COMPETITION PROPOSITION & RULES

G.D. GOENKA - CIArb INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION COMPETITION, 2017 November 24 26, 2017 COMPETITION PROPOSITION & RULES Page 1

CONTENT S.NO. TITLE Page No. A COMPETITION PROPOSITION 03 B COMPETITION RULES & REGULATIONS 09 1 ADMINISTRATION & GENERAL RULES 09 2 TIME, DATE & VENUE 09 3 LANGUAGE 09 4 ELIGIBILITY 09 5 TEAM COMPOSITION 09 6 DRESS CODE 09 7 ACCOMMODATION 10 8 REGISTRATION 10 9 STRUCTURE OF COMPETITION 10 10 PRELIMINARY ROUNDS 10 11. QUARTER FINAL ROUNDS 11 12 SEMI ROUNDS 11 13 FINALS 12 14 MEMORIAL RULES 12 15 MARKING SCHEMES 13 16 AWARDS 14 17 PENALTIES 14 18 IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RULES 15 19 MISCELLANEOUS 15 20 CONTACT DETAILS 16 21 REGISTRATION FORM 17 22 TRAVEL AND ACCOMODATION DETAILS 20 Page 2

A.COMPETITION PROPOSITION 1 1. Castle Mountains Pvt Ltd. ( Castle ), is the No.1 real estate company in Bharata and has projects across the country covering residential, commercial and retail spaces. Castle is head by its CEO, Mr.Raghuram who is widely known for his strong leadership and acute business acumen and has been often invited by top tier business schools across the world to give inspirational speeches. Castle is renowned for its thoughtful architecture, excellent engineering and impeccable execution and possesses the major market share on luxury homes and apartments. 2. Luminos Design and Technology Pvt Ltd. ( Luminos ) is an upcoming interior design and technology company in Sri Lanka and has recently been in the news for its revelation of turnkey interior designing. Ms.Shivani, an India is the CEO of Luminos and her expertise in managing a team of contractors, craftsmen, artisans and tech experts has greatly helped in the growth of business. Although a new entrant to the business, Luminos has become popular after the advertisement of its latest Turnkey Tech where elements of industrial aesthetics is proposed to be used in the interior designs of residential homes, with the mixture of high technology and voice control home automation. Luminos has been actively trying to enter the booming real estate market in India. However the problem that Luminos has been facing with Turnkey Tech is that due to the high cost in implementing the designs there was difficulty to tap the potential client base in India. 3. New Delhi, the capital of Bharata, on 13 th February 2014 hosted the Annual South Asian Real Estate Conference. Leading business men and women in the field of real estate from various countries, including Mr.Raghuram and Ms.Shivani attended the conference. Ms.Shivani pitched a business venture to Mr.Raghuram to set up luxury homes of Castle by utilising the Turnkey Tech of Luminos. The intention of Ms.Shivani was to rely on the image of Castle to persuade high net worth clients in India to opt for Turnkey Tech. 4. Discussions between Castle and Luminos regarding the proposed venture revealed that the Luminos proposed to use a master control system that will enable the customer to use voice control and advance technology for home automation including modular lights, room temperatures, colour of wall, modular operation of kitchen equipments, security system etc. Luminos further divulged that the core element of the master control system was the use of state of art super computer chip ( Chip ) recently developed by Mr.Srivatsav who worked as a third party consultant for Luminos. Mr.Srivatsav was also 1 The Moot Proposition was drafted by Mr.Inbavijayan,FCIArb (UK), Managing Partner, KoVe Global LLP and B.Deepak Narayanan, LLM (QMU London), Advocate, Chennai. The participants shall refrain from contacting the drafters. Page 3

Ms.Shivani s brother. A model room using the Turnkey Tech was displayed personally to Mr.Raghuram and he was exceedingly satisfied with its functioning. 5. Castle signed a construction agreement on 17-4-2014 with its loyal customer, Mr.MittalDhawani, the Chairman of leading international airline company and a powerful politician in India to build and deliver a fully furbished luxury home in his own land at New Delhi using the Turnkey Tech for a consideration of Rs.175 crores ( Project ). The payment was said to be released in seven equal periodic tranches of Rs.25 crores each. According to the construction agreement, Castle was mandated to complete the Project and handover interim possession on or before 17-11-2014. Mr.Dhawani emphasized on the timeline since he was scheduled to host the Annual Regional Airline conference in his newly built house in April 2015. 6. A contract was also signed between Castle and Luminos on the same day ( Contract A ). Contract A stipulated that Castle will complete the construction for the Project on or before 31-9-2014 and Luminos was provided one month time between 1-10-2014 to 31-10-2014 to finish the interior design by implementing Turnkey Tech. The consideration of Contract A was Rs.7 crores where an advance payment of Rs.1 crore was made by Castle to Luminos on the day of signing Contract A and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of delivery of the Project. Contract A also included an exclusivity clause mandating Castle to exclusively use the services of Luminos in respect to the Project. 7. Meanwhile on 16-6-2014, Mr.Srivatsav was sued for Intellectual Property Rights infringement by an American based company Stalwart for the use of the Chip ( Suit ). Stalwart claimed that it has already created a chip similar to the one used in Turnkey Tech and the usage of the Chip without authorization from Stalwart will amount to IP infringement. 8. Castle, in the meantime completed the construction on 23-9-2014 and insisted Luminos to immediately commence the interior designing and implementation of Turnkey Tech. Luminos sought for extension of time citing the pending Suit between Stalward and Mr.Srivatsav. Castle nevertheless threatened to terminate the contract and take legal action in the event of a delay. Consequently Luminos negotiated on behalf of Mr.Srivatsav and the Suit was settled in favour of Stalwart on 16-2-2015, with the condition that Luminos will use the super computer chip from Stalwart and implement it in Turnkey Tech. Accordingly Luminos entered into a separate contract with Stalwart dated 2-3-2015 to utilise its computer chip in the Project ( Contract B ). Since Contract B was signed for the use of Stalwart s computer chip solely in the Project and due to audacity of time, many references were made to Contract A to simplify Contract B. 9. Luminos due to the already existing delay did not test the compatibility of computer chip of Stalwart with the master control system of Turnkey Tech and hastily commenced its Page 4

work in the Project on 3-3-2015. Luminos completed the implementation of Turnkey Tech by 2-4-2015. 10. Meanwhile though Mr.Dhawani had already announced that he would host the Annual Regional Airline Conference in his house, due to the delay in delivery of the same, Mr.Dhawani made other arrangements and at a great personal expense conducted the week longconference at the largest hall available at ITC Hotels. 11. Luminos gave interim possession of the fully furbished Project on 7-4-2015 to Mr.Dhawani and in pursuant to the construction agreement and Contract A, provided him a default liability period of three months to inspect the premises to check for defects, if any. Mr.Dhawani in the very first week reported an initial glitch with the voice control of Turnkey Tech and immediately Luminos service team with the help of Stalwart visited the premises and rectified the defect. At the end of three months, Mr.Dhawani reported no other defects and took absolute possession of the property. As stipulated in the construction agreement, Mr.Dhawani reduced a sum of Rs.15 lakhs for the period of delay in delivery of possession and paid the final tranch of Rs.24.85 crores to Castle. Subsequently Castle settled the amount of Rs.6 crores to Luminos in pursuant to Contract A. 12. However in the subsequent month, Mr.Dhawani claimed that there were severe periodic glitches with the Turnkey Tech in his home, and at certain times, the voice recognition controls were completely malfunctioning. Though under Contract A, Luminos was liable to periodically service the Project site only during the default liability period, Castle requested Luminos to inspect the premises to rectify the problems. Luminos in turn demanded help from Stalwart to service the Turnkey Tech. However Stalwart refused to provide its assistance stating that Contract B does not mandate cost free services beyond the period of three months. Luminos visited the premises in the subsequent month on several occasions to check for defects but nonetheless claimed that they were unable to find any defects with the operation of Turnkey Tech. Mr.Dhawani alleging that the problems with Turnkey Tech still subsisted, used the help of third party experts to try rectifying the defects. When the third party experts inspected the premises on 11-8-2015, they found severe problems with Turnkey Tech and were unable to resolve the same. In addition, on the same day, the entire Turnkey Tech collapsed and stopped functioning. 13. Castle sent an email dated 15-8-2015 to Luminos demanding its service team to periodically visit the home of Mr.Dhawani with necessary experts this time to ascertain and remedy the defects. However Luminos through an email dated 17-8-2015 refused to comply stating that it has fulfilled its obligation under the Contract A and use of third party personnel on Turnkey Tech has violated the exclusivity clause and will prevent the use of any future services from Luminos in respect with the Project site. Page 5

14. Mr.Dhawani being a loyal customer, Castle made a goodwill payment of Rs.1 crore to Mr.Dhawani and promised to rectify the defects/replace the system, free of cost with use of other third party experts. 15. A newspaper report dated 1-10-2015 stated that due to the enormity of the Project with Mr.Dhawani, Castle has suffered a huge loss in its reputation owing to the delay and alleged mishaps with Turnkey Tech and same may have resulted in the recent report that two of Castle s high profile clients to have backed out of potential deals. 16. Contract A between Castle and Luminos has the following provision: 12. Dispute Resolution and Governing Law: (i) Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ( SIAC ) in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ( SIAC Rules ) for the time being in force, which rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference in this clause. The seat of the arbitration shall be New Delhi, Bharata. The Tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators. Each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the presiding arbitrator. The language of the arbitration shall be English. (ii) The Contract shall be governed by the laws of Bharata. 17. Castle sent a Notice of arbitration on 3-10-2015 to the Registrar of SIAC and Luminos along with Statement of Claim and nominated a renowned arbitration professor, Mr.SteveSalvius as an arbitrator. The Statement of Claim primarily sought for a declaration that Luminos has breached Contract A by implementing a faulty Turnkey Tech and not providing efficient services to cure the defects in Turnkey Tech. Consequently Castle sought for damages of Rs.10.15 crores representing: (i) Rs.7 crores being the payment made by Castle to Luminos under Contract A for the use of a defective Turnkey Tech. (ii) Rs.15 lakhs as the payment made by Castle to Mr.Dhawani for delayed delivery of possession, the delay being caused by Luminos and Rs.1 crore as the payment made by Castle to Mr.Dhawani as goodwill payment. (iii) Rs.2 crores as compensation for loss of reputation caused by Luminos. And to further declare that Luminos shall be liable to pay the costs of arbitration, expenses for legal representation and any other payments that the Tribunal shall deem to be fit. Page 6

18. Luminos replied through a letter dated 15-10-2015 addressed to Castle and SIAC, nominating Mr.Joseph Dent, an Executive Partner from a leading law firm at Singapore as an arbitrator. Luminos also annexed their Statement of Defence seeking dismissal of all of Castle s claim and stating that Luminos is not liable to pay any damages as prayed for in the Statement of Claim as : (i) Luminos has not breached Contract A, since Turnkey Tech s minor defects were efficiently rectified by Luminos. Furthermore use of third party experts for servicing Turnkey Tech is a violation of Contract A and was the probable cause of collapse of technology. (ii) Delayed delivery was caused by a pending Suit between Stalwart and Mr.Srivatsav and was beyond the control of Luminos. Hence Luminos is absolved in pursuance to the force majeure clause in Contract A. (iii) The goodwill payment made by Castle to Mr.Dhawani was completely unnecessary and in any event not related to Luminos. (iv) There is no proof that Castle has suffered loss of reputation and in any event it was not caused by Luminos. 19. The two arbitrators nominated Mr.Yuhao Wu, the head Legal Counsel of leading software company in Malaysia, as the presiding arbitrator on 25-10-2015. All three arbitrators were cleared of any potential conflict of interest. The Tribunal issued Procedural Order No.1 which among other things stated: i. The parties have chosen not to let in oral evidence. ii. The matter has been posted for final arguments on 4-5-2016 for oral hearing and Tribunal shall hear all the issues raised in Statement of Claim and Defense together. 20. On 29-4-2016, Luminos made an application to the Tribunal to join Stalwart as a party to the arbitration proceedings for effective adjudication of the dispute. Copy of the application was sent to Castle and Stalwart. Tribunal subsequently sent letters dated 1-5- 2016 to the parties stating that the oral hearing was postponed and Tribunal will notify regarding the schedule for oral hearing in due course. 21. Stalwart replied through a letter dated 27-5-2016 stating that it has no objection in being impleaded as a party to the arbitration proceedings and further asserted that it will sail along with Luminos submissions in the merits of the dispute. Castle however raised objections to the application for joinder through a letter dated 3-7-2016 and requested Tribunal two months time for filing Additional Statement of Claim stating that it is fundamental for Castle to make further submissions in the light of recent events. Tribunal allowed Castle s request. 22. Castle sent its Additional Statement of Claim to the Tribunal dated 2-9-2016 and took a position that: Page 7

i. Stalwart cannot be joined as party to the arbitration proceedings since he is not a party to the arbitration agreement under Contract A. ii. Furthermore Luminos has recently added the services of a leading law firm in India, Balchand Legal LLP ( Balchand ) in Luminos team of Legal Representatives for the arbitration. From a small investigation, it has come to the attention of Castle that the presiding arbitrator s cousin Ms.Clarice Wong (who lives with Mr.Yuhao Wu) is employed as Business Development Manager in Balchand s branch office located in Malaysia. Accordingly as provided under the 2015 amendments to Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 there exists a conflict of interest where, a close family member of the arbitrator is a partner or employee of the law firm representing one of the parties. However since the arbitration is in the Eleventh hour of proceedings a challenge against the presiding arbitrator will unnecessarily delay the arbitration proceedings and accordingly it is requested that the Tribunal may remove Balchand from the team of Luminos legal representatives to prevent potential delay. 23. Luminos replied through an Additional Statement of Defence dated 3-1-2017 and took a stand that: i. Contract B was part and parcel of Contract A since it entailed the same business purpose, i.e., completion of the Project and the same is evidenced through the many cross references made to Contract A. In addition there exists no separate dispute resolution clause in Contract B, since it was the intention of the parties to be bound under the arbitration agreement of Contract A. Accordingly Stalwart can be joined as a part to the current arbitration proceedings. ii. The Tribunal is not vested with the power under the agreed laws to remove a Counsel viz. Balchand from the arbitration proceedings. In addition the present scenario reflects no conflict of interest and in any event the 2015 amendments are not applicable to the present dispute. 24. The Tribunal issued Procedural Order No.2 stating that: i. The revised issues to be dealt by the parties in the arbitration are as follows: a) Can Stalwart be joined in the present arbitration proceedings? b) Does the Tribunal have the power to remove Luminos Counsel, Balchand from the arbitration proceedings? c) Has Luminos breached Contract A? d) Is Luminos liable to pay the damages as claimed for by Castle? ii. A conference call between the party representatives and arbitrators was held on 28-1-2017. Due to conflicting calendars, the oral hearing is scheduled to be held on 23-11-2017 at New Delhi. iii. Laws of Bharata are parimateria to the laws of India. Page 8

B. COMPETITION RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. ADMINISTRATION & GENERAL RULE 1. Organizer means the School of Law, G.D. Goenka University, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. 2. Competition means G.D. Goenka-CIArb International Commercial Arbitration Competition, 2017. 3. Participating Team/ Institution means the team that has registered itself for the competition as per the rules. 2. TIME, DATE & VENUE 1. The G.D. GOENKA- CIArb INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION COMPETITION, 2017, shall be held during 24-26 November, 2017. 2. Venue:G.D. Goenka School of Law, G.D. Goenka University, Sohna Gurgaon Road, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana 122103. 3. LANGUAGE 1. The official language for the Competition shall be English only. 4 ELIGIBIITY 1. The Competition shall be open for bona fide students who are pursuing an integrated 5 year LL.B. Programme or 3 year LL.B Programme from an institute/university in India. Such institution must be recognized by the Bar Council of India. 2. Only one team can register from a particular law school/ College/ Institution/University to participate in the Competition. 5. TEAM COMPOSITION 1. Each participating university/college/institute shall nominate only one team consisting of three student members, out of whom, two will be speakers and one will be the researcher. 2. Any additional member will not be entitled to local hospitality. He shall also be not entitled to any kind of prize/ award in the competition. 3. The Researcher may be permitted to argue as Speaker in case of illness OR any unforeseen event. Prior permission of the organizers of competition in such case shall be mandatory. Page 9

6. DRESS CODE 1. Participants are required to adhere to the following dress code while present in any court room during the Competition: I. Ladies: White shirt and black pant/black skirt along with black tie, black coat and black shoes. II. Gentlemen: White shirt, black trousers, black tie along with black coat and black shoes. Strict adherence to the dress code is solicited. Failure will result in disqualification. 7. ACCOMODATION 1. The accommodation shall be provided to the participating teams within the University Campus in the student s hostel. The accommodation facility shall be restricted to only Three Members of a particular team, which in any case shall not change. 2. The participating teams are supposed to intimate the details of their arrival and departure as mentioned in TRAVEL & ACCOMODATION FORM 8. REGISTRATION 1. The registration of team is considered to be complete, once the registration fee is paid and the registration form is e- mailed with all necessary details. 2. Registration fees one paid will not be refunded. 3. Every team which has registered under the Rules shall be allotted a unique code. Once the unique code has been allotted, every team must use the team code for any communication with the Organizers during the course of the Competition. 4. The participating teams are supposed to refer the REGISTRATION FORM for the purpose of registering their team. 9. STRUCTURE OF THE COMPETITION 1. The formal commencement of the competition shall be on 24 th November, 2017 with registration of teams, allotment of rooms for the participants, draw of lots and exchange of memorials. Receiving of the teams and registration of the teams will be closed by 24 th November 2:30 p.m. Any team which reaches late will not be allowed to participate in the competition. 2. The competition will start with inaugural ceremony on 25 th of November followed by the preliminary rounds. Quarter finals, Semi-finals and finals will take place on 26 th November which will be followed by the valedictory function. Certificates and prizes will be distributed only during the valedictory function. No prize/certificate will be given to participants who are not present at the valedictory session. 10. PRELIMINARY ROUNDS 1. There shall be two preliminary rounds on 25 th November, 2017, and every team shall be given the opportunity to argue for each side. The Lots for the Preliminary rounds will be drawn on 24 th November2017. Page 10

2. The Petitioner shall be allotted a total of 15 minutes to speak, including any surrebuttals. The Respondent shall be allotted 15 minutes for rebuttal and arguments. Any extension of time beyond the specified period shall be subject to the discretion of the judges. 3. The division of time between the speakers is the discretion of the team members, subject to a maximum of 8 minutes for one speaker. 4. Before the commencement of the each round, each team shall indicate to the 'court officer' as to how they wish to allocate their time. 5. At the end of the preliminary rounds, the top 8 teams will qualify for the Quarter Finals. The top 8 teams will be selected on the basis of number of rounds won. 6. A team shall be credited with a win, if its total marks in the respective session are higher than those of its opponent team. 7. In the case of a tie, combined total marks of both the preliminary rounds shall be considered. The team with the higher score will advance to the Quarter Finals. If the situation of the tie still persists, then it would be resolved by considering the memorial scores. 11 QUARTER FINALS 1. The Quarter Finals will be Knock-out round and will take place on 26 th November, 2017. The top 4 teams, with the highest total scores in these oral rounds shall qualify for the semi-final rounds. 2. The side to be represented by a team shall be determined by way of draw of lots with the teams picking the lots after the completion of the preliminary rounds. 3. Each team shall get a total time of 20 minutes to present their case and this shall include the time for 'rebuttal' and 'Surrebuttal'. Any extension of time beyond the specified period shall be subject to the discretion of the judges. 4. The division of time between the speakers is the discretion of the team members, subject to a maximum of 12 minutes for one speaker. 5. Before the commencement of the round, each team shall indicate to the 'court officer' as to how they wish to allocate their time. 12 SEMI-FINALS 1. The Semi-Finals will be held on 26 th November, 2017. 2. The Semi-Finals will be knock-out round. The top 2 teams, with the highest total scores in these oral rounds shall qualify for the Final rounds. 3. The side to be presented by the team shall be determined by way of draw of lots with the teams picking the lots after the completion of quarter-finals rounds. 4. Each team shall get a total of 25 minutes to present their case. This time will include the time for 'rebuttal' and 'Surrebuttal'. Any extension of time beyond the specified period shall be subject to the discretion of the judges. The division of time between the speakers in the discretion of the team members, subject to a maximum of 14 minutes for one speaker. Page 11

5. Before the commencement of the round, each team shall indicate to the 'court officer' as to how they wish to allocate their time. 13 FINALS 1. The Final will be held after the Semi-Finals on 26 th November, 2017. A team will be credited with a win in the Final if the total marks are higher than those of its opponent team. 2. Each team shall get a total of 30 minutes to present their case. This time will include the time for 'rebuttal' and 'Surrebuttal'. 3. The division of time between the speakers is the discretion of the team members, subject to a maximum of 18 minutes for one speaker. 4. Before the commencement of the round, each team shall indicate to the 'court officer' as to how they wish to allocate their time. 14. MEMORIAL RULES 1. General Rule i. All memorials submitted for all purposes of the Competition shall strictly adhere to the rules of the Competition. i. Each Team participating in the Competition must prepare one Memorial on behalf of Petitioner(s)/ Appellant(s) and one on behalf of the Respondent(s). ii. Each team has to submit 5 hard copies of the Memorials from each side at the time of registration. Non-compliance will entail a penalty of deduction of 10 points per copy not submitted. iii. The mode of citation throughout the memorial shall be 19th Edition of Harvard Bluebook. iv. Appellant memorials are required to have a light blue cover and Respondent memorials are required to have a bright yellow cover. v. The memorials shall not contain any form of identification apart from the team code. If any such identification or mark, symbol, etc. which has the effect of identifying the team is found on the memorial, then it shall result in instant disqualification. vi. The hard copy of memorial must be exact replica of the soft copy submitted with the Organizers. Any difference in the same will result in disqualification from the Competition. vii. Each Team must send a soft copy of their memorials, in PDF format only, for evaluation by November 20, 2017 before 11:59 P.M. to arbitrationmoot@gdgoenka.ac.in with the subject Submission for G.D. Goenka- CIArb Competition followed by TEAM CODE. Memorials submitted beyond the deadline shall incur a liability of 10 points for the first day of delay, and 10 points each day for every subsequent day. No extension of time will be granted with respect to this deadline. However, teams submitting soft copies of memorials any time after November 22, 2017 will be subject to immediate disqualification. Memorials shall be sent as an attachment with the mail in the form of single file for each side of memorial. Page 12

Guidelines for Formatting: All memorials shall be prepared to the following specifications: i. Memorial or counter memorial shall not be more than 25 typed pages. ii. Memorials must be typed and submitted on standard A4 size paper. iii. Font and size of the text of all parts of the memorial (excluding footnotes) must be the same and must be in Times New Roman 12 font size. iv. The texts of all parts of each memorial must be double line-spaced, with one inch margin on both sides. v. The text of footnotes may be single line spaced. The font size of footnotes must be 2 points less than the text font. vi. There must be double spacing between separate footnotes and between each heading and the body text of the memorial. vii. Quotations of sources outside of the memorial of fifty words or more in any part of the memorial shall be block quoted and must be single-spaced. viii. The table of Contents, Index of Authorities and Case Title are not included in the 25 typed pages limit. 2. Content of Memorials The Memorial shall consist of the following parts: i. Table of Contents ii. Index of Authorities (including corresponding page numbers) iii. Statement of Jurisdiction iv. Identification of Issues v. Statement of Facts vi. Summary of Pleadings vii. Pleadings including the Conclusion and/or Prayer for Relief 15. MARKING SCHEME 1. ORAL ROUNDS Knowledge of Facts and evidence on record Correct Articulation of Issues; knowledge of law and its interpretation and application Skill of advocacy, persuasiveness and response to questions Use of Authorities General Impression and Court Manners Total Points [25 Points] Note for participants - To ensure uniformity in marking in each court room to do away with subjectivity to an extent, follow the point s scheme given as under- Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor 5 4 3 2 1 Page 13

2. MEMORIAL S.NO. MARKING CRITERIA 1. Proper inclusion of parties, identification of issues and nature of relief sought 2. Knowledge of facts & law 15 3. Applications of law to facts 10 4. Analysis and organization 10 5. Use of authority 15 6. Proper citation & correct format 10 7. Originality in presentation 10 8 General impression and clarity of though 10 9. Grammar and style of presentation 10 Total 100 16. AWARD Winning Team : Rs. 1,00,000 Runner up Team :Rs. 50,000 Best Speaker (Male) :Rs. 20,000 Best Speaker (Female) :Rs. 20,000 Best Memorial :Rs. 10,000 MARKS ALLOTED 10 1. Certificates for participation will be given to all the participants. 2. Separate Certificates will be provided to the Quarter-Finalists, Semi-Finalists, Runners-up and Winners. 3. All Certificates and awards will be presented to the participants only at the Valedictory Ceremony on the evening of 26 th November, 2017. The participants are advised to finalize their travel plan accordingly. 4. The certificates will not be provided to any participant who is not present at the Valedictory Ceremony and the same will not be sent by post/courier to any participant under any circumstances whatsoever. 17. PENALTIES 1. Scouting: No member of any participating team shall view any other oral rounds while the team is still in the competition. If such an incident comes to the notice of the organizers then the scouting team shall be subject to disqualification. Teams may file a written complaint of scouting to the Organizers. The decision of the Organizers shall be final and binding. 2. Non Disclosure of Identity: Teams shall not disclose their identity, i.e. the name of their institution, city, etc. or any other information which has the effect of disclosing Page 14

their identity and affiliation with a particular university or institution. Such disclosure shall result in disqualification subject to the discretion of the Organizers. 3. Copyright: The copyright with regard to the memorials submitted for the participation in the Competition is assigned by participants and shall also vest completely and fully with the Organizers. The participants shall certify the originality of the memorials and the materials used and shall be responsible for any claim or dispute arising out of further use and exhibition of these materials. The Organizers shall have the right to publicly display, distribute either electronically or otherwise and they shall not be responsible for any liability to any person for any loss caused by errors or omissions in this collection of information, or for accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in these materials. 18. IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RULES: 1. Regarding Competition practice and procedures, the final decision on the interpretation and implementation of rules lies with the organizers. 2. The Organising Committee reserves the right to amend/change the rules & regulations with prior notice to all registered teams 19. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Upon completion of the competition, the organising committee reserves the exclusive right to use the memorials submitted to them, as they deem appropriate. 2. Participating teams should carry with them required study or reference materials for their own use during the oral rounds of competition. 3. Participating teams shall be expected to maintain the proper decorum of the courtroom during the proceedings and shall conduct themselves in a manner befitting the legal profession. 4. The organising committee reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to take appropriate action for any unethical, unprofessional and wrongful conduct during the entire period of the competition. 5. The organising committee's decision as regards the interpretation of these rules or any other matters related to the Competition Court competition shall be final and binding. If there is any situation, which is not covered by these rules, the decision of the organising committee shall be final. 6. The organising committee reserves the right to amend, modify or repeal any of the rules if so required and as they deem appropriate. Participating teams shall receive adequate notice of any/all such amendments or modifications to the rules. 7. The organising committee shall not be held responsible for any loss or non-delivery of the Memorials. Page 15

20. FOR FURTHER DETAILS CONTACT: 1. Regarding the Competition problem- Clarifications regarding the Competition proposition will only be entertained though email. Send your queries at arbitrationmoot@gdgoenka.ac.in with subject line Competition Problem-Queries. Note: The last date for seeking clarifications regarding the Competition proposition is 10th October 2017. Clarifications (if any) will be issued on 15 th October 2017. 2. Regarding the rules of the competition or any other queries please contact any of the following members of the Organizing Committee between 10 am and 9 pm. Ms.Mrinalini Banerjee +91-9438420300 Mr.Shyamtanu Pal +91-9069833752 Email: arbitrationmoot@gdgoenka.ac.in Facebook: GDGOENKA MOOT COURT COMPETITION page & GDGOENKA SCHOOL OF LAW page Ms.Ruchi Sinha +91-9599856034 Mr.Shreyas Vyas +91-7693015323 Page 16

GD. GOENKA CIArb INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION COMPETITION, 2017 REGISTRATION FORM (Please fill in capital letters) Name and Address of the Institution: Faculty In-charge: Contact No. Of Faculty In-charge: Email of Faculty In-charge: Details of the Participants: SPEAKER 1: NAME: PROGRAMME & SEMESTER: SEX(M/F) MOBILE: EMAIL ID: SPEAKER 2: NAME: PROGRAMME & SEMESTER: SEX(M/F) MOBILE: EMAIL ID: RESEARCHER: NAME: PROGRAMME & SEMESTER: SEX(M/F) MOBILE: EMAIL ID: Page 17

PASTE THE PASSPORT SIZE PHOTOGRAPH OF SPEAKER 1 PASTE THE PASSPORT SIZE PHOTOGRAPH OF SPEAKER 2 PASTE THE PASSPORT SIZE PHOTOGRAPH OF RESEARCHER SPEAKER 1 SPEAKER 2 RESEARCHER Accommodation Required: YES/ NO REGISTRATION FEE: OFFLINE PAYMENT: Amount of Rs. 3600/- (Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred Only) demand draft to be drawn in favour of G.D. Goenka University payable at New Delhi. Registration Fees: DD No. Dated: Please send the complete registration form along with demand draft by SPEED POST or REGISTERED POST ONLY to: The Dean, School of Law GD Goenka University, G D Goenka Education City, Sohna Gurgaon Road, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana 122103. +91-9871806779, +91-9540964845 Scanned copy of complete registration form along with the demand draft should be e- mailed to arbitrationmoot@gdgoenka.ac.in ONLINE PAYMENT: NEFT (Fund Transfer) Name of Beneficiary: G.D. GOENKA UNIVERSITY NAME OF BANK: HDFC BANK ADDRESS: SITE NO. 2, OCF POCKET, SECTOR- C, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070 INDIA S.B A/C NO.: 02731450000270 RTGS NO. : HDFC0000273 Page 18

FAX NO. : 0124-3315936 MICR CODE: 110240034 5E Mail: accountsgdgu@gdgoenka.ac.in The details of online payment i.e. Account Holder Name, NEFT number, Date & Amount along with the complete registration form should be e- mailed to arbitrationmoot@gdgoenka.ac.in DECLARATION: WE THE UNDERSIGNED DECLARE THAT THE INSTITUTION AND ITS TEAM MEMBERS WILL ABIDE BY ALL THE RULES OF THE COMPETITION SET OUT IN THE RULES AND AS NOTIFIED TO US FROM TIME TO TIME THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF THE COMPETITION. WE ALSO DECLARE AND CONFIRM THAT ALL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE REGISTRATION FORM IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. SPEAKER 1: SPEAKER 2: RESEARCHER: FACULTY IN-CHARGE: DATE: HEAD/DEAN OF SCHOOL: (SIGNATURE WITH INSTITUTION SEAL) Note: A Passport Size Photograph Of The Participating Student Should Be Sent Along With The Registration Form With The Name Of The Student Written On The Back Side Of The Phototgraph for the ID card to be issued on the date of the competition. Note: Registration Will Be Considered As Complete Only After Receiving The Demand Draft (In Case Of Offline Payment) Or The Details Of Online Payment Along With Registration Form At Above Mentioned Addresses Page 19

G.D. GOENKA CIArb INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION COMPETITION, 2017 TRAVEL & ACCOMODATION FORM (Please fill in capital letters) Name and Address of the Institution: Faculty In-charge: Contact No. Of Faculty In-charge: Email Of Faculty In-charge: A. TRAVEL DETAILS ARRIVAL I. SPEAKER 1 a) Mode of Travel (Air/Train/Bus) : b) Details (Flight No./ Train No. With Coach/ Bus Details): c) Date & Time of Arrival: II. SPEAKER 2 a) Mode of Travel (Air/Train/Bus) : b) Details (Flight No./ Train No. With Coach/ Bus Details): c) Date & Time of Arrival: III. RESEARCHER a) Mode of Travel (Air/Train/Bus) : b) Details (Flight No./ Train No. With Coach/ Bus Details): c) Date & Time of Arrival: B. TRAVEL DETAILS - DEPARTURE I. SPEAKER 1 a) Mode of Travel (Air/Train/Bus) : b) Details (Flight No./ Train No. With Coach/ Bus Details): Page 20

c) Date & Time of Departure: II. SPEAKER 2 a) Mode of Travel (Air/Train/Bus) : b) Details (Flight No./ Train No. With Coach/ Bus Details): c) Date & Time of Departure: III. RESEARCHER a) Mode of Travel (Air/Train/Bus) : b) Details (Flight No./ Train No. With Coach/ Bus Details): c) Date & Time of Departure: C. ACCOMODATION a) Whether Accommodation Required : YES / NO If Yes; No. of Male and Female Members in the Team M F Note: If travel details are not provided on time by the team, the organizer will not arrange for the accommodation SIGNATURE: SPEAKER 1: SPEAKER 2: RESEARCHER: FACULTY IN-CHARGE: DATE: HEAD/DEAN OF SCHOOL: (SIGNATURE WITH INSTITUTION SEAL) Page 21