Simulation - V Date : 15-11-2019

Student’s Name : Titus finny.M Roll no : 173017831109

… as claimant ( as National Mining and Development Corporatioin (NMDC))

. .
Written argument to Hon’ble Court
Before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana
1. I submit that, though this award is truly international award because the seat of arbitration is in
Singapore and truly commercial contract. But Indian courts will have concurrent Jurisdiction to
set aside arbitral award on grounds of sanctity of award
2. As per the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and conciliation act, arbitral award can be
challenged in the court with in one year
3. It is further submitted to give a stay on execution of the award on grounds of sanctity of the
award
4. It is further submitted that to set aside arbitral award because the Arbitrator was favorable to
SPRW so award is biased and parties were not given equal opportunity.
5. It is further submitted that on basis of Section - 34, the arbitral award is in conflict with the
public policy of India thus it can be challenged in Indian Courts.
6. Both the parties are from India, enjoying Indian constitutional rights and dwelling in the
protection of procedural laws of India, but chose the seat of arbitration in Singapore.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TDM Infrastructure Private Limited v UE Development
India Private Limited, said that, Indian parties and Companies incorporated in India should not
be permitted to derogate from Indian law, which being part of the public policy of the country
and hence cannot chose a foreign Seat of Arbitration [ section 34 (2) (b) (ii) ]
8. It is humbly submitted that If Indian parties choose a foreign governing law for their contracts
that will be a violation of public policy and hence such contracts are void under section 23 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, though it may not apply if we see in the light of Balco case, but the
sanctity can be challenged (being the award is biased and equal opportunity was not given) in
Indian court to get Justice as per Indian law being an Indian citizen.

Hence I pray Hon’ble Court to give a stay on execution of the award and further pray to set
aside arbitral award on grounds of
i) Sanctity of award because Arbitrator was favorable to SPRW, so award is biased and
parties were not given equal opportunity
ii) As per Hon’ble Supreme court Judgement, Indian parties and Companies incorporated in
India should not be permitted to derogate from Indian law, which being part of the public
policy of the country and hence cannot choose a foreign Seat of Arbitration hence the award
is not valid.
Counsel for Claimant

Titus Finny.M