held at Direct Bank of Commerce, Daryaganj,
Lucknow:

1.Demand Draft No. 212121 dated 18.09.2024 for an amount of INR 36,97,432/-.

2.Demand Draft No. 212122 dated 18.09.2024 for an amount of INR 36,97,432/-.

3.Demand Draft No. 212123 dated 18.09.2024 for an amount of INR 36,97,432/-.

These demand drafts were issued as per the instructions received from Fly High Private Limited.

Should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely,

Raghudam Banjan
Manager
Direct Bank of Commerce

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 12 of 21

 Exhibit R2

Instructions to Bidders
“12. Signature of Bids

12.1 The bid must contain the name, residence and place of business of the person or persons making
the bid and must be signed and sealed by the Bidder with his usual signature.

12.2 The names of all persons signing should also be typed or printed below the signature.

12.3 Bid by a partnership must be furnished with full names of all partners and be signed with the
partnership name, followed by the signature(s) and designation(s) or the authorized partner(s) or
other authorized representative(s).

12.4 Bids by a Corporation/Company must be signed with the legal name of the Corporation/Company
by the President/Managing Director or by the Secretary or other person or persons authorized to bid
on behalf of such Corporation/Company in the matter.

12.5 If it is found that two or more persons who are connected with one another either financially or as
a principal and agent have bid under different names without disclosing their connection then such bids
will be liable for rejection. Satisfactory evidence of authority of the person signing on behalf of the
Bidder shall be furnished with the bid.

12.6 Bids not conforming to the above requirements of signing may be disqualified and EMD forfeited.

22: Purpose for evaluation of Bids:

The Bids received/accepted/opened will be evaluated by the Employer to ascertain the technically
responsive bid for the complete scope of the proposal, as covered under these specification and
documents. All technically responsive bids shall then be examined to determine the LOWEST
EVALUATED COMMERCIALLY AND TECHNICALLY RESPONSIVE BIDS.

32: Comparison of the bids:

32.1. The bids shall be compared on the basis of the percentage above or below the BOQ contained in
the DPR for the entire scope of work as defined in the Bidding Document.

32.2. All evaluated bid prices of all the Bidders shall be compared among themselves to determine the
lowest evaluated bid and, as a result of this comparison, the lowest bid will be selected for the award of
the Contract.”
© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 13 of 21
 Exhibit R3

**Press Release**

Fly High Private Limited Clarifies Position on Recent Tender Pooling Allegations

Lucknow, India – August 23, 2024 – In response to recent allegations of tender pooling and bid
rigging in the public tender related to 22 MW Dev Bhumi Hydro Power Plant Fly High Private
Limited wishes to clarify its position and provide transparency regarding the procurement of
demand drafts.

Fly High acknowledges the concerns raised and takes these allegations seriously. We would like to
emphasize that our actions were guided by legal advice from the in-house counsel of Splash The
Rock GmBH. According to the legal opinion provided, it was permissible for all three bidders
involved in the tender to procure the demand drafts from the account of one of the bidders.

The in-house counsel advised that this approach was within the legal framework of India and did
not constitute any form of collusion or unfair practice. Since the talks between the bidders for a
joint venture had failed, as a gesture of good faith and convenience, Fly High only helped prepare
the demand drafts for Splash The Rock GmBH. There was no intention to rig the tender or commit
any illegal act.

We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and transparency in all our
business dealings. Fly High has always adhered to the principles of fair competition and will
continue to do so. We are cooperating fully with the authorities to resolve this matter and
demonstrate our compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position and assure all stakeholders of our unwavering
commitment to ethical business practices.

For further information, please contact: Mr. Challya, CEO, Fly High Private Limited.
Email: [email protected]

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 14 of 21

38: Default By the Contractor and Termination of Contract In Full Or In Part

“38.1 If the Contractor:

i) commits default in complying with or commits breach of any of the conditions of the Contract and
does not remedy it or take effective steps to remedy it. Immediately after a notice in writing is given to
him by the Engineer-in-Charge; or

ii) fails to complete the Works or any item of Works within the time specified in Schedule ‘C’ or any
extended time under the Contract and does not complete the Work(s) or any item of Work(s) within
the period specified in a notice given in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge; or

iii) is engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for or in the execution of the Contract.

For the purpose of this clause:

a) ‘Corrupt Practice’ means offering, giving, receiving or soliciting of any thing of value to influence
the action of a public official in the procurement or execution of Contract.

b) ‘Fraudulent Practice’ means mis-representation of fact in order to influence the Biding process or
the execution of a Contract and includes collusive practice among bidders (prior to or after bid
submission) designed to establish bid prices at artificial noncompetitive levels and to deprive the
employer of the benefits of free and open competition.

The Engineer-In-Charge shall have powers to terminate the Contract in full or in part as aforesaid
without prejudice to any other right or remedy which shall have accrued or shall accrue of which
cancellation notice in writing to the Contractor under the hand of the Engineer-In-charge shall be
conclusive evidence.

38.2: The Engineer-In-Charge shall, on such termination of the contract, have powers to take
possession of the site of work under the contract as well as the land/premises allotted to the contractor
for his preliminary, enabling and ancillary works and any materials, constructional equipment,
implements, stores, structures etc. thereon. The Engineer-In-Charge shall also have powers to carry
out the incomplete work by any means or through any other agency or by himself at the risk and cost
of the contractor. In such a case, the value of the work done through such agencies shall be credited to
the Contractor at the contract rate and the Contractor shall pay the excess amount, if any, incurred in
completing the work as aforesaid, as stipulated under sub-clause 38.4 hereunder.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 15 of 21

38.3 On termination of the Contract in full or in Part, the Engineer-In-Charge may direct that a part
or whole of such plant, equipment and materials, structures be removed from the site of the work as
well as from the land/premises allotted to the contractor for his preliminary, enabling and ancillary
works, within a stipulated period. If the Contractor shall fail to do so within the period specified in a
notice in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge, the Engineer-In-Charge may cause them to be sold,
holding the net proceeds of such sale to the credit of the Contractor, which shall be released after
completion of works and settlement of amounts under the Contract.

38.4 If the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Employer for carrying out and completing the
incomplete work or part of the same, as certified by the Engineer-in-Charge, are in excess of the value
of the work credited/to be credited to the Contractor, the difference shall be paid by the Contractor to
the Employer. If the Contractor fails to pay such an amount, as aforesaid, within thirty days of receipt
of notice in writing from the Engineer-in-Charge, the Engineer-In-Charge shall recover such amount
from any sums due to the Contractor on any account under this or any other contract or from his
Security Deposit or otherwise.”

42.0 Termination of Contract on Employer’s Initiative

42.1 The Employer reserves the right to terminate the Contract either in part or in full due to reasons
other than those mentioned under the clause titled ‘Contractor’s Default’.

42.2 The Contractor upon receipt of such notice shall discontinue the work on the date and to the
extent specified in the notice, make all reasonable efforts to obtain cancellation of all orders and
Contracts to the extent they are related to the work terminated and terms satisfactory to the
Employer, stop all further subcontracting or purchasing activity related to the work terminated, and
assist the Employer in maintenance, protection, and disposition of the works acquired under the
Contract by the Employer.”

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 16 of 21

 Procedural Order No. 1

In the Arbitral Proceedings

Splash The Rock GmBH v. JVNL

1. The Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration pursuant
to Rule 9.3 of the SIAC Rules 2016 on September 15, 2024.

2. Following the discussions and the agreements reached in the telephone conference of September
18, 2024 [not reproduced], the Sole Arbitrator takes note of the following facts:

2.1. The respondent challenges the jurisdiction as the matter pertains to serious fraud.

2.2. The claimant has sought to amend the reliefs prayed for [not reproduced] due to subsequent
events. The claimant has added two reliefs:

2.2.1. Declare the termination notice dated 16.08.2024 as illegal.

2.2.2. In the alternative, direct the respondent to restitute the Claimant under Section 64 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872.

2.3. The Parties agree that in light of that arrangement and the issues in dispute, the Parties will
bifurcate the proceedings. The first part of the proceedings, i.e., the next round of submissions as
well as the first oral hearing, will be devoted to the challenge of the jurisdiction of the Sole
Arbitrator and the question of whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

2.4. Both Parties agreed to using a Redfern Schedule for the discovery and production of
documents.

2.5. All issues will be presented jointly at the oral hearing.

Both Parties have agreed in the telephone conference of September 15, 2024, that irrespective of the
outcome of the first part of the proceedings, a final decision on costs and damages should be
reserved for a separate award. The rationale for such an agreement is to allow both Parties to make
their submissions on costs and damages in light of the outcome of the merits.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 17 of 21

 Procedural Order No. 2

1. On September 20, 2024, the respondent filed an application for early dismissal as per Rule 29.1 of
the SIAC Rules, 2016 for a manifest lack of jurisdiction [not reproduced] and without prejudice to
the application, also requested the claimant to produce Ms. Munjya’s legal opinion. [Exhibit R4].

2. The respondent has also opposed the request for amendment on the ground that the Contract is
void ab initio. Hence, there can be no question of the termination being illegal. Further, if the
alternative plea of the claimant is considered by this tribunal, the respondent has expressly reserved
its right to file a counter-claim and will seek necessary relief under Section 75 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. As such, the application for early dismissal needs to be decided before this
tribunal can consider the amendments.

3. The claimant has opposed the application for early dismissal as not maintainable under Rule 29
of the SIAC Rules, 2016 and vehemently objected to the production request as Ms. Munjya’s legal
opinion is privileged and confidential.

4. Considering the agreements and considerations, the Arbitral Tribunal makes the following
orders:

4.1. In their next submissions and at the Oral Hearing in Lucknow, the Parties are required to
address the following issues:
4.1.1. Should the Tribunal allow the respondent’s application for early dismissal?
4.1.2. If not, can and should the Tribunal direct the claimant to produce Ms. Munjya’s legal
opinion?
4.1.3. Is the termination of the Contract valid in law?
4.1.4. Is the respondent liable to restitute the claimant?

4.2. For the Parties’ submissions the following Procedural Timetable applies:
4.2.1. CLAIMANT’s submission: no later than 27th January, 2025.
4.2.2. RESPONDENT’s submission: no later than 27th January, 2025.

4.3. The submissions are to be made in accordance with the Rules of the competition released by
the Moot Court Committee of RMLNLU, Lucknow.

4.4. Both parties agree that since the hearing will take place after SIAC Rules 2025 coming into force,
the present proceedings will take place under the SIAC Rules 2025.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 18 of 21

4.5. In the event Parties need further information, Requests for Clarification must be made no later
than 13th January, 2025 via the Google form provided in the official rulebook of the competition.
No Party is allowed to submit more than ten questions.

Parties are invited to attend the Oral Hearing scheduled for 21st-23rd February, 2025 in the campus of
RMLNLU, Lucknow. The details concerning the timing, and the venue will be provided in due course.

Ms. Tara Soft

Sole Arbitrator

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 19 of 21

 Exhibit R4
EXCERPT OF THE REDFERN SCHEDULE

Relevance and
Document(s)/
materiality
Category of
Reply to Tribunal’s
Documents Objections
objections decisions
Requested
Reasons for
Reference
request

Privilege does
Documents
To not apply to in-
related to The
determine the house counsel.
the claimant: document is
collusion Even otherwise
Press release privileged
between the the tribunal
(a) Legal and
claimant and can appoint a
opinion of Ms. confidential.
other bidders privilege
Munjiya
referee.

….. …. ….. ….. ….

….. …. ….. ….. ….

….. …. ….. ….. ….

..... …. ….. ….. ….

….. …. ….. ….. ….

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 20 of 21

 The Moot Proposition has been drafted by Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab. Any attempt to contact him shall result in
immediate disqualification.

***

The current Moot Proposition may not be used by any participant, or any other party, for any reason, including
intra-school competitions, without the prior written consent of the Organising Committee.

© Prof. (Dr.) Ajar Rab Page 21 of 21