SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

THE AWARD RENDERED FROM THE ARBITRATION WILL BE

ENFORCEABLE.

I. It is submitted that the ultimate award rendered from the

arbitration proceedings will be enforceable, because: first, it
is not contrary to the public policy of India, as two Indian
parties can derogate from domestic law in the context of
arbitration. Second, the arbitration clause in the fixture note is
valid and binding.

II. INDIAN SUBSTANTIVE LAW WILL BE APPLICABLE

III. It is submitted that Indian substantive law will be applicable

in the instant case. This is so in light of various judicial
pronouncements. Further, Indian laws also give authoritative
as well as persuasive value to the Indian jurisprudence in
arbitration law. Lastly, common law doctrines pertaining to
arbitration law are applicable in the Indian context.
IV. RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO THE
HOLDS.

V. The RESPONDENTS are liable for damage to the holds, as the

clause stating that the master is liable for supervision of the
stevedoring process. Further, provisions under contract make
respondents liable for damage to the manufactured items.

VI. Transactions with the respondents are governed explicitly by

the sublet clause of the contract. Further, the sublet is not
under the contract, but under a separate contract with a third
party alien to the policy. It is submitted that the doctrine of
privity of contract applies in the current case. Finally,
damages to the petitioner are reasonably foreseeable.

VII. Respondents are obligated only to undertake customary

cleaning. Generally, Respondents are responsible for paying
for the hold cleaning, and the same is apparent from the
provision of contract. Further, it was a necessity on the
respondents part to go through the petitioners part thoroughly.
Lastly, damages were a direct result of Respondents
instructions.
VIII. PETIOTIONERS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR LOSSES DUE
TOTHE BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THE RESPODENT
CO.

IX. Provisions of CONTRACT requiring respondents to inform the

petitioners in advance about the delay or stoppage of the
production due to any circumstances. Further, Clause 19(b) of
the contract regulates deposition of a certain amount in case of
emergencies If there was a frustration of contract, damages
arise as a consequence of the breach.

X. VIII. PETITIONERS WERE PERMITTED TO DEDUCT

HIRE PAYMENT

XI. It is submitted that the petitioners were permitted to deduct

the hire.

X. THERE WAS A REPUDIATORY BREACH BY THE

RESPONDENTS, ENTITLING OWNERS TO TERMINATE THE
CONTRACT
The breach of contract raised by the misconduct of the
respondent having said that the co. was unable to fulfill the
requirements as the consequences of the global PANDEMIC.

XI. THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES AS A

CONSEQUENCE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT

It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to damages due to

non-performance of the contract by respondents. Further,
respondents should fulfill their duty to mitigate losses.