127R

IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF COFFEE WALNUT

IN THE MATTERS OF

ANVESTY INTERNATIONAL ………………...…………………………. APPELLANT

(REPRESENTED BY ADVOCATE)

v.

REPUBLIC OF COFFEE WALNUT……………………………………. RESPONDENT

(REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL)

[CIVIL APPEAL 2012/2023 UNDER ARTICLE 134A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF COFFEE

WALNUT, 1950, READ WITH RULE 1 OF ORDER XIX OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013.]

CLUBBED WITH

COFFEE WALNUT SYMPHONY PVT. LTD. ……………………………. APPELLANT

(REPRESENTED BY MS. RASBERRY)

v.

BLUEBOX PVT. LTD.………………………………………………..RESPONDENT

(REPRESENTED BY CEO)

[CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2094/2024 UNDER ARTICLE 133 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF COFFEE

WALNUT, 1950 READ WITH RULE 1 OF ORDER XIX OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013.]
[THE ABOVE MATTERS HAVE BEEN CLUBBED UNDER ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF COFFEE WALNUT, 1950, READ WITH RULE 3 OF ORDER LV OF THE SUPREME COURT

RULES, 2013.]

On behalf of the Respondents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................vii

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION.........................................................................................viii

SUMMARY FOR ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................ix

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................1

I. The Use of Force against the territory of Caramel Brownie was justified.....................1

A. The use of force was justified as anticipatory self defence.....................................1

B. The use of force was necessary and proportional....................................................4

II. The social media posts made on the handles of Caramel Brownie’s IT Cell violate

international law and are attributable to the state of Caramel Brownie.................................5

A. The posts on the IT Cell handle violate international law.......................................5

B. The posts are attributable to Caramel Brownie.......................................................9

III. The Arbitration Agreement in the Joint Venture Agreement is invalid......................9

A. The agreement has been novated...........................................................................10

B. Part I of the Act cannot be excluded as the arbitration is no longer an international

arbitration.........................................................................................................................10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF...........................................................................................................12

iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

iv
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Republic of Coffee Walnut, a large nation spanning continents with a rich cultural legacy

and vast natural resources, has had a troubled history marred by internal warfare. Despite its

background, it has evolved into a thriving global power with cutting-edge defensive

capabilities.

In contrast, the Democratic State of Caramel Brownie, despite its small size, has coexisted

peacefully with Coffee Walnut since its inception. The two nations have established

economic ties despite border disputes, especially in the areas of agricultural and maritime

trade.

However, the Gelato region has become a source of conflict between the two countries, with

Coffee Walnut's recent occupancy raising international concerns. Diplomatic tensions have

increased due to allegations of human rights breaches in Gelato, including forced integration

and militarization.

Caramel Brownie tried diplomatic channels to resolve the Gelato issue in response to

worldwide pressure, but Coffee Walnut did not provide a sufficient response. As a result,

Caramel Brownie social media campaigns called for military action against Coffee Walnut,

which sparked outrage around the world and government condemnation.

Following Coffee Walnut's military assault into Caramel Brownie, the battle intensified even

further, leading to continued hostilities between the two sides over territory. Diplomatic

efforts to resolve the conflict have faltered, with Coffee Walnut refusing peaceful

negotiations or recognition of international jurisdiction.

v
Meanwhile, a separate dispute arose between Symphony Pvt. Ltd., a company based in

Caramel Brownie, and its Coffee Walnut counterpart, BlueBox Pvt. Ltd. Despite a valid

arbitration clause in their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), disputes arose, leading to legal

battles over jurisdiction and the agreement's validity.

Symphony initiated arbitration proceedings by invoking the arbitration clause and submitting

a filing to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). In response, BlueBox challenged

the legitimacy of the arbitration agreement and pursued an anti-arbitration injunction.

Meanwhile, Coffee Symphony took legal action under Section 45 of the Coffee Walnut

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, urging the court to direct the parties to arbitration.

The Supreme Court of Coffee Walnut has combined these matters for final resolution, raising

significant questions regarding the validity of arbitration agreements and the legality of

Coffee Walnut's actions under international law.

vi
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent most humbly submits that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Coffee Walnut has

the requisite jurisdiction to hear all the matters of:

1. C.A. No. 2012/2023 under Article 134A of the Constitution of Coffee Walnut, 1950,

read with Rule 1 of Order XIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

2. C.A. No. 2094/2024 under Article 133 of the Constitution of Coffee Walnut, 1950,

read with Rule 1 of Order XIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013

The aforementioned have been clubbed under Article 142 of the Constitution of Coffee

Walnut, 1950, read with Rule 3 of Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully.

vii
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. WHETHER THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST THE TERRITORY OF CARAMEL BROWNIE

WAS JUSTIFIED?

II. WHETHER THE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS MADE ON THE HANDLES OF CARAMEL

BROWNIE’S IT CELL VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO

THE STATE OF CARAMEL BROWNIE?

III. WHETHER THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WITHIN THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT

IS VALID?

viii
 SUMMARY FOR ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST THE TERRITORY OF

CARAMEL BROWNIE WAS JUSTIFIED?

The use of force against the territory of Caramel Brownie is justified, primarily under the

concept of anticipatory self-defense. Anticipatory self-defense, a recognized principle in

international law, allows for the use of force when faced with an imminent armed attack. In

this case, Coffee Walnut's actions were deemed necessary as a preemptive measure against

such an attack, meeting the criteria of anticipatory self-defense

II. WHETHER THE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS MADE ON THE HANDLES OF

CARAMEL BROWNIE’S IT CELLVIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATE OF CARAMEL BROWNIE?

It is argued that the posts published on the IT Cell handle not only violate international law

but are also attributable to Caramel Brownie. These posts breach the prohibition on the threat

of force and the non-intervention principle. Furthermore, they constitute hate speech, thereby

contravening the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the

Broadcasting Convention.

III. WHETHER THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WITHIN THE JOINT VENTURE

AGREEMENT IS VALID?

It is argued that the agreement in question is rendered null and void due to novation, as

Symphony has disclaimed its obligations under the original agreement. This is evident from

Symphony's conduct and the language of the novation agreement clauses. Moreover, the

arbitration has lost its international nature as Symphony was replaced by a company from

ix
Coffee Walnut, thus making Part I of the Act mandatory. The inclusion of Coffee Walnut's

laws as the governing laws further solidifies its domestic nature. Consequently, the agreement

cannot rely on Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and is rendered

invalid.

x
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST THE TERRITORY OF CARAMEL

BROWNIE WAS JUSTIFIED.

It is submitted that the use of force against the territory of Caramel Brownie was justified

as anticipatory self-defence [A]. Furthermore, it fulfilled the criteria of necessity and

proportionality [B].

A. The use of force was justified as anticipatory self defence.

Anticipatory self-defence is accepted under International Law [1]. The use of force by Coffee

Walnut was justified as anticipatory self defence due to the existence of an imminent armed

attack [2].

1. Anticipatory self defence is accepted under International Law

Derogation from the prohibition of the use of force is permitted for acts of self-defence 1. Just

like the prohibition on the use of force, self defence has the status of a jus cogens norm. 2

Article 51 affirms the customary nature of self-defence by its use of the terminology

“inherent right of individual self-defence.” the use of Inherent in the article implies that the

Charter adds to the existing customary law on self-defence.3

The Caroline case allows a state to defend itself in the “necessity of self-defence, instant,

overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” 4 The Caroline

standard was relied on by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, by the

1 Article 51 of UN Charter 1945.

2 Eustace Chikere Azubuike, Probing The Scope Of Self-Defense In International Law, in 17
Ann. Surv. Int'l& Comp. L. 129 2011, at 144.; THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF
FORCE AS JUS COGENS: EXPLAINING APPARENT DEROGATIONS,
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/59835/4/Jus-cogens-Helmersen.pdf.
3 Anticipatory self-defense in international law: legal or just a construct for using force?;
Hannes Herbert Hofmeister, Neither the Caroline Formula nor the 'Bush Doctrine'- An
Alternative Framework to Assess the Legality of Preemptive Strike
4 Extract from the note sent by Webster to Lord Ashburton, available at
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/br- 1842d.asp#web1 .
1
International Court of Justice in its Nicaragua decision, and by the International Court of

Justice in its advisory opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons5.

Further, as per Justice Schwebel’s dissenting opinion in Nicaragua, the interpretation of the

article cannot be done so narrowly to only allow states to exercise self-defence if and only if

an armed attack occurs.6

Additionally, the advanced technological evolution that has followed the charter, followed by

the fact a state cannot be expected to be a sitting duck to attacks from an enemy, also support

the right to anticipatory self defence. A state cannot be expected to wait for approval from the

Security Council in the wait of an imminent threat, especially when such approval could be

stopped by an unfavourable vote from any veto power.

States have demonstrated their tacit acceptance of anticipatory self defence in numerous cases

such as the US attacks on Afghanistan 7. Israel’s use of anticipatory self-defence to defend

itself in the face of an Egyptian blockade found support from majority of nations 8. Similarly,

many countries like UK, Malaysia, USA, Uganda etc. supported israel’s right to anticipatory

5 The Imminent Threat Requirement for the Use of Preemptive Military Force: Is It Time for
a Non-Temporal Standard, Denver Journal of International Law & Policy
6 Dissenting Opinion, J. Schwebel, Nicaragua
7 The Imminent Threat Requirement for the Use of Preemptive Military Force: Is It Time for
a Non-Temporal Standard, Denver Journal of International Law & Policy; Back to Basics:
Necessity, Proportionality, and the Right of Self-Defence against Non-State Terrorist Actors
by Kimberely N. Trapp.
8 Israel, Preemption and Anticipatory Self-Defense, Louis Rene Beres,
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/10/louis-rene-beres-israel-preemption-self-
defense/#:~:text=Both%20the%20Security%20Council%20and,resort%20to%20anticipatory
%20self%20defense.
2
self defence in the Osirak Nuclear Reactor Incident 9. UK’s preventive use of force was also

not condemned in Operation Desert Fox10.

2. There was the existence of an imminent armed attack

The foremost requirement for claiming anticipatory self-defence is the existence of an

imminent armed attack. The standard for imminent has gradually lowered from the Caroline

incident11. The Bethelem-8 principles are considered a modern encapsulation of the modern

international law on imminence12. Sir Daniel’s proposed list of factors, though not exhaustive,

included considerations such as the nature and immediacy of the threat, the probability and

scale of an attack, whether it's part of a continuing armed pattern, and the potential for less

collateral damage through alternative defensive actions. Imminence cannot be understood in

the context of current dangers by reference to a temporal criteria alone; it must also take into

account the threat's broader context13.

In the instant case, the rapid formation of informal groups and the large public support

garnered by the inflammatory posts, indicated a volatile and unpredictable situation for

Coffee Walnut. The posts urged citizens to “attack Coffee Walnut.” The formation of groups

signified an imminent attack.

9 UN Doc. S/PV.2280.
10 The Imminent Threat Requirement for the Use of Preemptive Military Force: Is It Time
for a Non-Temporal Standard, Denver Journal of International Law & Policy
11 The Imminent Threat Requirement for the Use of Preemptive Military Force: Is It Time
for a Non-Temporal Standard, Denver Journal of International Law & Policy
12 Bethlehem AJIL Article - https://www.un.org/law/counsel/Bethlehem%20-%20Self-
Defense%20Article.pdf
13 Muller K.P., Catillo J.J., Morgan F.E., Pegahi N., Rosen B., Striking first. Preemptive and
Preventive Attack in the U.S. National Security Policy. RAND Corporation, 2006, XIV see
also Dinstein Y. War, Aggression and Self-Defence, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.
187
3
Additionally, Coffee Walnut, as any victim state, had the inability to discern the extent of the

threat and the potential for escalation. The problematic status of Gelato, coupled with the

historical context of border disputes and previous military strifes with Caramel Brownie,

underscored the urgency and necessity of anticipatory self defence to safeguard national

security and prevent potential harm to its citizens and territory.

B. The use of force was necessary and proportional.

Necessity and Proportionality are the two testing stones on the basis of which any exercise of

self defence is tested14. Necessity requires that the use of force must be the only viable

measure left available to the state to defend itself. As for proportionality, the principal of

proportionality dictates that the force used must be proportional to the military advantage

thought to be gained. It is to ensure that the force used is not excessive. 15 The use of force

must be proportional in terms of size, nature and the goal to be accomplished16.

Coffee Walnut's military offensive was a preemptive self defence measure taken to neutralize

the imminent threat caused by informal groups. Its actions were aimed at preventing violence

and instability within its borders. Coffee Walnut's acted to protect it’s national security and

sovereignty, particularly given the unprecedented nature of the situation and the potential for

serious harm to its citizens and territory. It also first resorted to diplomatic means by reaching

out to Ms. Nougat. When it felt like matters were still not under control, it resorted to force.

This action, while robust, was targeted and limited in scope, focusing on specific regions and

military targets associated with the perceived threat, rather than engaging in indiscriminate or

disproportionate force. The actions were only concentrated at Mochi.

14 Article 25(1)(a), ARSIWA ; J Crawford, ILC Commentary 184.

15 Law of Armed Conflict, Nada Al-Duaij, Pace University School of Law
16 Nicaragua, ¶176; Nuclear Weapons Case ¶41.
4
II. THE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS MADE ON THE HANDLES OF CARAMEL

BROWNIE’S IT CELL VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ARE

ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATE OF CARAMEL BROWNIE.

It is submitted that the posts on the IT Cell handle violate international law. [A].

Additionally, they are attributable to Caramel Brownie [B].

A. The posts on the IT Cell handle violate international law.

The posts made on the IT Cell handle violate the prohibition on the threat of use of force [ 1]

and the non-intervention principle [2]. They constitute hate speech, amounting to a violation

of the ICCPR [3] and the Broadcasting Convention [4].

1. The posts violate the prohibition on the threat of use of force, and aggression.

The prohibition on the threat of use of force is a peremptory norm. A threat of use of force is

coercive, and is meant to influence the decisions of the victim state in arenas in which it is

free. Threats to use force are an explicit or implicit assurance from a government that it will

resort to force if certain demands are not met. However, it is not necessary that any demand is

made before such threat is declared is unlawful. Where the use of force is unlawful, it is a

logical corollary that a threat to use the same shall also be deemed unlawful 17. Even the

‘demonstration of force for the purpose of exercising political pressure’ could well amount to

a threat under the terms of Article 2(4), providing that such conduct is accompanied by

hostile intention.18

Even mere uses of phrases such as ‘we are exploring a full range of options’, ‘we have not

ruled out anything’, ‘we must keep our options open’, ‘we will use all tools at our disposal’,

17 Threats of armed force and contemporary international law, Marco Roscini, Westminster
Law School
18 Corfu Channel (UK v. Albania), Merits, Judgment of 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports (1949)
para. 35.
5
especially if repetitive and consistent, can well amount to a threat 19. This demonstrate a low

threshold for what constitutes a threat.

General Assembly Resolution 2131 proscribes nations from supporting or inciting

subversive, terrorist, or armed activities aimed at violently toppling the established regime of

another state, or interfering in the internal strife of another nation. This norm, reiterated in

subsequent resolutions, was reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua

v. USA case.

In casu, The actions of Caramel Brownie, particularly through its IT Cell's social media

posts, can be construed as constituting a threat of the use of force against Coffee Walnut. The

posts, explicitly made demands for the liberalisation of Gelato, urging citizens to "attack"

Coffee Walnut, carry a menacing tone that demonstrate a willingness to resort to violence.

This was after Coffee Walnut did not reply to diplomatic means, it’s sovereign right. The

flooding of posts in citizens’ feeds implies multiple and repetitive posts were made, using

terms like ‘attack.’Moreover, given the historical animosity between the two countries, with

past border skirmishes and territorial disputes, Coffee Walnut could reasonably interpret such

rhetoric as a genuine threat to its security.

2. The posts violate the principle of non-intervention

The Non-intervention principle has become a jus cogens norm. Each state has the right to

conduct its affairs without outside interference. 20 An intervention shall be regarded as

19 Threats of armed force and contemporary international law, Marco Roscini, Westminster
Law School; Brownlie in the Lockbie Case; (Letter dated 17 March 2006 from the permanent
representative of Iran to the UN Secretary-General, A/60/730-S/2006/178 (22 March 2006),
pp. 1-2, at <www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-
CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Iran%20S2006178.pdf>).
20 The Non-Intervention Principle and Humanitarian Interventions under International Law,
7 Int'l Legal Theory 1 (2001); Article 2(4) of UN Charter; Article 2(7) of UN Charter.
6
prohibited, when it encroaches on a matter in which the state has the power to decide freely.

The element of coercion is a part of intervention 21. It is considered intervention to provide

direct or indirect support to subversive activities, in the form of military action, in another

state22.

In casu, If Caramel Brownie had concerns about the people of Gelato, and had concrete

evidence of their mistreatment, it could have taken the matter to the UN. Instead, it decided to

violate the principle of non-intervention by way of the posts. The posts interfered with Coffee

Walnut’s right to territorial sovereignty. The posts urged citizens to attack Coffee Walnut,

thus demonstrating Caramel Brownie’s intent to support armed military action in another

state. These posts were intended to influence Coffee Walnut's internal governance and

structures, and provoke unrest.

3. They constitute hate speech, amounting to a violation of the ICCPR

The posts in question violate Article 20(2)23 of the International Convenant on Civil and

Political Rights which prohibit the advocacy of national hatred and incitement to violence.

The ICCPR obliges states to ban any such speech. The threshold for hatred is intense enmity

towards the target group24, while violence is understood as the intentional use of physical

force or power against another group25. Applying the holistic Rabat test26 to assess incitement

such as the intent, context, magnitude, its public nature, and likelihood of the advocated

21 ICJ Reports 1986, p.106, para. 202

22 A Refresher on the Principle of Non-Intervention, Carolyn A. Dubay.; Nicaragua 1986

23 Article 20(2) of ICCPR.

24 Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality, ARTICLE 19, Principle 12.1.
25 WHO Report on Violence and Health, 2002; available
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545623_eng.pdf.
26 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Rabat_threshold_test.pdf; Rabat Plan HR
Commitee in Ross v. Canada
7
action happening27. Intent is the most important of the criterion. The maker must not have

only wanted to express his opinion, but also compel others to act based on those beliefs 28. In

Ergin v. Turkey, it was held that speech exhorting the use of violence and an armed rebellion

constitute hate speech.

In the instant case, the posts advocated for enmity towards Coffee Walnut, and directly called

for citizens to “ attack” it. The intent was clearly inflammatory and encouraged citizens to

defy their government. They were made very publicly on the handle of the Government’s IT

Cell. Further, the political context of Gelato’s status, the fact that informal groups readily

formed, the past skirmishes between Caramel Brownie and Coffee Walnut confirm the nature

of the speech as hate speech inciting violence. The intent requirement is clearly fulfilled as

the posts urged the citizens to attack, and were not mere opinions.

4. The posts violate the Inter the Broadcasting Convention.

Under the International Convention Concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of

Peace, states are prohibited from broadcasting for propaganda or the spreading of false

news29. Any information so as to incite the population to the detriment of other contracting

parties is also prohibited.30

In the instant case, the convention was violated as the posts were made to incite citizens.

Further, the report displaying false news of the people of Gelato in concentration camps.

Caramel Brownie’s stations decided to publish the false report internationally, and spread

27
28 Prohibiting Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence, Policy Brief - Article
19.org; Toby Mendel’s study on International Standards Relating to Racial Hatred; wards an
interpretation of article 20 of the ICCPR: Thresholds for the prohibition of incitement to
hatred Work in Progress
A study prepared for the regional expert meeting on article 20, Organized by the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Vienna, 2010.
29 Article 1 of the Broadcasting Convention
30 Article 2 of the Broadcasting Convention
8
propaganda on the status of Gelato. No substantiated evidence corroborating these claims

may be found. A single report by an NGO was used to create a global hue and cry, and

malign Coffee Walnut.

B. The posts are attributable to Caramel Brownie.

The posts made by the IT Cell are attributable to Caramel Brownie as it falls under the

Ministry of Information and Technology, an executive body 31. The possibility that the

officials of the Cell exceeded their authority or contravened any instructions shall not be a

defence to state responsibility32. This is because states can act only by and through their

agents and representatives, and accordingly responsibility cannot be avoided. 33” The ILC has

also affirmed it follows a broad approach to attribution 34 Even assuming the IT cell

functioned autonomously under internal law or by nomenclature is not regarded as an organ,

the same shall also not constitute a defence 35. The Mallen Tribunal held the state of USA

responsible for abusive done in an official capacity36.

III. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN THE JOINT VENTURE

AGREEMENT IS INVALID.

It is submitted that the agreement is null and void, due to the agreement having been novated

[A]. Further, the arbitration is no longer an international arbitration [B]. Lastly, the appellants

cannot place reliance on Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [C].

A. The agreement has been novated.

31 Article 4 of ARSIWA ; Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special

Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Right paragraph 66
32 Article 7 of ARSIWA
33 German Settlers in Poland, Advisory Opinion, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 6, p. 22.
34 ILC commentary on ARSIWA.
35 ILC commentary on ARSIWA, page 9.
36, Francisco Mallén (United Mexican States) v. U.S.A.
9
Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 37 allows parties to substitute a new contract for it,

or to rescind or alter it and consequently the original contract need not be performed. The

Supreme Court has observed that novation takes place by introducing new terms in the

contract or by introducing new parties by mutual consent. In the case of Lata Construction &

Ors v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah, the court had held that the extension of the

agreement amounted to a valid alteration of contract under section 62, and the original

agreement need not be performed38.

In Casu, Symphony has disclaimed that it’s obligations as under the original agreement stand

extinguished. This is evidenced by its conduct, and the language of clause 4.1 of the

agreement which states that the agreement between Symphony and Coffee Symphony was a

novation agreement, and clause 4.3 which explicitly states that “From the date of coming into

force of this Agreement, Symphony shall not be responsible and liable to BlueBox for any of

the obligations under the original JVA.” This clearly demonstrates an intention to novate the

old agreement. Further, it did not require the consent of Bluebox to do so.

B. Part I of the Act cannot be excluded as the arbitration is no longer an

international arbitration.

Clause 4.2 explicitly states that Coffee Symphony shall now perform the rights and

obligations of Sympony, in all respects as if Coffee Symphony was a party to the JVA. The

arbitration agreement has thus lost its international nature after Symphony was replaced by a

company from Coffee Walnut as well. Naturally, part I shall mandatorily apply to the

37 Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

38 RAMDAYAL V. MAJI DEVDIJI AIR 1956 RAJ 12.
10
arbitration39. The parties cannot exclude its application. The mere fact that the venue of the

arbitration is not coffee walnut, does not affect its domestic nature—this is due to the

difference between venue, which is merely the location of the arbitration and the seat, which

is the law that governs the arbitration.

In casu, the seat, or the centre of gravity in this arbitration is Coffee Walnut, as is evidenced

by clause 8 of the Joint Venture Agreement, which says the parties shall be governed by the

laws of Coffee Walnut.40 The parties have explicitly provided for the agreement to be

governed by the laws of Coffee Walnut, thereby showing clear intent to make it the seat of

arbitration.

This renders the agreement contrary to the laws of India rendering it invalid 41. In view of the

exclusion of Part I, the agreement is rendered null, void and inoperative.

39 Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, (2012) SCC

OnLine SC 693.
40 As amended by the Clarifications to the Proposition
41 Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872.
11
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities

cited, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Coffee Walnut that it

may be pleased to:

1. Declare that Coffee Walnut did not violate international law and need not submit to

the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

2. Declare that the Arbitration Clause is invalid.

And pass any order in favour of the Appellants which this Court may so deem fit in the ends

of equity, justice and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

9th Feb, 2024

127R

At Coffee Walnut (Counsel for the

Respondents)

12