CASE RECORD - 7TH NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION MOOT (Including Procedural Order No. 4)

7TH NLIU - JUSTICE R.K.
TANKHA MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL

ARBITRATION MOOT, 2022
CASE RECORD
IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
Dabhol Infrastructure Projects v. Louis Dreyfus Constructors & Suppliers
UNDER
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules, 2016
10 th March, 2022 ~ 13 th March, 2022
ORGANIZED BY:
Moot Court Association,

National Law Institute University, Bhopal
in association with
The office of Mr. Vivek K. Tankha,
Senior Advocate and Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
ACKNOWLEDGMENT - THE OFFICE OF MR. VIVEK TANKHA
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude and thanks to Mr. Vivek Tankha for his constant support
and guidance towards the successful organisation of this Moot.
We would also like to thank Mr. Varun Tankha, Mr. Varun K. Chopra, and Mr. Yagyavalkya
Shukla, members of the Office of Mr. Tankha, for their valuable help in the organisation of the Moot.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT - THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE
This Case Record has been co-authored by Mr. Girish Deepak and Mr. Nishanth Vasanth.
Mr. Vivekananda Neelakantan, Partner (Foreign Law), Allen & Gledhill, Singapore, Mr. Piyush
Prasad, Counsel (Foreign Law), WongPartnership LLP, and Ms. Sadhvi Mohindru, Associ ate, HFW,
Singapore also reviewed the case and provided their invaluable inputs.
Lastly, we also thank Mr. Prashant Mishra, Partner, L&L Partners Law Offices, (NLIU Batch of
2005), for his constant support and guidance.
Note: Teams are prohibited from contacting the aforementioned persons in relation to this Competition
directly or indirectly. The Administrators reserve the right to take any appropriate action, including
disqualification and/or blacklisting the participating institution and/or the memb ers found engaging in
such conduct.
2
INDEX
Sr. No. Particulars Page
1. Index. 2
2. Notice of Arbitration. 3
3. Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim. 4
4. Claimant Exhibit 1 (Project Installation and Construction Agreement). 11
5. Claimant Exhibit 2 (Supply and Design Agreement). 15
6. Claimant Exhibit 3 (Extension of time due to workers strike). 20
7. Claimant Exhibit 4 (In re request for extension dated July 11, 2017). 21
8. Claimant Exhibit 5 (Payments for Shipments of Steel). 22
9. Claimant Exhibit 6 (Re: Payments for Shipments of Steel). 23
10. Claimant Exhibit 7 (Decision on Steel Pricing Issue). 24
11. Claimant Exhibit 8 (Workers Strike, Extreme Weather Conditions causing 25

severe delays).
12. Claimant Exhibit 9 (Re: Workers Strike, Extreme Weather Conditions causing 26
severe delays).
13. Claimant Exhibit 10 (Interim Arrangement due to weather conditions). 27
14. Claimant Exhibit 11 (Damage and Quality concerns over furniture shipments) 28
15. Claimant Exhibit 12 (Re: Damage and Quality concerns over furniture 29
shipments)
16. Claimant Exhibit 13 (Bravoosi Times Article) 30
17. Response to Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Defence 31
18. Respondent Exhibit 1 (Request for extension on PICA deadline) 35
19. Respondent Exhibit 2 (Re: Request for extension on PICA deadline). 36
20. Respondent Exhibit 3 (Request for an extension for the completion of the final 37
phase of the PICA project).
3
21. Respondent Exhibit 4 (Re: Request for an extension for the completion of the 38
final phase of the PICA project)
22. Procedural Order No. 1 39
23. Request for dismissal or reducing responsibilities of Tribunal Secretary. 41
24. Respondent Exhibit 5 (Instructions for Drafting the Procedural Order, Award 42
and preparing summaries of submissions)
25. Statement of Opposition to Disclosure and Dismissal request 43
26. Procedural Order No. 2 (Update on Procedural Timetable and Procedural 44

Issues)

4
JOHN & MCENROE LLP.

Attorneys at Law
32 Grob Street, Blackstone, Xandar
T: (0) 287-4075 | F: (0) 287-4075 | E: office@johnmcenroe.co.xa
September 12, 2021
The Registrar
Court of Arbitration,
Singapore International Arbitration Centre
Singapore
SUB: NOTICE OF ARBITRATION
Dear Sir/Ma’am:
We represent Dabhol Infrastructure Projects which submits its arbitral claim against Loius Dreyfus
Constructors & Suppliers under Rule 3 of the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017 [hereinafter
referred as “SIAC Rules”].
We also hereby confirm that we have provided a copy of this arbitration claim to the Respondent,
which has been dispatched via courier service to their registered address. A copy of the receipt from the
courier service is attached. The total amount claimed is EUR 296 million.
The place of arbitration is Volantis, Democratic Republic of Braavos, as was agreed between the
parties prior to this dispute.
The Claimant exercising its power to nominate an arbitrator under the arbitration clause, nominates
Ms. Jessica Pearson, Managing Partner of Pearson Hardman as its arbitrator.
Yours sincerely,
Magdalina Cannata (Counsel for Claimant) Jeremy Pique (Counsel for Claimant)
JOHN & MCENROE LLP. JOHN & MCENROE LLP.
Attorneys at Law Attorneys at Law
32 Grob Street, Blackstone, Xandar 32 Grob Street, Blackstone, Xandar
Encl:
Notice of Arbitration
5
NOTICE OF ARBITRATION AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM

(Pursuant to Rule 3 of the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017)
in the arbitral proceedings
The Parties
Dabhol Infrastructure Projects

44 Tiananmen Square,
Havana,
Xandar ~Claimant~
Represented by John & Mcenroe LLP.
Louis Dreyfus Constructors & Suppliers

302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria ~Respondent~
I. Parties
1. Dabhol Infrastructure Projects [“Claimant”] is currently headquartered and was incorporated in

Xandar. Its headquarters are located at 44 Tiananmen Square, Havana, Xandar. The telephone
number and fax number is 0120-223740194. The email address used by the company and which
will be used for contact during this arbitration is officemanagement@dabhol.co.xa. The company
will be represented in this arbitration by Ms. Magdalina Cannata and Mr. Jeremy Pique of John
&Mceroe LLP, who are located at 32 Grob Street, Blackstone, Xandar, T: (0) 287-4075 | F: (0)
287-4075 |E-mail: office@johnmcenroe.co.xa
2. The Claimant is a multinational company that undertakes construction of large-scale infrastructure

projects such as bridges, power plants, oil platforms, skyscrapers etc. It is one of the global market
leaders in undertaking complex projects with one of the best track records worldwide in completing
projects within agreed timeframes in difficult conditions and terrains.
3. Louis Dreyfus Constructors & Suppliers [“Respondent”] is a state-owned company, incorporated

in Rotaria, which is classified as a ‘developing country’ under the recent IMF and World Bank
classification. Its head office is located at 302 Syracuse Road, Seealpsee, Rotaria. The telephone
number for contacting the head office is (041) 8303-2094 and the general email address is
louisdreyfuscs@general.co.ro.
4. The Respondent company, which was previously completely owned by the state, functions
currently as a public sector undertaking. The company is now only partly owned by the government
subsequent to its IPO in 2013. The Respondent’s primary business was to support major
construction projects in its own country. In 2013, after its semi-privatisation, the company also
diversified its portfolio to undertake large scale supply contracts to provide raw materials and
finished goods (such as furniture, etc. for interior designing) for projects in other nearby countries.
6
II. Background of the Dispute and Arbitration Claim
5. The Democratic Republic of Braavos is a country that transformed from a dictatorship to a

Democratic Republic only in 2010. Before the formation of a democratic government, the country
was long under the rule of Ms. Barkha Hayes, one of the only female dictators in the world. After
a long rule lasting over 36 years, she finally abdicated her rule due to poor health to her children.
Despite opportunities to continue the dictatorial rule, her foreign educated children, Dennis and
Jonah Hayes, influenced by ideas of liberalism and democratic peace which they had experienced
abroad, instead chose to transform the country into a Democratic Republic. Following this
transformation, the children abdicated any direct appointments in the new government focusing
instead on their individual talents. Dennis, a Harvard-educated lawyer, focused his energies on
developing the judiciary and common law system in the country, eventually becoming one of the
foremost jurists and academics in the country. His brother, an equally accomplished literature PhD
holder, focused his efforts on inculcating arts and literature in the new country.
6. The first task the newly democratically elected government focused on was to improve the
economic condition of the country. To this effect, in 2011, they began planning a massive city
reconstruction and development project to make the capital city, Volantis, into a global commercial
hub. After a long tendering process, which began in 2013, finally in 2014, they chose Dabhol
Infrastructure Projects (“Dabhol” or “Claimant”) to undertake this project, due to their global
reputation for excellence, quality, and ability to deliver projects on a timely basis. Despite the higher
price quoted in their tender offer, the Government of Braavos decided that a higher price was
worth the brand and associated prestige which would come with associating with the Dabhol
brand.
7. To this effect, the Government of Braavos concluded a Project Infrastructure and Construction
Agreement [Claimant Exhibit 1, hereinafter referred to as the “PICA”] on 27 August 2015 with the
Claimant, which provided all the technical specifications of the required projects, which included
construction of three bridges and three office-residential projects. Under this agreement, Dabhol
Infrastructure undertook the delivery of the project within 5 years, with a delivery date of 27 August
2020, which included all testing, inspections, and full operational handover of the completed
project.
8. The Agreement was structured as an initial agreement for the construction of all the residential
complexes, and also included an additional optional sign-on for the provision of interior designing
and furnishing of the residential complexes. This entire process was divided into four phases, which
included the Construction Phase, Testing & Inspection Phase, Interior Designing Phase,
Completion and Handover Phase.
9. Dabhol began the planning and the initial phases of the project for construction. During this time,
they contacted several of their major global suppliers and also simultaneously explored the potential
of signing on to the additional optional sign-on. Convinced that with these contacts and their
abilities, they could undertake the entire project, they signaled to the Bravoosi Government that
they would also sign on to the optional sign-on to provide the appliances and provide a complete
ready-to-use project.
10. However, during the negotiations with the Government of Braavos, it became clear that they had
intended to also use this project to signal their openness for business and build better relationships
with their neighboring countries, particularly with their largest trading partner Rotaria. To this
effect, the Government of Braavos insisted that Dabhol should employ Louis Dreyfus
Constructors & Suppliers (“LDCS'' or “Respondent”) instead of their usual suppliers, who were
relatively new to this industry, but had a stellar reputation in their recent projects.
11. Since they were committed to undertaking the whole project so that they could potentially cite this
flagship project as an example for future projects and tenders, Dabhol decided to at least review
the possibility of going through with this project with the involvement of LDCS and employed
Pippo & Co. to conduct extensive due diligence on LDCS. After a review of its background, recent
7
projects, availability of materials in Rotaria, and discussions with its executives and board, Dabhol
and LDCS finally came to an agreement for the supply of raw materials and the provision of the
interior furniture for the project. The two companies and the Government of Braavos finalized
this arrangement in the form of the Supply and Design Agreement [Claimant Exhibit 2, hereinafter
referred to as “SDA”] on 12 January 2016.
12. Considering the expedited due diligence and rushed nature of the contract, Pippo & Co. further
advised Dabhol to employ the internationally recognized FIDIC standards to draft the SDA. Since
the contract further included a supply of goods, they also advised that the best course may be to
make the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1988, the
applicable law to the SDA.
13. Clause II of the SDA stipulated that the Respondent would provide a continuous supply of raw
materials including the required steel and concrete for the completion of Phase I work by
28.08.2017 and ensure the delivery of goods in timely regular tranches of transport. It was mutually
decided that the Respondent would employ a suitable transportation agency or undertake the
transportation by itself.
14. To ensure that they would be able to meet these stringent deadlines for construction in Phase I,
the Claimant immediately on the conclusion of the PICA set out to make cost estimates and began
preparation of the architectural designs and sites for construction. By the time the SDA was
concluded, they were already in a position to begin construction. To ensure that the project had
financial stability, the arrangement was to have regular tranches of payment from the Government
of Braavos, which would then be redirected towards payments for supply and other running costs.
To adjust for any potential delay, the Claimant also set aside a separate contingency fund amounting
to EUR 100.5 million to ensure that the payments for supplies would never be delayed.
15. Right from the beginning of Phase I, there were a few hiccups during the process, but these did
not lead to a substantial dispute due to the presence of a dispute settlement board mechanism,
through which minor issues were resolved with a quick decision by the panel. (Clause 12, SDA)
16. However, these minor issues primarily arose due to delays in the supply of materials, despite
upfront payments made for the same by the Claimant. On 10.07.2016, the Respondent wrote to
the Claimant, seeking an extension of 20 days, for the supply of raw material due to be sent on
12.07.2016, due to alleged workers’ strike on their mining sites. [Claimant Exhibit 3]. The Claimant
considered the request and through a letter dated 11.07.2016, granted the extension. [Claimant
Exhibit 4]. This delivery was subsequently made on the extended deadline but caused several days
delay in construction.
17. There were subsequent allegations by the Respondent, which they voiced in a letter dated
23.09.2016, that the payments were made for incorrect amounts and did not reflect the actual value
of the increased price of steel, even threatening to stop shipments till this was resolved. [Claimant
Exhibit 5] The Claimant, alarmed by this sudden allegation, immediately requested the dispute
settlement board to rule on this issue through a letter dated 25.09.2016. [Claimant Exhibit 6] The
Board, after looking at the price adjustment clause in the SDA, ruled that the payments made by
the Claimant properly reflected the value agreed under the contract in a decision dated 03.10.2016.
[Claimant Exhibit 7]
18. Despite these delays, the project continued to be on track, until the Respondent finally in their
letter dated 17.11.2016 intimated that they had significant issues with weather conditions due to
unprecedented heatwaves, which was causing their workers to go on strike for better facilities and
there would be potentially long delays in the upcoming months. [Claimant Exhibit 8] Despite this
sudden potentially huge problem, the Claimant replied in their letter dated 23.11.2016 with the
intent to constructively resolve the issue. In the letter, the Claimant highlighted various approaches
including shifting focus to Phase III interior design work, which could be done indoors, so that in
the meantime, work could continue without disruption and the project would not suffer significant
delays. [Claimant Exhibit 9]
8
19. After several rounds of negotiations, the Claimant and Respondent came to an agreement, which
the Claimant formalized in a letter dated 12.12.2016. In this arrangement, the Respondent agreed
to focus on internal design for the remaining months of the heatwave and immediately resume
work once the heatwave was over. In the meantime, they would also send whatever raw materials
they already had, and procure as much steel as possible from other producers to minimize the
shortage of raw material in the meantime. [Claimant Exhibit 10]
20. After the heatwave subsided in April, 2017, the project smoothly continued through Phase I, with
all the major construction portions of Phase I and subsequent inspections of the project in Phase
II being fully completed by 18.08.2019. The inspection report was sent to the Government of
Braavos, which approved the project to move forward to the next phase.
21. The Project finally reached Phase III. In this phase, when the supply of the interior design and
furniture began, the Claimant noticed that the products seemed to have sustained damage and also
seemed to be of inferior quality to what had been agreed between the Parties under the SDA. They
highlighted these issues to the Respondent in their letter dated 13.10.2019. [Claimant Exhibit 11] In
their response, dated 22.10.2019 the Respondent informed the Claimant that they had purchased
some of the furniture from certain furniture stores and some of the others were perhaps damaged
in transportation and during storage from 2016. They advised the Claimant to have some of them
repaired at the site and they would be happy to send workers to help with the same. [Claimant
Exhibit 12]
22. This was however completely contrary to the agreement and subsequent arrangement between the
Parties, where the purchase of only raw materials was authorized to make up for the time where
mining was not possible due to the heatwave. Additionally, the Claimant had given sufficient extra
time to prepare the internal design materials, which made these defects even more inexcusable.
The Claimant had expected to be able to save time and expedite this phase to recover some of the
time lost due to the previous faults and delays caused by the Respondent. However, left with no
option at this critical last stage, they agreed to the plan mentioned by the Respondent and
proceeded to repair the furniture.
23. Despite the Claimant’s best efforts, the timeline was further delayed as a consequence of these
delays, and this led to the project being delayed finally by over 6 and a half months. Finally, when
the project was completed and Phase 4 began in August, 2020, the residential-office complex part
of the project was subjected to inspections again, which focused on interior designing. These were
finally completed and after a few months the Government of Braavos accepted the handover of
the project in December 2020, despite expressing some dissatisfaction with the final quality of the
interior design.
24. The Government however had about 2 months to complete payment of the final tranche under
the PICA. During this time, several offices, which had made advance rentals of the space and
residents began making use of the complexes. The renters quickly found that several of the
furnishings were flimsy and only had an outwardly new look. This led to a highly circulated smear
campaign on social media and news channels, initially in Braavos and subsequently in Rotaria and
Xandar as well, against Dabhol Infrastructure. Several major corporations that had settled into
these offices complained that Dabhol was no longer up to the standards that they previously were.
25. To ensure that the last tranche of payment was made on time, Dabhol regularly contacted the
Bravoosian Government and clarified to them that this was an issue on the part of the supplier
that they had chosen, namely, the Respondent, and made full disclosure of all the issues that they
had faced throughout the SDA. However, in consideration of their need to maintain close
relationships with their neighbors, the Bravoosi Government chose not to respond, instead
speaking to media teams and making statements that Dabhol had failed to live up to its stellar
reputation under the PICA. Additionally, the Bravoosi Government refused to pay the final tranche
and instead also initiated litigation against Dabhol in April 2021 for not performing its obligations
under the PICA.
9
26. This led to widespread panic over other Dabhol contracts, with both existing contractual parties
requesting double or triple quality checks and prospective clients pulling out of project
negotiations. Dabhol’s stock price halved overnight due to this aggressive smear campaign, and
despite publicly explaining the situation, they have never quite recovered from the damage to their
reputation and valuation. [Claimant Exhibit 13]
27. Due to all these above-mentioned circumstances, the only remedy available to Dabhol is to pursue
this arbitration and recover both damages and ensure that the Respondent is made liable for all its
lapses and inability to perform its obligations under the SDA.
III. Applicable law and the arbitration clause
28. Rotaria and Xandar are all parties to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods, 1988 [“CISG”].
29. Rotaria, Braavos, and Xandar have also adopted the 1985 text of the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration without amendment. Rotaria and Xandar are parties to the
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (“New York
Convention”).
30. The arbitration clause is found in Clause XIV of the SDA. It provides as follows:
“Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its
existence, validity or termination, shall be finally resolved by a three-member tribunal, with each party
appointing one arbitrator and the co-arbitrators jointly appointing the presiding arbitrator. The arbitration
will apply the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017. The seat of the arbitration will be Partasides,
Braavos. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings will be English.”
IV. Legal Conclusions
31. The Respondent has caused undue delays and breached the warranties/guarantees of the quality
of products provided in the contract. Moreover, the Tribunal must note that by failing to provide
proper goods and causing several undue delays, the Respondent has breached its obligations under
Article 33 and Article 35 of the CISG.
32. The Claimant is entitled to damages and loss of profits, including repayment of the costs incurred
in undertaking the project. The Respondent’s inability to perform its obligations under the contract,
despite several attempts to provide alternatives and accommodate means through which they can
perform their obligations clearly shows that the Respondent is completely at fault and liable for
damages in this case.
33. The Claimant believes that its experience serves as a precedent for any dealings with the
Respondent. The severe loss of global reputation and the damage both to its current and future
investments clearly shows that the Claimant should be entitled to receive exemplary damages in
addition to the damages payable under the Agreement.
V. Appointment of Arbitrator
34. The Claimant has nominated the following arbitrator:

Ms. Jessica Pearson
Pearson Hardman, 22 Westminster Abbey, Honolulu, Hawaii
Tel: (0) 2014-8822 |Email: jpearson@pearsonhardman.ha
10
VI. Relief
35. Consequently, the Claimant requests the Tribunal to:

▪ declare that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider this dispute;
▪ order the Respondent to pay damages to the Claimant amounting to EUR 296 million;
▪ order the Respondent to pay interest at the prevailing market rate in Xandar on the damages
claimed from the date of the breach to the date of payment;
▪ order the Respondent to pay an amount equal to 20% of the contract price as exemplary damages
for its wrongful conduct and the damage to both reputation and future profits suffered by
Claimant;
▪ order the Respondent to share the costs of arbitration, including legal costs incurred by the
Parties.
JOHN& MCENROELLP. JOHN& MCENROELLP.
Attorneys at Law Attorneys at Law
32 Grob Street, Blackstone, Xandar 32 Grob Street, Blackstone, Xandar
Encl: Claimant Exhibits C1-C13.

11
EXHIBIT C1
PROJECT INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
Whereas the Employer and Contractor commit to the construction and maintenance of infrastructure
projects in the Democratic Republic of Braavos;
Whereas the Employer agrees to pay the purchase price for the supply, installation and maintenance of all
the infrastructure projects governed by this Agreement;
Whereas the Parties agree that time is of the essence of this contract; and that the contractual milestones
will be complied with at every stage;
Whereas the Contractor undertakes to hand-over the Projects to the Employer within 5 years from the date
of signing the Agreement;
Whereas the Parties agree to make reasonable compromises whenever absolutely necessary;
The Parties, as defined in Clause I, agree on the following conditions:
CLAUSE I: PARTIES
Employer: The Government of the Democratic Republic of Braavos

represented by its Department of Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Development,
4, Xan Djuan de Gaztelugu-atxe, Dragonstone, Braavos - 1AQ CB2.
And
Contractor: Dabhol Infrastructure incorporated at 44 Tiananmen Square, Havana, Xandar 400001.
CLAUSE II: DEFINITIONS

“Date of Completion” means the date stated in the Taking-Over Certificate issued by the Employer or
the date on which the Works or Section are deemed to have been completed in accordance with the
Contract; or the date on which such part(s) are taken over or used by the Employer.
[…]
CLAUSE III: PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT

The performance of the Agreement involves the construction, installation, testing, and operational
handover of the following infrastructure projects:
1. One cantilever bridge spanning 7.86 kilometers in Dragonfell, Ohnoitdint, Braavos.

2. One reinforced concrete bridge spanning 11.2 kilometers in 5, Ong, Endfire, Braavos.
3. One reinforced concrete bridge spanning 3.0 kilometers in Landingtown, Take-off, Braavos.
4. Three quasi-residential commercial estate projects spanning 3764.44 acres in Braavos as per the
specifications in Clause X
12
CLAUSE V: APPLICABILITY OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT

The manner of performance of the Agreement, when differential for each construction project, is governed
by the differential terms of the Agreement, wherever applicable.
CLAUSE VI: COMPLETION OF WORKS

Contractor undertakes to ensure the complete operational handover of all the enumerated infrastructural
projects to the Employer on or before the date of termination of the Agreement.
The Contractor shall complete each Phase of the Project within the time specified under this Agreement
for the completion of such a Phase. Completion of work including completion of all work stated in the
Agreement shall be determined when there has been compliance with the contractual description or when
the Works have been sufficiently completed for the Employer to take over the Project.
The following stages of the contract are to be completed within the following timelines:
Phase Works Date of Completion
I Construction 31.12.2017
II Testing 30.02.2018
Inspection 30.12.2018
III Painting, Steel Railing and Toll 01.04.2019

Gates
01.06.2019
Wiring & Installation
01.10.2019
Designing and Furniture Fittings
01.02.2020
Landscaping
IV Completion & Handover 27.08.2020
[…]
CLAUSE IX: PURCHASE PRICE

The Employer undertakes to pay the entirety of the purchase price as well as the scheduled instalments for
each Phase without delay as per the schedule laid down in Annexure I – Payment Schedule.
CLAUSE X: SPECIAL PROVISIONS

Notwithstanding any obligations conferred on either party, the Commercial Real Estate projects will be
conducted in the following phases:
13
Phase I – Construction Phase

Construction of three quasi-residential commercial spaces each spanning 20,000 square feet at the following
addresses:
1. 221B Confectioner Street, Ohnoitdint, Braavos.
2.5A, 129 W., 81st St., Old York, Braavos.
3.SvS, 8.8, Over Central Perk, Landingtown, Braavos.
Construction will be as per the ISO standards relevant for structural integrity (ISO 150298:2015),
environmental safety and design (ISO 18566:2019).
Phase II - Testing & Inspection Phase

Ensuring the compliance of all the three structures with the relevant ISO standards through a third-party
inspector designated by the Employer. The costs of Third-Party Inspection will be borne by the Employer.
Phase III – Interior Designing Phase

Subject to the completion of the first two phases, the Employer may choose to enact an agreement with
the Contractor for the interior design, furnishing and to further authorize the Contractor to enact other
sub-contracts for the same if it chooses to do so.
The Employer may conduct an inspection of any or all of the premises, during the completion of Phase II
and then communicate their intent to engage the services of the Contractor for Phase III.
Phase IV – Completion and Handover

Notwithstanding whether the Contractor has been entrusted with the obligations of Phase III, the
Contractor would be liable for the completion of the contract and hand over each of the commercial real
estate in a ready-to-move-in manner and suitable for all the purposes consistent with this Agreement.
[...]
CLAUSE XIV: TERMINATION
The Parties reserve the right to terminate this Agreement, upon serving a notice 15 days prior to such
termination, on grounds of the other Party’s inability or failure to perform its obligations under the
Agreement, unless such inability or failure has been condoned by the other Party.
CLAUSE XV: DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE
1. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding
its existence, validity or termination, shall be finally resolved by a sole arbitrator appointed in
accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the SIAC Rules for the time being in force.
2. The seat of the arbitration will be Partasides, Braavos.
3. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings will be English.
14
CLAUSE XVI: CHOICE OF LAW
This Agreement is governed by the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods, 1988. For issues
not dealt with by this Convention the UNIDROIT Principles are applicable.
Effected on: 27 August 2015

15
Exhibit C2
SUPPLY AND DESIGN AGREEMENT
Whereas the Parties have gone through the Project Installation and Construction Agreement (“PICA”)
signed between the Buyer and the Government of Braavos and are cognizant that the obligations under
this Agreement are in furtherance of the Buyer’s obligations under the PICA;
Whereas the Parties understand that time is of the essence of the Agreement;
Whereas the Parties stipulate that both the Buyer and the Seller will maintain the highest standards of
integrity in their dealings;
The Parties having cooperated in a comprehensive audit of the Supplier undertaken by a third-party analyst
and adhere to the findings of the due-diligence report;
The Parties as described in Clause I agree on the following terms:
Clause I: Parties and Definitions

Supplier: Louis Dreyfus Constructors & Suppliers
Buyer: Dabhol Infrastructure Projects
“Day” means a calendar day and “year" means 365 Days. For payment obligations, Day refers to a business
day but a year means 365 calendar days.
“Designated Site” refers to the Site for Delivery of Raw Materials at each of the Projects mentioned in
Schedule I.
“Government Funder” refers to the Finance Department of the Government of Bravoos in its capacity
of providing additional and contingency payments to the Supplier, but does not constitute a Third Party
Funder for the purposes of dispute settlement;
“Projects” refers to all infrastructure projects that have been listed in Schedule I to the Agreement;
“Raw Materials” means any unprocessed material that is required for the construction of the Project
including but not limited to the materials listed in Schedule II.
Unless the context requires otherwise, definitions are to be read consistently with the PICA, the FIDIC
Suite of Contracts and the communications between the Parties.
Clause II: Obligations of the Supplier

● The Supplier shall ensure an uninterrupted and timely supply of Raw Materials to the Buyer for
use in the Projects in accordance with Clause III of the Agreement.
● The Supplier shall ensure that the Raw Materials are of the quality stipulated by the Buyer and
quality required for the Projects.
● The Supplier shall undertake to deliver the Raw Materials to the Buyer at the relevant Designated
Site.
16
● The Supplier shall cooperate with the Buyer or its designate in the inspection of the Raw Materials
provided that the Buyer has communicated the intent to inspect.
Clause III: Delivery Obligations

The Supplier shall deliver the Raw Materials in accordance with the following timeline:
Phase I of Project Construction
Last Date of Delivery Goods to be Delivered
12.07.2016 ● Steel - 145 tonnes

Delivery I ● Concrete – 70 tonnes
● Asphalt - 20 tonnes
● Iron, Timber, Rubber and other building
equipment
22.09.2016 ● Steel - 100.5 tonnes

Delivery II ● Concrete - 55 tonnes
● Asphalt - 12 ton
equipment
14.12.2016 ● Steel - 70.5 tonnes

Delivery III ● Concrete - 35 tonnes
● Asphalt - 11 ton
equipment
13.02.2017 ● Steel - 30.5 tonnes

Delivery IV ● Concrete - 23 tonnes
● Asphalt - 8 ton
equipment
28.08.2017 ● Steel - 30.5 tonnes

Delivery V ● Concrete - 23 tonnes
● Asphalt - 8 ton
equipment
Phase III of Interior Design
Last Date of Delivery Goods to be Delivered
12.04.2019 ● Furniture and Furnishings for 20

Delivery I Residential Houses and 4 Corporate
Offices
● Interior Fittings
● Plumbing and Electrical Equipment
● Paint and Whitewash
● Wooden Planks, Fiber Glass
17

Delivery II Residential Houses and 4 Corporate
Offices
● Wooden Planks, Fiber Glass

Delivery III Residential Houses and 4 Corporate
Offices

Delivery IV Residential Houses and 4 Corporate
Offices

Delivery V Residential Houses and 4 Corporate
Offices
[...]
Clause VI: Contract Price and Payment

● The Parties agree that the entire price for the Contract shall be EUR 150 million.
● The Supplier shall be responsible for all taxes, duties and fees required to be paid by him under the
Contract, and the Contract Price shall not be adjusted for any of these costs, unless specified in
this Contract.
● The Buyer shall be responsible for the payment of the entire contractual price. However, the Price
may be paid in instalments coincident with each Phase of delivery, payable on the dates stipulated
in the payment schedule indicated below or within 48 hours of the date of delivery if it was
delivered before the date indicated as the date of delivery in Clause III.
Date of Payment Amount Due (in EUR)
14.07.2016 40.5 million

Tranche I
24.09.2016 27.5 million

Tranche II
16.12.2016 17 million
Tranche III
15.02.2017 7.5 million

Tranche IV
18
30.08.2017 7.5 million

Tranche V
14.04.2019 10 million
Tranche VI
16.06.2019 10 million
Tranche VII
24.10.2019 10 million
Tranche VIII
15.12.2019 10 million
Tranche IX
28.02.2020 10 million
Tranche X
Clause VII: Contingency Fund

● The Buyer undertakes to provide a sum of EUR 100.5 million in escrow as contingency fund to
ensure that the payment obligations are made on time.
● The Supplier would have the right to issue a demand notice against the escrow account if any
tranche of payment is not made on the date of Payment mentioned in Clause VI or 48 hours from
the date of delivery.
● The Buyer shall honour the demand notice and ensure the release of the funds from the
Contingency account within 2 Days from the time of receipt of the Demand Notice.
Clause VIII: Government Funding

● The Government Funder undertakes to provide a sum of EUR 10 million every 60 days
commencing from 22.01.2019 to the Buyer.
● The Buyer shall not use the monies transferred by the Government Funder or the interests accrued
on the monies transferred for any other purpose except towards the payment obligations owed to
the Supplier.
● The Government Funder shall ensure an uninterrupted supply of funds for the first two phases
and thereafter, shall ensure an uninterrupted supply of funds for at least half the amount that is
owed by the Buyer to the Supplier.
● The Buyer will notify the Supplier of any changes in circumstances with respect to this funding
arrangement with the Funder and any other relevant communication pertaining to the Projects.
[...]
Clause X: Governing Law

The Agreement shall be governed by the United Nations Convention on the Sale of Goods, 1988 (“the
CISG”). The terms of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers, 1999 (“the FIDIC”) may be
used to interpret those terms which refer to the construction aspects of the Contract.
[...]
Clause XII: Dispute Adjudication Board

If a dispute arises between the Parties in connection with, or arising out of the Contract or the execution
of the Works either Party may refer the dispute in writing to the DAB for its decision with copies to the
other Party. Such reference shall state that it is given under this Sub-Clause.
19
The DAB will be constituted by three persons and the DAB shall be deemed to have received such reference
on the date when it is received by the chairman of the DAB.
Both Parties shall promptly make available to the DAB all such additional information, further access to
the Site and appropriate facilities. as the DAB may require for the purposes of making a decision on such
a dispute. The DAB shall be deemed to be not acting as arbitrator(s) for the purposes of Clause XIV.
Within 84 days after receiving such reference or within such other period as may be stipulated by the DAB
and approved by both Parties, the DAB shall give its decision which shall be reasoned and shall state that
it is given under this sub-clause. The decision shall be binding on both Parties who shall promptly give
effect to it unless and until it shall be revised in an amicable settlement or an Arbitral award as described
below. Unless the Contract has already been abandoned, repudiated or terminated, the Parties shall continue
to proceed with the Works in accordance with the Contract.
If either Party is dissatisfied with the DAB's decision. then either Party may, within 28 days after receiving
the decision, give notice to the other Party. If the DAB fails to give its decision within the period of 84 days
(or as otherwise approved) after receiving such reference. then either Party may within 28 days after this
period has expired give notice to the other Party of its dissatisfaction.
[...]
Clause XIV: Dispute Resolution

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its
existence, validity or termination, shall be finally resolved by a three-member tribunal, with each party
appointing one arbitrator and the co-arbitrators jointly appointing the presiding arbitrator. The arbitration
will apply the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017. The seat of the arbitration will be Partasides,
Braavos. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings will be English.
The parties agree that they will equally share the arbitration costs of the proceeding.
Clause XV: Staff and Labour

● Except as otherwise specified, the Supplier shall make arrangements for the engagement of all staff
and labour, local or otherwise and for their payment, housing, feeding and transport.
● The Supplier shall stipulate rates of wages and observe conditions of labour which are not
Conditions of labour lower than those established for the construction industry.
● The Contractor shall at all times take all reasonable precautions to maintain the health and safety
of the Contractor's Personnel. In collaboration with local health authorities, the Contractor shall
ensure that medical staff, first aid facilities, sick bay and ambulance service are available at all times
at the site.
Clause XVI: Time and Delays

Except stipulated otherwise in the Agreement, the Parties shall not delay their obligations owed to the other
Party for any foreseeable reason and shall provide reasons in the event of any unforeseen reasons. The
reason for the delay shall be explained to the other party in writing no later than a day after the triggering
event.
Effected on: 12 January 2016

20
EXHIBIT C3
To
Alex Morgan,
Head of Procurement Division
Havana,
Xandar
July 10, 2016
Sub: Extension of time due to workers strike
Dear Ms. Morgan,
Hope you have been keeping well and congratulations on what Jonathan from your team mentioned as a
beautiful young baby girl. We hope both mother and daughter and keeping well.
As we communicated to your team over the phone on our last quarterly check-up call, while you were on
maternity leave, the progress on the SDA has been going smoothly so far. We have had a few worker
complaints, due to some union issues, but it’s not going to cause any major delay to the progress we have
already made.
While we have sufficient stockpiles of raw materials (steel, concrete, etc.), we are facing a union workers
strike which is causing some delays to our progress in preparing the materials and getting them ready for
shipping. We had hoped to manage this on our side, but we assure you that we are working very hard to
minimize the delay.
Despite our best efforts, these circumstances have compelled us to request a short extension of our next
delivery deadline by 20 days. Therefore, we would request you to grant us an extension till August 01, 2016.
Do let us know if this is agreeable with you.
Looking forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Penelope Clearwater
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
21
EXHIBIT C4
To
Penelope Clearwater
Chief Labour Officer
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
July 11, 2016
Sub: In re request for extension dated July 11, 2017
Dear Ms. Clearwater,
Hope this letter finds you well.
Thank you so much for your warm welcome back and yes indeed both me and my daughter Luna are doing
great.
We are happy to accommodate your request for an extension, but we sincerely hope that the situation is
not something we should prepare for or plan ahead for and this can be resolved at the earliest.
While we of course understand that these issues come up, we hope you will be able to resolve this
comprehensively without any cause for further delays down the line for the project. While such a small
extension and delay may be accommodated, any even slightly longer delay could prove fatal for our hard-
earned progress so far.
As you are well aware, we are also operating on a very tight schedule set by the Bravoosi Government and
we would like to ensure that we can deliver on our promises under the PICA.
Warm regards,
Alex Morgan
Head of Procurement Division,
Havana,
Xandar
22
EXHIBIT C5
To
Alex Morgan,
Havana,
Xandar
September 23, 2016
Sub: Payment for Shipments of Steel
Dear Ms. Morgan,
Hope you have been keeping well.
We are writing to you with reference to the payment for the latest shipment of Steel that we dispatched.
While we have provided the complete shipment and the payment for the steel corresponds to the payment
under SDA, we have to inform you that the price of steel has since increased significantly.
The SDA fixes the price for steel at EUR 500/tonne, however due to countrywide shortages, the domestic
prices have since increased EUR 555/tonne. As you are well aware there is a price adjustment mechanism
in the contract which specifically addresses this issue, according to which the prices under the SDA must
be adjusted according to continuing changes in the prices to adjust for inflation.
We would therefore request that you accommodate the adjusted price and provide us with the remaining
balance of EUR 135,000 for the current shipment and accommodate this price for future shipments as well.
We would be waiting for your response and will be stopping shipments in the meantime.
Do let us know at the earliest when and how you will be making this additional payment.
Looking forward to a positive response,
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Negreanu
Legal Division
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
23
EXHIBIT C6
To
Daniel Negreanu
Legal Division
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
September 25, 2016
Sub: Re: Payment for Shipments of Steel
Dear Mr. Negreanu,
I write to you on behalf of Dabhol. We are quite alarmed by the sudden request for this additional payment,
which was not even raised during our quarterly meeting call, which just happened last week, by any of the
members in your procurement division.
We are of course well aware of the price adjustment mechanism, which is actually supposed to
accommodate inflation over the course of the contract and does not apply to specific price rises such as the
situation you mention in your letter. We would also like to remind you that this is a dispute which should
be referred to the Dispute Settlement Board, under the SDA and we are sure you would be happy to have
the panel rule on this and abide by its decision.
Do let us know if this is agreeable with you.
Warm regards,
Rachel Dawes
Chief Legal Officer
Havana,
Xandar
24
EXHIBIT C7
From: Danielle Schäfer <danielle.schafer@arbitrationchambers.com> Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:30PM
To: Daniel Negreanu <daniel.negreanu@ldcs.ro>; Rachel Dawes <rdawes@dabholinfra.xa>

Cc: Jessie Krier <jessie.krier@arbitrator.com>; Delta Jones <delta.jones@jonesandco.com>
Sub: Decision on Steel Pricing Issue
Dear Parties,
Hope this e-mail finds you well.
This is in reference to your letters dated September 23, 2016 and September 25, 2016 based on which the
parties subsequently agreed to reference this dispute over the proper price for the steel shipment delivered
on September 15, 2016.
In accordance with the SDA, this three member DAB, consisting of myself, Danielle Schäfer (umpire),
Jessie Krier (nominated by Dabhol) and Delta Jones (nominated by LDCS) have been constituted to decide
this issue.
To this effect, this panel arranged an urgent video-conference to allow the parties to present their positions
on these issues and explain their stance as elaborated in their letters dated September 23, 2016 and
September 25, 2016. In the video-conference hearing dated September 28, 2021, the parties both presented
written submissions via email and further explained their reasons for their respective positions.
Based on an extensive review of both the written submissions and the oral arguments made by the parties
(which is not reproduced or directly quoted in this decision for reasons of brevity), this panel has come to
the following decision.
Decision
This panel has rejected the arguments and interpretation put forward by LDCS. To this effect, this panel
decides that the price adjustment clause is limited in ambit to only adjust prices based on gradual inflation
and currency fluctuation (devaluation of the EUR). This clause has no application in situations of price rise
caused by shortage of supply in steel, this is in fact a risk undertaken by the supplier under the contract and
is hence well within the ambit of the liability of LDCS.
Based on this reasoning and decision, the price of the steel was properly paid by Dabhol and will continue
to remain fixed at EUR 500/tonne for future shipments as well.
Yours sincerely
Danielle Schäfer,
Chair Arbitrator, Dispute Resolution Board
25
EXHIBIT C8
To
Alex Morgan,
Havana,
Xandar
November 17, 2016
Sub:
Dear Ms. Morgan,
We would like to inform you that there have unfortunately been significant problems with our supply
mechanism since most of our workers have gone on strike. Due to these strikes we expect there to be
significant delays in the preparation of the raw materials and delivery of the same over the coming months.
The primary reason for these strikes is the excessive heat which is a result of an unexpected heatwave which
has been going through Rotaria. Due to this heatwave the workers have unionised and are asking for several
extra breaks, additional workers to have shorter shifts etc. In addition, there are several studies which have
reported significant health risks of working in this weather and we are not in a position to provide such
healthcare or put our workers at risk.
We would therefore request your understanding in this situation and hope that you will be able to
accommodate future delays that are likely to occur due to this sudden weather change.
Sincere regards,
Penelope Clearwater
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
26
EXHIBIT C9
To
Penelope Clearwater
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
November 23, 2016
Sub: Re: Workers Strike, Extreme Weather Conditions causing severe delays
While we are very dismayed at this sudden unexpected delay, we very much understand that many of these
situations are outside of our control at times. However, we must also equally insist that we must continue
progressing on our agreement to the best of our capabilities and minimise these delays as much as possible
in the coming months.
Since the mining is being stopped due to the bad weather situation, one suggestion that comes to mind is
to focus some of the work force towards the construction of Phase III internal furniture and other items
which can be made indoors so that we continue making progress at the same pace during this time without
any significant delays.
Hopefully through this and some other measures we can cover up for this delay in later phases of the
project and provide the complete project still within the time frame. As you are also aware, we are still on
a very tight deadline, since our project and proposal was accepted by the Bravoosi Government based on
our ability to deliver on time, which is a reputation we hope to protect at all costs.
We are happy to have a round of urgent and emergency meetings between our team and yours to reach a
comprehensive solution to this problem so that we can help and maybe minimise the potential delays in
the project moving forward.
Do contact us to set up the time and dates for the meetings and let's form a task force immediately to deal
with these issues, involving all the top officers and major decision makers involved in the project. From
our side we would include myself, our Chief Legal Officer, our Regional Head and our Chief Project
Manager (primary in-charge of the PICA project).
Warm regards,
Alex Morgan,
27
EXHIBIT C10
To
Penelope Clearwater
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
December 12, 2016
Sub: Interim Arrangement due to weather conditions
We would like to thank both your team and you for the highly productive negotiations over the past week.
We were delighted by the progress we made through the meetings to resolve several long standing issues
to bring the project back on track.
Please find below the details of the final agreement between the parties as we have understood it:
1. Dabhol Infrastructure undertakes to extend deadlines and timelines for delivery of raw materials
and products in accordance with Clause XVI of the SDA to accommodate the unexpected weather
conditions. This extension will only be valid for the duration of the exceptional circumstances
persisting.
2. LDCS undertakes to make every effort to provide the required raw materials and final products in
the meantime by all means possible. This also includes purchasing products and material from
third-party suppliers to ensure that the maximum amount of material is transferred and the
shipping delays and shortages are kept to a minimum. The Parties agree to share any additional
costs for these purchases.
3. LDCS also undertakes to immediately begin production on Phase III interior products to ensure
that this time is spent productively and the delay to the project can be recovered in later stages of
the project.
4. Both Parties agree that this constitutes an effective amendment to the terms of the SDA and agree
to abide by these provisions.
We hope these terms appear as we agreed during our negotiations. We look forward to continuing our
cooperation and making this project a success.
Warm regards,
Alex Morgan,
28
EXHIBIT C11
To
Panagniakos Mavropanos
Chief Project Manager (SDA Project)
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
October 13, 2019
Sub: Damage and Quality concerns over furniture shipments
Dear Mr. Mavropanos,
We have just received your latest shipment of interior furniture and installations for the Office and
Residential Buildings in the PICA project.
Unfortunately, we have found several issues and problems with this shipment. A lot of the furniture is not
up to the standards which were outlined in the SDA agreement and have used poor or questionable
materials in their construction. Additionally, several of the products look second-hand and have sustained
damage from usage as well.
We are quite certain that this will not meet the standards required in the inspection and handover phase,
and the Bravoosi Government will be most displeased with this quality of final product. We would kindly
request that you take serious note of these concerns and rectify and provide us with better installations for
the office and residential complexes. We would also hope that these concerns are addressed at the
manufacturing and transport level so that all future shipments also adhere to better standards and suit the
requirements of the contract as outlined in the SDA.
Since we are in the final stages, there is not much time and we had hoped that the furniture would be of
much better quality since the production of this actually began in early parts of the first phase itself.
Please contact us at the earliest so that we can resolve this as expeditiously as possible.
Warm regards,
Alex Morgan,
Havana,
Xandar
29
EXHIBIT C12
To
Alex Morgan,
Havana,
Xandar
October 22, 2019
Sub: Re: Damage and Quality concerns over furniture shipments
Dear Ms. Morgan,
We are happy to address your concerns over the furniture and installations. We would like to clarify at the
outset that due to the time sensitive nature of the contract which you have stressed on throughout this
contract, we have manufactured the goods in a bit of a haste and therefore there may be some small defects.
We would also like to inform you that since we did not want to cause any delays to the project, we have
also procured some furniture from outside markets as we had previously agreed in the case of shortage of
raw materials as well, in the phase one of the project.
Some of these furniture items may also have been damaged in transportation as you are well aware these
items are far more delicate than the raw materials and goods we were transporting in the previous phase.
We will make suitable arrangements for a more secure transfer of the goods moving forward.
We are of course happy to provide some of our craftsmen and workers to carry out repairs on site for the
furniture and help in its better installation as well, so that the project can progress smoothly.
Do let us know how you would like to proceed with respect to the same and we will make all the necessary
arrangements to accommodate your requests at the earliest.
Yours sincerely,
Panagniakos Mavropanos
Chief Project Manager (SDA Project)
302 Syracuse Road
Seealpsee
Rotaria
30
EXHIBIT C13
BRAVOOSI TIMES
Has Dabhol Infra lost its edge?
PUBLISHED FRI, May 21 2021 8:27 AM EDT
John Jackson
The flagship PICA project undertaken by Dabhol Infrastructure & Projects along with Loius Dreyfus
Constructors & Suppliers has come under massive criticism from all fronts including the Bravoosi
Government and various independent companies which have made use of their office spaces.
The company, which is well known for its amazing designing and delivery of perfect completed projects
has undertaken this massive infrastructure development and construction project in early 2015, promising
delivery by 2021. However, despite delaying the project by several months which resulted in several
companies incurring extra costs as they simply waited for the project to be completed so that they can shift
into the offices and begin their work, even the final end product was highly questionable.
Just have a look at the initial designs that Dabhol promised and look at the final end product and decide
for yourself.
ORIGINAL DESIGN - OFFICE SPACE ACTUAL PICTURES FROM SITE
It clearly seems like Dabhol has completely lost its edge in undertaking such projects, could this
be the result of their recent change in management or is this simply the end of the road for this
company. Several multi-national IT companies such as Delta, Peerview and Daemon and now
reconsidering their future negotiations on projects with the company and spokespersons claim
that they are also trying to find ways to exit existing contracts.
31
Osaka Law Genisys

Phuket Complex, 22 Serene Road
Sealpsee, Rotaria
November 15, 2021
The Registrar
Court of Arbitration,
Singapore International Arbitration Centre
Singapore
Re: DABHOL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS v. LOUIS DREYFUS CONSTRUCTORS &

SUPPLIERS
Dear Sir/Ma’am:
This is to acknowledge receipt of the letter dated September 12, 2021 with the enclosures C-1 to
C-13, and particularly confirming receipt also of the Request for Arbitration and Statement of Claim
submitted by Dabhol Infrastructure against my client, Louis Dreyfus Constructors and Suppliers.
The response to the notice of arbitration and statement of defence is submitted herewith, we would
like to inform you that the Respondent nominates Ms. Helena Bonham Carter, Senior Partner at Carter,
Wellington & Co. as its nominated arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the Parties.
Yours sincerely,
Naomi Osaka (Counsel for Respondent)

Osaka Law Genisys
Sealpsee, Rotaria
E-mail: naomi.osaka@genisys.ro
Encl:
Response to Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Defense
32
November 15, 2021
RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ARBITRATION AND STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

(Pursuant to Rule 4 of the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017)
Background
1. The Respondent (LDCS) denies all averments made in the Statement of Claim, except for those
which have been specifically admitted. The Respondent also states at the outset that the Claimant
has manipulated facts to present an extremely distorted picture and a legal position which deserves
to be rejected by the arbitral tribunal.
2. The Respondent is a semi-private company working towards the upliftment and betterment of the
people of Rotaria. The Respondent has been in operation for more than a decade and has been
extremely active in developing major infrastructure projects similar to the present project and was
SOLVING
therefore chosen as a partner THE
in this CONUNDRUM OF FEES IN INDIAN ARBITRATIONS
project.
3. In order to diversify our portfolio further after semi-privatisation in 2013, the Respondent brought
together all the suppliers in Rotaria to form a separate division of the company catering to supply of
raw materials and interior decoration for large-scale office-residential projects. This division was
highly successful and is globally renowned due to its ability to supply all types of projects in various
scales through the cumulative tie-up arrangement between companies.
4. When the PICA project was announced, the Respondent was naturally considered as one of the
frontrunners to act as the supplier for this contract and as expected the SDA contract was awarded
to the Respondent due to its well known brand and previous expertise in such contracts. Over the
course of the project, the Respondent has always kept the Claimant aware of any issues that arose
promptly and has taken every possible measure to mitigate the damage and delay to the project.
Furthermore, all of the actions taken by the Respondent were clearly pursuant to further
arrangements and agreements concluded with the Claimant.
5. The following sections of this response clearly establish the stance of the Respondent with respect
to the claims raised in the notice of arbitration and raise additional issues relating to the arbitration
which the Claimant has failed to disclose to this tribunal.
Arbitration Claim
6. The dispute raised by the claimants is both meritless and simply an attempt to implicate the
Respondent for a simple case of overpromising and under delivering in their contract for the PICA
project. Right from the negotiation stage of the contract, the Claimant made lofty promises of
delivering several completed projects within an unreasonable time frame and at various points during
the contract attempted to implicate the Respondent for their inability to deliver.
7. Almost every delay caused by the Respondent is a consequence of either severe weather conditions
or unrealistic time constraints imposed upon by the Claimant to deliver goods and materials. The
unexpected weather conditions are clearly an exceptional case, which is covered under the act of god
doctrine. Additionally, the Claimant themselves also agreed to extend all the timelines and other
deadlines under the contract in the case of the exceptional circumstances.
8. As is evident from the letters and Dispute Resolution Board Decision marked as C1 -C12 in the
Claimant’s notice of arbitration, the Claimant and Respondent have been in constant communication
throughout this project and the Respondent has made every effort to keep the Claimant abreast of
all the developments in the progress of the project. Despite these efforts and informing the Claimant
in a timely manner and giving reasons for each delay, which the Claimant accepted at that time, the
33
Claimant has chosen to initiate this arbitration in complete bad faith and distort the factual situation
to their benefit.
9. The Claimant has in fact hidden several critical pieces of information regarding the project from the
Respondent throughout the course of the project. This is clearly seen in the Claimant’s reticence to
disclose to the tribunal that on 22.12.2016, the Claimant informed the Government of Braavos of
the situation and requested a 6-month extension on the PICA contract completion date. [Respondent
Exhibit 1] The Government of Braavos, in their response dated 28.12.2016, granted only a 3-month
extension, stating that this should be enough to offset the delays mentioned. [Respondent Exhibit 2]
10. This information would have been critical to the success of the project and the Claimant chose to
not even disclose the fact that they had unilaterally negotiated an extension with the Government of
Braavos. If the Respondent had known of these extensions, as opposed to the Claimant insisting
that the project follow the initial schedule at all times, several efforts could have been made to further
improve the project with this additional time.
11. This happened not only once, but twice, as can be seen from the communication between the
Government of Braavos and the Claimant in mid-June 2020 [Respondent Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4]. This
clear lack of communication and the conduct of the Claimant to insist that all the deliverables be
made on the contractually agreed timeline is the primary reason for the failure of this project.
12. Any claims for exemplary damages must similarly fail in this context. It is evident that damages in
this case are not a consequence of the actions of the Respondent, and there is definitely no evidence
that this could have led to any exemplary damages merely because there were media reports which
held the Claimant responsible for their mismanagement of the project.
Disclosure of Funder and Conflict
13. The veil of secrecy maintained by the Claimant does not end here. The Claimant has also failed to
disclose that their claim is presently funded by a very wealthy individual, Mr. Joseph Jonas, who has
agreed to foot the bill on their claim and its legal expenses. This information has come to light
through public filings made by Mr. Jonas’s companies.
14. The Respondent is currently aware that Mr. Jonas presently owns over 39 companies across various
countries around the world. These companies are represented by various law firms and have various
interactions with several other companies, which could lead to potential conflicts with any of the
arbitrators nominated or the president chosen to decide this dispute.
15. Additionally, it has come to our attention that Mr. Jonas was part of a highly publicized romantic
relationship and subsequent divorce with the Claimant’s appointed arbitrator, Ms. Pearson. Despite
this, they have since appeared in social media and other public events and appear to be on good
terms, having been photographed meeting frequently with their children on holidays and other
events. While this does not directly point to a conflict, it does raise severe doubts towards the
appearance of bias in the appointment of Ms. Pearson. These circumstances are well recognized as
an appearance of bias under IBA Rules on Conflict of Interest, 2015, which are often used to support
tribunal’s analysis of bias under institutional rules.
16. This lack of disclosure appears to be a planned strategy to bias one arbitrator in the favour of the
Claimant. This tactic was also used by the Claimant during the DRB proceedings, where the presiding
panelist is a Harvard Law alumni, who studied law at the same time that Mr. Jonas was studying his
Master’s in Business Administration.
17. This pattern of hiding information and using prior connections of their funder clearly shows mala
fide intent on the part of the Claimant in refusing to disclose this arrangement in advance and
providing the Respondent the opportunity to test these conflicts before the SIAC Court.
34
Relief
18. Respondent requests the Tribunal to:

▪ declare that the Claimant’s allegations are baseless and the allegations of the breach of the
SDA are unfounded;
▪ declare that the Respondent has not breached any of its obligations under the SDA;
▪ declare that the Claimant should have disclosed their funding arrangement and that the
relationship between the funder and Claimant appointed arbitrator raise issues of
arbitrator bias;
▪ and order the Claimant to bear all the legal and arbitration costs of the Respondent for
these proceedings;
▪ order the Claimant to pay post-award interest at the national bank interest rate prevailing
in Rotaria on the costs awarded starting from 30 days after the final award.

Osaka Law Genisys
Sealpsee, Rotaria
E-mail: naomi.osaka@genisys.ro
Encl: Respondent Exhibits R1-R4.

35
EXHIBIT R1
To
Janos Slynt
General Manager
Division for Federal Infrastructure Projects & Contracts
Ministry of Infrastructure, Government of Braavos
22 National Road, Braavos
22 December 2016
Sub: Request for Extension on PICA deadline

Dear Mr. Slynt,
I am writing on behalf of Dabhol Infrastructure Projects, which was granted the tender for the Project
Installation and Construction Agreement, which included 3 bridges and 3 residential-office complexes
within Braavos. We have been progressing well on the construction and development of the project,
including with our tie-up for supplies with Loius Dreyfus Constructors and Suppliers (thank you for
recommending them to us).
However, due to some unforeseen weather circumstances and some labour issues with worker strikes, we
have faced some unpreventable delays in the project. Particularly as you are aware there was an
unprecedented heatwave in both Braavos and Rotaria and the impact of this has severely impacted the
mining operations of LDCS also causing the workers to complain about working conditions.
In light of these developments, we would be very grateful if our project deadline could be extended by 6
months so that we can continue ensuring our high-quality standard while delivering the final completed
project.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Morgan,
Havana,
Xandar
36
EXHIBIT R2
To
Alex Morgan,
Havana,
Xandar
December 22, 2016
Sub: Re: Request for Extension on PICA deadline
Dear Ms. Morgan,
Thank you for the update on the situation of the PICA project. We of course understand that there could
be such unexpected delays as the weather is truly out of anyone control. However, a 6-month extension
seems excessive considering that the heatwave will only last a few months. We are sure a company of your
reputation for timely delivery of perfect quality will be able to manage with a 3-month extension in this
situation.
As you are aware this is a very prestigious project, and while we are happy to accommodate extensions, we
do expect great quality in the end product delivered by your company. Since this is just the initial stage of
the project, we are happy to accommodate this short 3-month extension, which we can surely recover in
later stages hopefully and bring the project back on track.
We hope you will work with LDCS to work out an arrangement to ensure minimal delays in the subsequent
stages.
Sincere regards,
Janos Slynt
General Manager
37
EXHIBIT R3
To
Janos Slynt
General Manager
June 17, 2020
Sub: Request for an extension for the completion of the final phase of the PICA project
Dear Mr. Slynt,
We know that this is quite a late request, but we do need another extension on our current deadline. We
realise that this may cause some issues, but our supplier, LDCS, has suffered some problems with
transportation, which led to some damage on the interior decoration products being transported. This
damage has delayed us a bit as we have found some interior designers and carpenters to repair the damage
urgently.
LDCS has also sent several of its craftsmen to assist with the process, and we can guarantee that the
products will meet our final standards. However, a small extension of a few months would really go a long
way towards giving us the time to provide perfect final designing to complete the handover process.
We hope you can manage to grant us some more additional time, ideally about 3 more months to finish
this process across all our building complexes.
Sincere regards,
Alex Morgan,
Havana,
Xandar
38
EXHIBIT R4
To
Alex Morgan,
Havana,
Xandar
June 22, 2020
Sub: Re: Request for an extension for the completion of the final phase of the PICA project
Dear Ms. Morgan,
We have received your request for a further extension, and while the Government of Braavos is not
particularly happy with this situation and further delay, at this stage quality of the final project is the key
consideration for our Government.
We have already announced the date for the opening of the buildings and are already in negotiations with
several prominent global MNCs for the renting of the space to set up their offices within these buildings.
This would mean a significant delay in terms of our negotiations and we would have to announce a new
opening date, but we could potentially adjust this for 3 more months, since we can extend the negotiations
and invite more companies to make bids for the project.
While this is really not the ideal case scenario as we were quite ready for the project to be launched, we will
try our best to adjust for an extension of 3 more months. However, we must reiterate that the quality of
the project is the key consideration and please ensure that the highest standards of quality are maintained
by the time of the final handover.
We also hope that you will continue working with LDCS to keep this delay to an absolute minimum.
Sincere regards,
Janos Slynt
General Manager
39
PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1

of December 20, 2021
in the Arbitral Proceedings

between
1. The President of the SIAC Court, under Rule 8 of the SIAC Rules, has appointed Ms. Dominique
Barrone, Emeritus Professor, Yale University as the Presiding Arbitrator for this dispute.
2. The Parties have agreed that the tribunal is allowed to appoint an administrative secretary to assist
them in the management of the case. The Parties further agree that the tribunal secretary’s
appointment will be subject to the Practice Note for Administered Cases - On the Appointment
of Administrative Secretaries (2 February 2015).
3. The duties and responsibilities of the administrative secretary will be decided by the tribunal,
subject to the caveat that the secretary will not be directly involved in the decision making.
4. In accordance with the agreement of the Parties, the tribunal has appointed Mr. James Ross, JD
Student, Yale Law School, as an administrative secretary to the tribunal.
5. The Arbitral Tribunal takes note of the following facts:
- The parties agree that the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017 are applicable to this dispute.
- Neither Party challenges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over this dispute in principle.
- Both Parties agree that the arbitration agreement is subject to the CISG.
- Both the procedural and the substantive issues will be presented jointly at the oral hearing.
6. In light of these considerations, the Parties are required to address the following issues in the oral
hearings at Partasides, Braavos:
- Whether the CISG overrules the provisions of the FIDIC standard form agreed between the
parties? Does the provision on force majeure under FIDIC overrule the CISG provision on
force majeure?
- Whether the Respondent’s delays in providing raw materials and subsequent failure to provide
good quality interior products in Phase III have breached the SDA Agreement?
- Whether the Claimant should be granted general and exemplary damages for losses suffered?
7. The written submissions of the Parties must be sent in no later than 7 th February, 2022.
8. The submissions are to be made in accordance with the Rules of the Moot as agreed upon by the
Parties at the preliminary meeting held by the tribunal.
9. Clarifications regarding Procedural Order No. 1, the Statement of Claim, Statement of Defense,
and any other exhibits produced by either Party, must be addressed to tankhamoot@nliu.ac.in.
40
10. Both Parties are invited to attend the oral hearing scheduled for 11 th to 13 th March, 2022. The
details concerning the timing and the venue will be provided in due course.
Jessica Pearson Helena Bonham Carter

(Claimant’s nominee) (Respondent’s nominee)
Dominique Barrone
(Presiding Arbitrator)
41
From: Naomi Osaka <naomi.osaka@genisys.ro> Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 4:30 PM
To: Dominique Barrone<dominique@yale.edu.ca>; Jessica Pearson <jessica@pearsonhardman.com>;

Helena Bonham Carter <helenacarter@carterwellington.com>
Cc: Jeremy Pique <Jeremy.pique@johnmcenroe.com>;

Magdalina Cannata<magdalina.cannata@johnmcenroe.com>
Sub: Request for dismissal or reducing responsibilities of Tribunal Secretary.
Dear Arbitral Tribunal,
This is to express the Respondent’s objection to the appointment and continuing functioning of Mr. James
Ross as the administrative secretary to the tribunal due to excessive involvement in the decision-making
process in this arbitration.
As was made clear right at the outset of this arbitration, and reiterated again in Procedural Order 1, the
Respondent had agreed to the appointment of the administrative secretary, Mr. James Ross, since the
tribunal had presented this as a cost-saving measure. Considering Mr. Ross would be charged at a
significantly lower hourly rate as compared to the learned members of this tribunal, we were given to
understand that this would save costs, if Mr. Ross was made in charge of administrative functions such as
collating evidence and answering routine emails and communications between the parties, the tribunal and
the SIAC institutional representatives.
However, it has come to our attention that Mr. Ross has been given significantly higher responsibilities,
including drafting portions of the award and evaluating the evidence and submissions of the parties. This
was drawn to our attention from this email between the Madam President, Ms. Barrone, and Mr. Ross, in
which it seems Mr. Ross also copied both the parties as well by mistake. [See enclosed Respondent Exhibit 5]
In addition, Mr. Ross, who is still only a law student studying under the Madam President, Ms. Barrone,
has also been summarising the pleadings and giving briefs to the arbitrators, which could significantly
impact both the decision making and the outcome of this arbitration. Considering these factors, this role
clearly goes far beyond the agreement between the parties and directly impacts the decision making in this
arbitration. Mr. Ross should not be given the powers of a fourth arbitrator, but instead should only act as
an administrative secretary.
In light of these circumstances, we would request that the tribunal reduce the role and impact that Mr. Ross
has in this arbitration and either dismiss Mr. Ross or alternatively ensure that his role is limited to only
administrative tasks.
Yours sincerely,

Osaka Law Genisys
Encl: Respondent Exhibit R5.

42
EXHIBIT R5
From: James Ross <james.ross@yale.edu.ca> Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 8:22 PM
To: Dominique Barrone<dominique@yale.edu.ca>

CC: Naomi Osaka <naomi.osaka@genisys.ro>; Jeremy Pique <Jeremy.pique@johnmcenroe.com>
Sub: Instructions for Drafting the Procedural Order, Award and preparing summaries of
submissions
Dear Prof. Barrone,
Thank you so much for the opportunity to be involved in such a major arbitration and I really appreciate
the chance to get direct practical experience and learn how such major arbitrations work from the
procedural stage to the final award.
Thank you for copying me into all the emails we receive from the parties, the submissions are quite detailed
and interesting. I have prepared a folder with all the evidence and tabulated the submissions of the parties
for the tribunals reference. I have also communicated with the SIAC Secretariat and kept them posted of
the developments in the case, including an estimate of the fees.
As per your instructions last week, I have started preparing summaries of the parties’ submissions which I
will circulate in the coming weeks to the whole tribunal for their ease of access. From my first impressions
of the case, the Respondent did get a shorter end of the straw on this one.
Additionally, though you haven't asked me to start on this yet, I thought I would get a head start and I have
started drafting some of the procedural sections of the award based on the previous illustrations that you
shared with me, in terms of the language and structure that you prefer in the award. I hope to discuss the
same with you in the coming weeks to get the tribunal’s input on the work so far.
Do let me know when you would have time to discuss the same and look forward to your comments and
feedback on the initial drafts I will circulate next week.
Thanks again for this wonderful opportunity.
With best regards,
James Ross
JD Candidate - Yale 2020
43
From: Jeremy Pique <Jeremy.pique@johnmcenroe.com> Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:54 PM
To: Dominique Barrone<dominique@yale.edu.ca>; Jessica Pearson <jessica@pearsonhardman.com>;

Helena Bonham Carter <helenacarter@carterwellington.com>
CC: Magdalina Cannata<magdalina.cannata@johnmcenroe.com>; Naomi Osaka
<naomi.osaka@genisys.ro>
Sub: Statement of Opposition to Disclosure and Dismissal request
Dear Arbitral Tribunal,
We are quite concerned by the baseless allegations that have been raised by the Respondent regarding the
Claimant refusing to share information with the Respondent through the course of this project and during
this arbitration. The Claimant has maintained utmost transparency throughout both the project and these
proceedings.
Additionally, the allegations regarding not informing the Respondent of the extension of time are baseless,
since they were very well aware that we could not directly authorise time extensions without the express
approval of our original client. We granted them every extension they requested and throughout the project
worked constructively towards achieving our targets.
Furthermore, these allegations of conflict and alleged arbitrator tampering are completely ludicrous. There
has been no such acts on the part of the Claimant. The only reason we did not disclose information
regarding our funder was because we didn't consider it important in the context of our proceedings that
our expenses were being paid by a third party. Additionally, even the allegations of potential bias raised with
respect to our arbitrator and our funder are clearly attempts by the Respondent to grasp at straws and delay
these proceedings further.
Any prior romantic relationships or personal involvement between people hardly plays a role in the context
of bias. This is definitely not an interpretation of apparent bias any tribunal would or should adopt in the
context of bias between parties. In the absence of any rule requiring disclosure, the Claimant fails to see
what rule has been breached by this alleged lack of disclosure.
Similarly, the objections raised regarding the tribunal secretary are just yet another tactic by the Respondent
to further delay these proceedings and potentially disrupt the proceedings, drawing attention away from the
fact that they have clearly breached the SDA agreement. In fact, tribunal secretaries often adopt varying
roles during the course of arbitration and it is well known practice for secretaries to even undertake drafting
of the award. As long as the arbitrators oversee the work of the secretary, there is clearly no violation of
the SIAC rules or Code of Conduct in any such role being undertaken.
Considering these factors and arguments, it is clear that these are mere delay tactics and the Claimant urges
the tribunal to dismiss these objects and take note of the conduct of the Respondent during allocation of
costs.
Yours sincerely,
JOHN & MCENROE LLP. JOHN & MCENROE LLP.
44

Update on Procedural Timetable and Procedural Issues
of January 20, 2022

between
1. The tribunal has noted both the allegations raised by the Respondent regarding the role played by
the Administrative Secretary Mr. James Ross and the alleged lack of disclosure of the funder by the
Claimant. We have also noted the response provided by the Claimant defending its position on both these
issues.
2. In light of these submissions and issues raised by the parties, the tribunal has decided to request
the parties to submit detailed submissions on these issues and hear the parties along with the merits issues
at the oral hearing scheduled previously in Procedural Order No. 1.
3. Accordingly, the tribunal directs the parties to address both the merits of this case as highlighted
in Procedural Order No. 1, and the following procedural issues:
a. Whether the Claimant is required to disclose its funding relationship?
b. Whether the role of the administrative secretary Mr. James Ross needs to be reduced or does the
administrative secretary need to be replaced in light of the allegations that the secretary has
exceeded his mandate?
c. Whether the Respondent should be granted legal costs in the arbitration due to the conduct of the
other party and/or its success on the substantive/procedural issues in this arbitration or is this
barred by the agreement between the parties to share costs.

Dominique Barrone
45
of February, 10, 2022

between
Following its Procedural Order No. 2, the Tribunal received requests for clarifications in accordance with
Article 7 of the Rules. Taking into account those requests, the Tribunal issues the following clarifications.
All the dates on this version of the record have been verified and any typographical errors are fixed. Please
note that the timeline of the problem is such that there are events that are on the record, which have
happened in December, 2021 and January, 2022.
1. In the notice of arbitration (Pg no 4) the claim mentioned is EUR 196 million but in the relief
(provided on Pg no 10), the claim mentioned is EUR 296 million. The clarification is sought on the actual
value of the claim.
Actual claim value is EUR 296 million, the figure mentioned in page 4 is a typographical error.
2. At Pg no 7 para 13, the date mentioned for the completion of PHASE I is 22.03.2019. However,
in CLAUSE VI of PICA, the deadline for PHASE I mentioned is 31.12. 2017 and further in CLAUSE III
of SDA, the last date for delivery for PHASE I mentioned is 28.08.2017. The clarification is sought on the
date of completion of PHASE I and date of last delivery of raw materials.
The date mentioned on page 7, para. 13 is incorrect and should be read as 28.08.2017. The date for
completion of Phase I remains unchanged.
3. At Pg no 7 para 14, it is mentioned that there will be regular tranches of payment from the
Government of braavos. However, in CLAUSE VIII of SDA, it is mentioned that payments will commence
from 22.01.2019. The clarification is sought on the date of beginning of payment tranches by the
Government of Braavos.
The regular payments began from 2019, once sufficient progress had been made with the works.
4. On what date the construction work under PHASE I was completed and was handed over to the
Government of Braavos for testing and inspection?
No clarification needed on this issue.
5. At page 8 para 20, the inspection by the Government of Braavos completed on 18.08.2019.
However, in clause VI of PICA, the date of completion of testing and inspection (PHASE II) is 30.12.2018.
Is there any delay in testing and inspection from the side of the Government of Braavos?
The Government of Braavos took the same amount of time as they normally would have. There was no
delay on their part.
6. At page 8 para 22, the claimant has mentioned that respondent was only permitted to purchase raw
materials in the subsequent agreement. However, in EXHIBIT C10 page 27 point 2 mentions that “this
46
also includes purchasing products and material from third-party suppliers”. The clarification sought is
‘Whether or not the respondent was permitted to make purchases of products (furniture etc.)?
No clarification required on this point.
7. At page 31, the Respondent in its reply to the notice of Arbitration has only acknowledged the
receipt of enclosures C-1 to C-12 and has not acknowledged Exhibit C-13.
This is a typographical error, Exhibit C13 is also part of the record and acknowledged by Claimant.
8. At page 19, CLAUSE XV of SDA in point 3, it mentions about the contractor’s duties with regard
to staff and labour. The clarification sought is that whether the contractor refers to both the parties to the
SDA? Or is the contractor Dabhol according to PICA?
9. At page 38, in EXHIBIT R4, it mentions that ‘ We will try our best to adjust for an extension of 3
more months’. The clarification is ‘whether or not the extension of 3 more months was granted’?
The 3 month extension was granted.
10. Whether the heatwaves are unprecedented and unforeseeable as alleged by the Respondent?
11. Whether the Government of Braavos is party to the Supply and Design agreement?
The Government of Braavos is a party to the SDA.
12. At page 42, Mr. James Ross had started drafting ‘some of the procedural sections of the award’.
What constitutes ‘procedural sections’? Does it involve procedural history of the dispute?
No further clarification is needed.
13. At Page 8, para 23, it is stated that the project was handed over to the Government of Braavos in
December 2020. According to clause II of PICA, the date of handover is the date of completion. Para 25
further states that the Government of Braavos initiated litigation against Dabhol Infrastructure in April
2021 for not performing obligations under PICA. But at Page 37, Exhibit R3, an additional time of 3 months
was sought in June 2021 for completion of the project. The clarification is as to the exact date of completion
of the project.
In para. 11 on page 33, Exhibits R-3 and R-4, the dates are to be read as June 2020. The project was
completed in December 2020, after an extension on the original August 2020 completion date.
14. In procedural issue 1, whether the funding relationship includes Third party funder identity or third
party funding agreement or both?
It includes both.
15. Is there any force majeure clause in PICA or in SDA? If yes, then kindly provide the text of the
clause.
47
The teams are expected to use either the force majeure clause in the CISG or the FIDIC Suite of Contracts,
Silver Book 1999, available here https://khabexport.com/upload/Files/fidic-silver-book.pdf .
16. Is there any Hardship clause in PICA or in SDA? If yes, then kindly provide the text of the clause
- The teams are expected to use either the hardship clause or force majeure clause in the CISG or force
majeure the FIDIC Suite of Contracts, Silver Book 1999, with the FIDIC clause being available here
https://khabexport.com/upload/Files/fidic-silver-book.pdf .
17. In the case record, references of annexures and schedules are provided. However, there are no
annexures or schedules in the file.
No further clarification needed.
18. Which FIDIC book is to be referred in the present matter?
The teams are expected to use the FIDIC Suite of Contracts, Silver Book 1999, available here
19. When was the courier service referred to in the notice of arbitration sent on 12th September 2021
dispatched?
No clarification needed.
20. Who is Pippo & Co? Where is Pippo & Co. located? In what time amount the due diligence report
was provided to the Dabhol Infrastructures by Pippo & Co.?
21. What is the FIDIC standard?
22. What is the “ Taking over Certificate” referred in the Clause II, Paragraph 35 of the Case record?
The Parties intended to use the FIDIC Suite of Contracts as the Model for all the clauses in the contract.
However, the Completion of the project occurred when it was handed over to the Government of Braavos
in December 2020.
23. What is the Commercial Real Estate project referred to in the Clause 10, Page number 12 of the
case record?
24. The PICA has explicitly provided that the Government of Braavos would have to go to the SIAC
to sort out the dispute if any arises between the parties; however the Government of Braavos has chosen
to opt for litigation as provided in the facts given by Claimant. On what grounds did the Government of
Braavos opt for litigation and where did it opt for litigation?
The Government of Braavos chose to litigate the question of Contractor’s liability in public infrastructure
projects using the PICA as a case study before its national courts.
48
25. What is the Comprehensive Audit of the supplier referred in Exhibit C2 of Page no. 15 undertaken
by the third party analyst? Is this a reference to the due-diligence report by the Pippo & Co. ?
26. Referring to the definition of days in the SDA in page no 15, which days are considered to be the
business days?
27. What is the FIDIC Suite of Contracts?
28. The case record has clearly mentioned Dispute Settlement Board in Paragraph no. 15, Page no. 7
whereas Clause XII, Paragraph no. 18 has mentioned the Dispute Adjudication Board. Is there any
significant difference between these two?
The Claimant has referred to the Dispute Adjudication Board as the dispute settlement board.
29. By which formula damages have been calculated?
The damages claim includes losses for the contract amount and a claim for exemplary damages based on
the future losses and repercussions of the adverse media campaign against Dabhol. Both parties are in
agreement on the formula for damages and have chosen not to contest it in this arbitration.
30. What was the reason behind the union worker strike as mentioned in Exhibit C3?
Apart from the heatwave, the Dabhol Infrastructure Workers’ Association (DIWA) held an organisation
wide strike criticizing the New Industrial Policy launched by the Government of Xandar on three primary
grounds:
1. Reduction of pensions and workmen benefits

2. Lack of Diversity and Inclusion in the workforce based on the narrow definition clause of
“Workman” in the New Industrial Policy
3. Reduction in the standards of working environments
31. What is the ‘Schedule II’ mentioned in the SDA?
Schedule II stipulates a list of raw materials required for the construction of the Project in the SDA. The
definition has been imported from the FIDIC Silver suite of Contracts. The Parties, in the telephonic
conversation held to draw up the procedural timetable did not deem the Schedules to the SDA as relevant
documents as per the SIAC Rules.
32. What is the ‘Annexure of Payments’ mentioned in the PICA?
In the pre-arbitral conference, the Parties agreed that the content of the Annexure of Payments was not
relevant to the current dispute. The Contractor agrees that the Employer has complied with its payment
obligations under the Annexure of Payments in so far as the current dispute is concerned.
33. Is the date ‘22.03.2019’ mentioned in Para 13 of the Statement of Claims correctly
49
Stated?
completion of Phase I remains unchanged. (Same as Question 2)
34. What is the effect of late acknowledgement as mentioned in the SDA
Question unclear.
35. In Clause III of the SDA, are the ‘goods to be delivered’ under Phase III included under the
definition of ‘Raw Materials’ as used in the clause?
Yes.
36. In the table mentioned under Clause VI of the SDA, the ‘Amount Due’ is in USD. Is that
intentional or an oversight?
This is to be read as EUR.
37. In paragraph 30 of the statement of claims it is stated that co-arbotrators shall appoint the presiding
arbitrator but in Procedural order 1, it is mentioned that the president of the SIAC court under rule 8 has
appointed the presiding arbitrator. Please provide some clarification on this.
The Parties designated their power to nominate a Presiding Arbitrator to their appointed arbitrators. The
Presiding arbitrator was then appointed in accordance with Rule 8.
38. In the SDA, the date of payment for tranche X is mentioned as 30.02.2020 which cannot be the
case as the month of February can have a maximum of 29 days in a given leap year.
This is to be read as 28.02.2020.
39. The chronology of event and dates of letters in Exhibit C7 (page 24).
40. The steel and concrete for the completion of Phase I work is to be sent by which date? (Para 13 in
page 7; Exhibit C2 in page 16).
completion of Phase I remains unchanged. (Same as Question 2)
41. The correct date of the email sent by James Ross in Exhibit R5 (Page 42).
The date indicated in Exhibit R5 is correct. The date in the “Request for dismissal or reducing
responsibilities of Tribunal Secretary”, is to be read as January 12, 2022.
42. The completion date of Phase III (Wiring and Installation) in PICA is given as 01.0406.2019 in
Exhibit C1 (Page 12).
This is to be read as 01.06.2019.
43. Page 7, Paragraph 17 of the Case Record mentions a "price adjustment clause" which has been
referred again in exhibits C6 and C7. However, no such clause is there in the SDA. Kindly clarify on this.
50
The Parties have agreed to limit the scope of these arbitration proceedings to the Clauses provided in the
Exhibits. The Parties have also agreed to the DAB’s ruling on the price adjustment clause, and have chosen
not to contest it in this arbitration.
44. PAGE NO. 2 - Whether there has been a typographical error?
- POINT 16 – Claimant Exhibit 13 has been given as Claimant Exhibit 12 again.
This is to be read as Exhibit 13.
45. PAGE NO. 19 - Whether the discrepancy in dates is to be overlooked for the purpose of the
competition? - The SDA came into effect on 12 January, 2016. However, on Page 19 Clause XIV states
that the applicable arbitration rules are the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017 which had a ctually
come into effect on 1 January 2017, i.e., a year after the SDA was signed.
This can be overlooked, for the purposes of the problem, the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017 are
applicable.
46. PAGE NO. 24 - Whether there has been a typographical error? The letters referred to in this page
are dated September 2016 as per the previous two exhibits. - However, in the reply in Exhibit C7 dated 3
October 2016, it has been given that it is a reply to the previous letters dated September 2021.
This is to be read as September 2016.
47. PAGE NO. 31 - Whether there has been a typographical error? However, in Page 31 the
Respondents have acknowledged ONLY Exhibits C1 to C12.
The Claimants had enclosed Exhibits C1 to C13.
This is a typographical error, Exhibit C13 is also part of the record and acknowledged by Claimant. (Same
as Question 7)
48. PAGE NO. 33, 37 and 38 - Whether there has been a typographical error?
- In the Statement of Defence in Page 10, point 11 states the date of communication between the
Government of Braavos and the Claimant regarding a request for extension to be “mid-June 2021”. -
Similarly, in Pages 37 and 38, the Exhibits R3 and R4 display letters dated June 2021. - However, this
communication does not tally with the overall timeline of the project, since the handover was completed in
December 2020 itself (Page 8, Point 23), and people had even moved into the spaces (Exhibit C13, page
30).
- The dates in Statement of Claim, the PICA and timeline of the project after extension of 6 months being
granted from the original handover deadline of August 2020 indicate that these impugned dates in the reply
given by Respondents must be June 2020.
The dates are to be read as June 2020.
49. PAGE NO. 41, 42 and 43 - Whether there has been a typographical error?
- The very first Notice of Arbitration was given in September 2021 (Page 4) and the Reply was given by the
Respondents in November 2021 (Page 31).
51
- Thus, emails regarding procedural issues were sent in January 2022 (Page 42- Exhibit R5 and Page 43 –
Response to Request of Respondents), i.e., after arbitration proceedings commenced. - However, the very
first email of Request for Dismissal of Tribunal Secretary has been dated to be on January 12, 2021. This
does not make a sensible timeline.
The date indicated in Exhibit R5 is correct. The date in the “Request for dismissal or reducing
responsibilities of Tribunal Secretary”, is to be read as January 12, 2022.
50. How do we interpret the conflict of timeline in pages 39 to 44 (Eg. - Date of Procedural Order
number 2 precedes that of Procedural Order No.1)
PO2 is to be read as dated January 20, 2022.
51. Which book in the FIDIC suite of Contracts 1999 ed. does the Clause X of SDA refers to?
52. Whether the counsel for the Claimant are registered to practice as legal practitioners in Singapore?
No clarification is needed on this issue.
53. Whether we can deviate from Articles 33 and 35 of CISG, as stated in para 31 of the Statement of
Claims?
54. In the Claimant's Statement of Claim, at page no. 8, paragraph 9, it is stated that Dabhol (Claimant)
chose to activate the optional-sign on for interior designing. However, as per Clause X of the PICA (Exhibit
C1), Phase III mentions that it is the discretion of the Employer (Government of Bravos) to enact an
agreement with the Contractor (Dabhol) for interior designing. Could you please clarify this?
In compliance with its contractual right to appoint the same Contractor for interior designing, the Employer
chose Dabhol to also conduct the interior designing.
55. Pica Agreement talks about payment clause under Annexure 1 which is missing
56. WHETHER SIAC INVESTMENT RULES OR SIAC RULES ?
The SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules are applicable to this dispute.
57. WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF BRAVOSS HAS PROVIDED ANY SPECIFIC DESIGN

FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS?
The Government of Braavos often relies the FIDIC Suite of Contracts for its Model clauses.
58. UNDER PHASE 3, WHETHER FURNITURE IS A RAW MATERIAL OR NOT OR

CONSIDERED IN FINAL GOODS?
52
Yes.
59. Schedule 1 is missing
Exhibits.
60. Is SDA A SUBCONTRACT?
No.
61. WHETHER THE FIGHT OF CISG OVER FIDIC IS ON THE TOPIC OF LAW ASPECTS
OR FACTUAL BASIS?
62. WHETHER LOUIS COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN WORK OR NOT?
LDCS was responsible for the delivery of all the raw material made to specification provided by the Buyer.
63. Whether there is a 'price adjustment mechanism clause' in the SDA? If so, kindly provide the same.
64. What was the procedure of procurement undertaken by the Respondent for securing raw material
and products from third party suppliers? Were there any standard quality checks followed by the respondent
for the supply made by the third party?
65. What were the exact instructions given by the Presiding Arbitrator to the Administrative Secretary
as mentioned in Exhibit R5?
66. Whether heat waves were a commonly recurring phenomenon in Rotaria?
Heat waves are not a frequent occurrence in Rotaria, although the country has seen heatwaves before.
67. What was the state of the foreign relations between countries of Xandar and Braavos at the time
of release of article titled "Has Dhabol Infra Lost its edge?" in the publication titled "Bravoosi Times"?
68. Whether the ISO Standards relevant for structural integrity adhered by the claimant in totality for
the relevant phases of construction?
69. The payment schedule (to be listed in Annexure-I) under Clause IX of PICA is not found in the
entire proposition.
53
70. Similarly, under SDA - Clause I - "Projects" - Schedule I is no where to be found.
Clause II - "Raw Materials" - Schedule II is no where to be found.
71. SDA - Clause XII - Who decides the composition of SDA (because the contract is silent on this
aspect)?
72. Has the Arbitrator been appointed by the President under Rule 8 or Rule 9 of the SIAC Investment
Arbitration Rules 2017 or Rule 8 or Rule 9 of the SIAC rules? Please clarify.
Presiding arbitrator was then appointed in accordance with Rule 8 of the SIAC Rules, 2017.
73. In the Notice of arbitration, it is mentioned that the place of arbitration is Volantis. However, in
the arbitration clause in paragraph 30, it is mentioned that the seat is Partasides. Please clarify if the words
"seat" and "Place" have been used interchangeably or not?
The Seat of the Arbitration is Partasides, Braavos as laid out in the Agreements. The Venue is Volantis,
Braavos.
74. In the cover page, it is mentioned the arbitration is under SIAC Rules 2016. However, in the Notice
of Arbitration it is mentioned that the applicable rules are SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017. Please
clarify the same.
The SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017 are applicable to the dispute.
75. The dispute resolution cause of the SDA mentions that the co-arbitrators will jointly appoint the
presiding arbitrator. However, in the Procedural Order No. 1, the President of the SIAC Court has
appointed the presiding arbitrator. Please clarify the same.
Presiding arbitrator was then appointed in accordance with Rule 8.
76. Which book of FIDIC standards has been used to draft the contract?
77. In paragraph 13 of the Arbitration Claim, it is written that the Phase 1 would be completed by
22.03.2019. However, in the PICA, the date of completion for Phase 1 is mentioned as 31.12.2017. Please
clarify the same.
completion of Phase I remains unchanged.
54
78. Are teams allowed to frame additional issues?
No.
79. In PO.1 Issue 1, " Does the provision on hardship overrule the CISG provision on force majeure?"
here does the "provision on hardship" means provision of hardship in FIDIC?
There are three relevant provisions in this context. The force majeure clause in CISG, FIDIC and the
hardship clause in CISG. This sentence is to be read as “Does the provision on force majeure under FIDIC
overrule the CISG provision on force majeure or hardship?"
80. Whether these heatwaves were severe? Whether the govt had released any cautionary notice or
warning for the workers?
No further clarifications needed.
81. In page 7, Para 18 - whether the facilities provided by the respondent were less than the one
required for workers to work properly and in an efficient manner, as they were protesting for "better
facilities"?
Apart from the heatwave, the Dabhol Infrastructure Workers’ Association (DIWA) held an organisation
wide strike criticizing the New Industrial Policy launched by the Government of Xandar on three primary
grounds:
1. Reduction of pensions and workmen benefits

2. Lack of Diversity and Inclusion in the workforce based on the narrow definition clause of
“Workman” in the New Industrial Policy
3. Reduction in the standards of working environments
82. In the reliefs asked by the parties, both are demanding legal costs, so which side is expected to
argue for application of "costs sharing provision" upon legal costs?
To clarify the role of parties, in this case, the respondent is contesting whether the cost sharing arrangement
is applicable to legal costs. The claimant is expected to argue in favour of equal sharing of costs.
To this effect, the final relief requested by Claimants on para. 35 of the Notice of Arbitration, at page 10
of the problem, is to be read as “order the Respondent to share the costs of arbitration, including legal
costs incurred by the Parties”
The final issue in PO2, the word “Claimant” is to be omitted.
83. In exhibit C5 and C6, the dates mentioned in the starting are september 23 and 25 respectively
whereas in the mail dated Oct 3, 2016 (Exhibit C7) the dates mentioned are September 23 and 25, '2021'.
Further in Respondent Exhibit 3 and 4, '2021' has been mentioned as year. According to the timeline given
in the proposition as well as Para 23 page 8, the project got over in 2020, so how are these dates of 2021?
The dates in Exhibit C5 and Exhibit C6 are to be read as September 2016. The dates in Exhibit R3 and
Exhibit R4 are to be read as June 2020.
84. Whether Jessica Pearson was aware that the funder Mr Jonas is involved?

55
85. When did the Public filings by Mr Jonas's company take place and what was the nature of these
public filings?
As mentioned in para. 13 on page 33, the respondent has found out about the funding relationship through
public disclosure of financial statements (regulatory authorities require companies to make filings of Annual
Report and Financial Statements, where the fact of Mr. Jonas’ investment in this arbitration was indicated).
86. When was the third party funding agreement between the Claimant executed? Did they have any
prior relations?
87. Whether the Co-arbitrators were aware that the Tribunal Secretary was delegated the duties as
mentioned in his mail to the Presiding arbitrator or was it merely the Presiding arbitrator Dominique
Barrone who was privy to such information?
Only the Presiding arbitrator has directly assigned duties to the tribunal secretary. The co-arbitrators are
privy to the functioning and practice of how tribunal secretaries are assigned duties, being renowned
arbitrators who have also employed tribunal secretaries in other cases, but they did not directly assign duties
to the tribunal secretary in this case.
88. Whether the mail by James Ross was copied to the Counsels of both sides by accident or was it
intentionally copied to them? [Pg 42- Exhibit R5]
It was copied by accident.
89. As per Exhibit C9, Claimant asked the respondent to start off with the completion of phase 3 on
November 23, 2016. And as per Exhibit C11, the Claimant complained of the deficiency of furniture on
October 13, 2019. Was it the last delivery received by the Claimant or was it still entitled to receive other
deliveries?
90. Under the PICA AGREEMENT, the payment clause i.e. ANNEXURE 1 IS MISSING
91. WAS GOVERNMENT OF BRAVOS A PARTY IN SUPPLY AND DESIGN AGREEMENT?
Yes.
92. PROCEDURAL ORDER 1 –ISSUE 1- WHETHER HARDSHIP CLAUSE IS UNDER CISG

OR FIDIC?
There are three relevant provisions in this context. The force majeure clause in CISG, FIDIC and the
hardship clause in CISG. This sentence is to be read as “Does the provision on force majeure under FIDIC
overrule the CISG provision on force majeure or hardship?"
93. WHETHER THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC FILINGS EVIDENCE OF JOSEPH JONAS?
56
As mentioned in para. 13 on page 33, the claimant has found out about the funding relationship through
94. PROCEDURAL ORDER 2- ISSUE 3- WHETHER THERE IS ADDITION OF TERM

“EQUAL” TO THE STATEMENT THAT “IS THIS BARRED BY THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE PARTIES TO SHARE COSTS”?
Yes, this is to be read as referring to the equal sharing of costs.
95. WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING AGREEMENT REFERRED TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES

REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY IN PROCEDURAL ORDER 1 PARA 4?
The parties agreed to the appointment of the tribunal secretary Mr. James Ross.
96. CORRESPONDENCE ON ANY TIME FRAME AS TO FROM WHEN THE

ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY WAS INVOLVED?
The tribunal secretary was involved from the time he was appointed in Procedural Order No. 1.
97. WHETHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE SUPPLIER IS RELATED TO PHASE 1 ONLY?
No.
98. Whether the Design and Specification was provided by the Government or not?
99. Whether Louis was a subcontractor or not?
No.
100. Whether the participants are allowed to frame additional issues other than the issues framed in the
Procedural Order No. 1 and Procedural Order No. 2?
No.
101. Whether the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in dealing with certain part of the issue/particular
issue be challenged in view of the expression “in principle” in Paragraph 5 of the Procedural Order No. 1?
Yes.
102. The Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim has been filed by the Claimants under Rule 4 of
the SIAC Investment Rules, 2017, however, the Cover page states SIAC Rules, 2016?
The SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules 2017 are applicable to this dispute.
103. What is the shareholding pattern of LDCS post-IPO in 2013 as on date given the dispute of state-
owned or semi-private company?
LDCS continues to be held in majority by the State with a 65% stake and 35% being held by various private
stakeholders.
57
104. Whether Dabhol has initiated arbitration proceedings against the Government of Braavos seeking
the final tranche of payment?
No.
105. Whether Dabhol is contesting the litigation initiated by the Government in April 2021 for non-
performance of obligations under the PICA?
Yes.
106. Why did the Government or in the alternative, the national courts of Braavos, refer the dispute to
arbitration as per PICA and UNCITRAL Model Law?
These are two different and independent proceedings, the national courts have not referred the dispute to
arbitration.
107. How has the Claimant arrived at the claim amount of EUR 196 million in its relief while the
contract price of the SDA is EUR 150 million?
The damages claim includes losses for the contract amount and a claim for exemplary damages based on
the future losses and repercussions of the adverse media campaign against Dabhol. The teams are not
expected to argue in favour of a particular damages formula, but limit themselves to the legal issue of
whether damages (including exemplary damages) could be granted.
108. Whether the optional sign on agreement is part of the PICA, if not, whether there was a separate
agreement entered into between the parties?
109. What is the nature of “insistence” that was provided by the Government to Dabhol in order to
bring LDCS on board? Mandatory or coercive?
110. While the review of background and due diligence conducted by the Dabhol through Pippo & Co.,
whether they were able to predict the strikes and heatwave, or the supply mechanism of LDCS?
111. Were the supply of materials stopped completely between 23.09.2016 and 03.10.2016 until the
DAB ruled on the price of steel?
Yes.
112. The dispute between the parties is with respect to the commercial real estate project but there is
no information on the other projects in Para 1-3, Clause III, PICA? Were they performed satisfactorily?
113. Whether Dabhol sent a show cause and demand notice to the Government for the last tranche of
payment?
Yes.
58
114. In Clause XV, SDA the expression ‘contractor’ has been used in contrast with the expressions
‘supplier’/’buyer’ in the SDA agreement, please provide the clarification on the same.
115. What is the role and purpose of the expression “quarterly meeting call” in Exhibit C3 and C6?
The purpose of this call was to monitor the progress of the project and discuss any ongoing problems and
issues
116. In Exhibit C7, the expression “arbitration” has been used in multiple places of the DAB decision,
please provide the clarification on the same.
117. Is the damaged shipment as mentioned in Exhibit C11, one among the many shipments of Phase
III final products or the one and only shipment on Phase III?
It is one among many shipments
118. Did Dabhol subject the inferior products of Phase III projects to any scientific tests or analysis or
any other manner in order to reach the conclusion on the ‘inferior’ quality?
The inferior quality and the extent of inferiority of the furniture and other Phase III products is not in
question as far as this arbitration is concerned.
119. What was the progress and results of the repair work conducted by LDCS and Dabhol at the
designated site?
120. Is Exhibit C13, part of the exhibits appended to Claim Statement because in more than one place
including the response to notice of arbitration? Please provide clarification on the same.
This is a typographical error, Exhibit C13 is also part of the record and acknowledged by Claimant. (Same
as Question 7)
121. Was Braavosi Times in Exhibit C13 a state-controlled/owned/funded news reporting agency or
an independent organisation?
Braavosi Times is a partially state-funded news reporting agency (50-50 private public investment)
122. How cosme the LDCS were able to access the Exhibits R1 to R4 while the allegation is that Dabhol
hid the information to LDCS?
These documents were obtained during the document discovery process, in which LDCS was mandated to
provide and disclose certain documents.
123. Does Exhibits C3 and C4 refer to extension in Phase I date of completion or the date of completion
and delivery of the entire project?
Phase I date of completion.

59
124. Whether the dates mentioned in the exhibits are correct or any typographical error was present in
the dates, especially Exhibits C13, R3, R4, R5 and Communication in Page 41 and 43 of the Case record?
No error in Exhibit C13 or page 43 of Case Record.
Exhibit R3 is to be read as dated June 17, 2020
Exhibit R4 is to be read as dated June 22, 2020
Communication in page 41 of Case Record is to be read as dated January 12, 2022. PO2 on page 43 is also
to be read as January 20, 2022.
125. What is the nature of the relationship between Mr. Joseph Jonas and Dabhol?
No further clarification needed
126. What are the documentation that proves the funding relationship between Mr. Jonas and Dabhol,
how was LDCS able to know it?
As mentioned in para. 13 on page 33, the claimant has found out about the funding relationship through
For the purposes of this arbitration these documents are not important and have therefore not been
provided.
127. Page 7, Paragraph 17 of the Case Record mentions a "price adjustment clause" which has been
referred again in exhibits C6 and C7. However, no such clause is there in the SDA. Kindly clarify on this.

Dominique Barrone
60
of February, 15, 2022

between
Following its Procedural Order No. 3, the Tribunal received requests for additional clarifications. Taking
into account those requests, the Tribunal issues the following clarifications.
1. In Procedural Order 3 Question 81, clarification was given that DIWA held a strike due to Xander’s
governmental policy. However, the worker strike in the case record took place in Rotaria and was by LDCS
employees. Is the clarification made in Question 81 referring to a second and separate strike, or is it to be
read differently?
This is a typographical error, it is to be read as Louis’ Constructors Workers’ Association. This is a second
and separate strike.
2. What is the actual spelling of the “Bravoosi”? Should the spelling be “Bravoosi” or “Braavosi”?
The spelling “Bravoosi” is correct.
3. In Procedural Order 3 Question 92, clarification was given that there are two relevant CISG
provisions: a force majeure clause in CISG and a separate hardship clause in CISG. Do both these clauses
refer to Article 79 CISG?
Yes.
4. In light of the previous clarification pertaining to the framing of the first issue (Clarification 92),
could you please rewrite the entire issue?
The reference to hardship is excluded. The issue will read as follows: Does the provision on force majeure
under FIDIC overrule the CISG provision on force majeure.
5. Is procedural issue 1 solely related to a declaratory breach of disclosure obligation, or does it also
a request for an order for disclosure of the funding agreement?
The request for disclosure of funding arrangement can also be argued.
6. When did the Respondent discover that Mr. Jonas had funded the DRB proceedings as well?
Same time as discovery of funding of present claim.
7. Was it at the same time as the discovery of the funding of the present claim or earlier?
Same time as discovery of funding of present claim.
8. Has FIDIC been incorporated into the SDA or was it just used as an aide for the definitions?
61
The FIDIC can be used as a means of interpretation for the terms of the contract but it is not directly
incorporated into the contract verbatim.
9. Did the Respondent voice concerns regarding time constraints at the time of the drafting of the
SDA?
Yes, they expressed concerns during the contract negotiations.
10. Is there a confidentiality clause in the Claimant’s funding agreement with Mr. Jonas?
No.
11. Were the repairs undertaken by the Respondent successful?
12. When did the workers strikes start? How long did it take after the strikes had started before the
Respondent notified the Claimant?
13. In Clarification 93, is “claimant” to be read as “respondent”?
Yes.
14. Were all shipments sent by the Respondent damaged or only a few?
15. Did the Respondent experience a net loss at the end of the agreement?
16. Kindly clarify Issue No. 1 in the Procedural Order No. 1. In this regard clarification was released
in Procedural Order No. 2 in Point 79. But the ambiguity still prevails as to what does the Hon'ble Tribunal
expect from the Parties in this issue. The Party shall be obliged if the Hon'ble Tribunal reframes this
particular issue. Also, is there any hardship clause in CISG as mentioned in Procedural Order No. 2 in
Clarification Point 79, contrary to what most authorities suggest i.e. CISG & FIDIC have only Force
Majeure Clause, unlike UNIDROIT which has both force majeure and hardship clauses.
The issue is framed for parties to argue which provision would be applicable in the case of a conflict. It is
clarified that the scope is supposed to be limited to arguing which force majeure clause prevails. Depending
on the scope of the clause, the parties will argue in favour of application of either CISG or FIDIC.
17. Cases from what all jurisdictions are we allowed to use?
There are no limitations.
18. Is there any damages clause in SDA? If there is kindly provide the text of it?
No.
62
19. In issue no 1 in procedural no. 1, Please clarify as to stance of the parties. Which party has to argue
for overruling of FIDIC by CISG and overruling of CISG by FIDIC?
Depending on the scope of the clause, the parties will argue in favour of application of either CISG or
FIDIC. Usually, the party favouring use of force majeure will argue for the provision which has broader
interpretation.
20. Whether the SDA agreement talks about the sharing of arbitration and legal cost?
21. In issue no 3 of procedural order no 2 whether it is dealing with arbitration cost or legal cost?
This is for parties to interpret and teams to argue. No further clarification is needed.
22. Whether the Respondent instituted a Quality Assurance Mechanism as required under FIDIC, and
whether the Claimant reviewed such Reports
23. whether punitive damages and exemplary damages are to be understood as similar for the
proposition.
24. Which party took care of the expenses caused in repair of the defected good delivered for Phase
3.
25. What is the extent of cost incurred by Claimant in repair of the defected goods supplied by the
respondent.
26. Are the SIAC Practice Notes enforceable by the tribunal?
No further clarification needed. This is for parties to argue.
27. What is the overall delay in the project?
28. Which delay is counted: Delay caused due to repair or Delay caused in the overall project?
29. Whether the quality stipulated in the issue is regarding the furniture as raw materials or raw
materials delivered in the early phases?
30. Were there any standards of quality given by Dabhol to Louis?

63
31. Was there any additional period or extension period for repair given specifically by Dabhol?
32. Dispute resolution clause on page 19 has an arbitration cost sharing arrangement, So does the
arbitration cost here includes legal cost as well?
33. Procedural order 2 page 44, In 3 (c.), only legal cost in question, is that means that parties have
agreed to share the arbitration cost.
34. Procedural order 2 page 44, In 3 (c.), last line says 'or is this barred by the agreement between the
parties to share costs, ' here cost refers to only legal cost?
35. Point 94, procedural order 3, page 56, does equal sharing of legal cost means- claimant will pay his
legal cost and respondent will pay his respective legal cost OR does equal sharing means Legal cost of
claimant and legal cost of respondent will be added and then divided equally among respondent and
claimant?
36. Whether the issue of disclosure of Third-Party funding also includes challenge to the arbitratior
Ms. Jessica Pearson.
No.
37. Whether the impugned arbitration is investment arbitration or commercial.?
It is a commercial arbitration.
38. Fidic 1st edition has FM Clause no. 19 while the latest edition has changed the clause number as
well as clause title. This is common with other aspects of FIDIC Clauses, so are the teams required to base
their arguments on FIDIC 1st edition of 1999 (as time and again reiterated in Clarifications) or are they to
be at par with the latest edition. And if yes to the latest edition then please provide the link for accessing
the document.
The parties are expected to argue based on FIDIC 1999 rules.
39. As per clarification no. 11 the government of Braavos is also clarified to be a party to the SDA.
Thus now in the SDA Agreement - Is Dafole to be considered an employer and Loui as Contractor or is
the Govt of Bravos to be considered as the employer, Dabhol the contractor and Louis Dreyfus
subcontractor.
No further clarification needed. The Contract is clear about the status of the Parties and their obligations.
64
40. What does it mean by the "procedural sections of the award" in Ex. R5? Because "procedural" can
mean both the sections that an award usually comprises or it can also mean the sections other than the
substantive and objective part of the award. Please clarify the same. Alternatively, please let us know
specifically what "procedural sections of the award" has the Tribunal Secretary started drafting.
To further clarify, the tribunal secretary has started preparing the overview of facts and sections
summarising the procedural developments in the case.
41. In the first issue, which party contends FIDIC and which party contends CISG to overrule the
other?
The party potentially making use of force majeure will argue for broader interpretation and vice versa.
42. Whether the Force Majeure clause of FIDIC’s Silver Book was expressly incorporated into the
SDA?
43. In clarification no. 30, please clarify whether the strike happened in Xandar or Rotaria and by
workers of which party?
This is a typographical error, it is to be read as Louis’ Constructors Workers’ Association. The strike
happened at Respondent’s working area and offices, in Rotaria.
44. Why is Claimant demanding repayment of costs under Substantive Issue 3, and on what grounds?
Since costs form a substantial amount in arbitration proceedings.
45. What was the value of the last tranche payment denied to Claimant by government?
This is already mentioned in the problem. No further clarification needed.
46. Why Respondent claims that it should have been informed about the extensions granted by
government to Claimant, when it had already been granted the required extensions by Claimant? Please
provide some clarity on this argument of Respondent.
In usual commercial agreements all parties should be informed of the stage of the project and the timelines.
47. W.r.t the third issue, it was clarified in Clarification No 82, is the Claimant contending that legal
and arbitration costs should be shared irrespective of other factors like conduct, success of the parties?
This is for parties to argue.
48. Is the Respondent merely contending that Legal costs are not part of the cost sharing arrangement,
as the Relief states that all legal and arbitration costs are to be borne by the Claimant? Or would Clarification
82, mean that the Respondent is amenable to sharing the arbitration costs but not legal costs?
This is potentially one approach that the Respondent could take.
49. Is the claimant seeking any other relief apart from damages?
No.
65
50. Whether arbitrator bias has to be contended under Procedural Issue 1?
Bias does not need to be contended as a separate issue. It is however up to parties to make use of facts in
problem to contend procedural issue 1.
51. Whether the validity of the funding arrangement is questioned?
No.
52. Clarification 62 of PO3 states that LDCS was responsible for delivery of raw material, when asked
whether LDCS is involved in design work. However Para No. 19 of the Statement of Claim states that "the
Respondent agreed to focus on internal design for the remaining months..." which seems contradictory.
Kindly clarify LDCS' role with regards to the Interior Design Phase of the Project.
It is clarified that both providing raw materials and the interior furniture are under LDCS responsibility as
they were responsible for making deliveries under Clause III of the SDA. Clarification 62 merely states that
the design of the products themselves were pre-determined and the products were not designed by LDCS,
but made to order according to previously agreed designs.
53. Clarification 85 of PO3 - Whether there is a typographical error? "... the 'claimant' found out about
the funding relationship .." whether 'claimant' is supposed to be 'respondent', because how can claimant be
unaware of who is funding their own arbitration?
This is a typographical error.
54. Clarification 118 of PO3 - When the reply to clarification states "The inferior quality and the extent
of inferiority of the furniture...", does it mean that the tribunal agrees that the furniture is of 'inferior'
quality? (Since it is the tribunal who has released PO3). If so, how did the tribunal come to this conclusion?
The tribunal has merely clarified in Clarification 118, that the inferiority is not in issue.
55. Page 18 - With reference to bullet point three in Clause II of the SDA, whether Raw material also
includes finished interior design products? Whether under SDA, the Supplier had the responsibility to
transport interior design goods? If yes, please provide the text of such provision under SDA.
The responsibility to transport goods was on the Supplier. Here raw materials can be understood to cover
the interior design products as well.
56. Page 18 - Whether in the second bullet point in Clause II of the SDA, the quality of the raw
materials also includes the finished interior products in its ambit?
57. Whether Dabhol and LDCS had agreed upon a specific standard of quality for the finished interior
design products under SDA? If yes, please provide the text of such agreed standard.
58. Whether the workers of Dabhol were working in the mining sites from where LDCS was procuring
the Raw materials?
No.
66
59. What are the construction aspects under the Contract?
60. Did LDCS repaired all the defects at the conclusion of the contract? If yes, then when?
61. Was James Ross a student of Ms. Dominique Barrone or anyway related to him?
Student of Ms. Barrone.
62. Did Dabhol raised concerns over even the repaired products of LDCS?
63. Was any additional time for making the repairs was granted to the supplier, and were the repairs
made in such stipulated time?
64. Were the goods delivered within the extended period of time, i.e., 20 days, which were granted to
the suppliers due to the worker's strike?
65. Was Mr. James Ross instructed by the administrative tribunal to evaluate evidence?
This is for the parties to argue.
66. In Clause XVI of SDA, kindly elaborate "Except stipulated otherwise in the Agreement. . ." What
are these other provisions being referred to here?
This is merely a standard clause in commercial contracts. The clauses provided in the SDA are the only
ones relevant to the arbitration. This clause makes a reference to these clauses and excuses performance of
Clause XVI if there is any other provision in the contract which overrules its application.
67. Are the parties permitted to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator under any issue?
No.
68. Are the parties supposed to consider "arbitration costs" in the third procedural issue?
This is up to the parties to argue.
69. Do the teams need to prove court's jurisdiction on the matter in the written submissions or oral
proceedings since it has already been agreed upon by both the parties as specified in the Procedural Order
No. 1.
No.
67
70. Do the teams need to prove that CISG is applicable in the present matter in the written submissions
or oral proceedings since it has already been agreed upon by both the parties as specified in the Procedural
Order No. 1.
No.
71. Is Bravoos a signatory to CISG?
No.
72. Do we also need to argue that the claimant should be granted interest on the damages or we only
to need to argue that damages should be awarded and interest would flow from them.
73. Do we need to prove that Respondent should be awarded interest on costs or we only to need to
argue that costs should be awarded and interest would flow from them.
74. The breach referred to in second issue of the merits is fundamental breach under section 25 CISG
or a non-fundamental breach.
75. In P.O 1 Issue 1, "Whether the CISG overrules the provisions of the FIDIC standard form agreed
between the parties?" why the conflict between CISG and FIDIC has been asked, because there is no
conflict between the parties regarding this except for the force majeure clause. is it regarding the force
majeure issue only? or something else?
76. In P.O 1 Issue 1, "Whether the CISG overrules the provisions of the FIDIC standard form agreed
between the parties?" Whether this Part of the issue is connected with the latter part i.e., "Does the
provision on hardship overrule the CISG provision on force majeure?" or is it a separate issue in itself?
77. Do we have to keep all the 6 issues (3 procedural and 3 substantive) the way they are, or do we
have the liberty to club some of them underneath a larger heading, and deal with each as a sub-issue?
It would be beneficial to the counterparty and arbitral tribunal if parties stick to the order of issues stipulated
78. Clarification 58 still doesn’t make clear whether furniture would come under final good or raw
material. Kindly reclarify on this – “Under phase 3, will furniture be considered as a final good?”
79. Does clarification 101 imply that the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal can be challenged? What
does “in principle” mean?

68

Dominique Barrone

CASE RECORD - 7TH NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION MOOT (Including Procedural Order No. 4)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE RECORD - 7TH NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION MOOT (Including Procedural Order No. 4)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7TH NLIU - JUSTICE R.K.

TANKHA MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL

Dabhol Infrastructure Projects v. Louis Dreyfus Constructors & Suppliers

10 th March, 2022 ~ 13 th March, 2022

Moot Court Association,

Sr. No. Particulars Page

3. Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim. 4

4. Claimant Exhibit 1 (Project Installation and Construction Agreement). 11

5. Claimant Exhibit 2 (Supply and Design Agreement). 15

6. Claimant Exhibit 3 (Extension of time due to workers strike). 20

8. Claimant Exhibit 5 (Payments for Shipments of Steel). 22

9. Claimant Exhibit 6 (Re: Payments for Shipments of Steel). 23

10. Claimant Exhibit 7 (Decision on Steel Pricing Issue). 24

11. Claimant Exhibit 8 (Workers Strike, Extreme Weather Conditions causing 25

13. Claimant Exhibit 10 (Interim Arrangement due to weather conditions). 27

16. Claimant Exhibit 13 (Bravoosi Times Article) 30

17. Response to Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Defence 31

18. Respondent Exhibit 1 (Request for extension on PICA deadline) 35

19. Respondent Exhibit 2 (Re: Request for extension on PICA deadline). 36

22. Procedural Order No. 1 39

23. Request for dismissal or reducing responsibilities of Tribunal Secretary. 41

25. Statement of Opposition to Disclosure and Dismissal request 43

26. Procedural Order No. 2 (Update on Procedural Timetable and Procedural 44

27. Procedural Order No. 3 45

28. Procedural Order No. 4 60

JOHN & MCENROE LLP.

September 12, 2021

SUB: NOTICE OF ARBITRATION

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM

in the arbitral proceedings

Dabhol Infrastructure Projects v. Louis Dreyfus Constructors & Suppliers

Dabhol Infrastructure Projects

Represented by John & Mcenroe LLP.

Louis Dreyfus Constructors & Suppliers

1. Dabhol Infrastructure Projects [“Claimant”] is currently headquartered and was incorporated in

2. The Claimant is a multinational company that undertakes construction of large-scale infrastructure

3. Louis Dreyfus Constructors & Suppliers [“Respondent”] is a state-owned company, incorporated

II. Background of the Dispute and Arbitration Claim

5. The Democratic Republic of Braavos is a country that transformed from a dictatorship to a

III. Applicable law and the arbitration clause

IV. Legal Conclusions

34. The Claimant has nominated the following arbitrator:

35. Consequently, the Claimant requests the Tribunal to:

Encl: Claimant Exhibits C1-C13.

PROJECT INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT

The Parties, as defined in Clause I, agree on the following conditions:

Employer: The Government of the Democratic Republic of Braavos

Contractor: Dabhol Infrastructure incorporated at 44 Tiananmen Square, Havana, Xandar 400001.

CLAUSE II: DEFINITIONS

CLAUSE III: PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT

1. One cantilever bridge spanning 7.86 kilometers in Dragonfell, Ohnoitdint, Braavos.

CLAUSE V: APPLICABILITY OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT

CLAUSE VI: COMPLETION OF WORKS

Phase Works Date of Completion

III Painting, Steel Railing and Toll 01.04.2019

IV Completion & Handover 27.08.2020

CLAUSE IX: PURCHASE PRICE

CLAUSE X: SPECIAL PROVISIONS

Phase I – Construction Phase

Phase II - Testing & Inspection Phase

Phase III – Interior Designing Phase

Phase IV – Completion and Handover

CLAUSE XIV: TERMINATION