Memorial For The Claimant - JNMC 12

10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
JNMC-12
10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
-before THE HON’BLE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL-
-IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION-

UNDER THE ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE, 2016
________________________________________________________________
BETWEEN
AI INNOVATIONS CORP. ………………….………………. (CLAIMANT)
AND
ARTIFICIANA PVT LTD. ………………………………... (RESPONDENT)

________________________________________________________________
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT-

1|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SR PARTICULARS PAGE
NO. NO.
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3-4
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-30

ISSUE 1 Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the
dispute?
1.1. The doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz will apply.
1.2. The Hon’ble Tribunal should find that the parties entered into a valid
arbitration agreement.
1.2.1. The agreement is governed by the laws of Indovia.
1.2.2. The agreement is valid.
1.3 The parties agreed on arbitration under the SIAC Rules, 2016.
1.4 The dispute is arbitral under the applicable laws.
ISSUE 2 Whether the challenge raised by the Respondent over Ms.
Erica’s appointment maintainable?
2.1 Whether the guidelines of IBA will be applicable in this situation.
2.2 Whether the Challenged filed in 21 days by the Respondent for the
appointment of arbitrator is maintainable?
2|Page
2.3 Whether the connection between Ms Erica and the Claimant is

sufficient enough to raise the challenge.
ISSUE 3 Whether the Claimant has Ownership and Proprietary Rights
over the Intellectual Property Rights of MindFlayer?
3.1 Whether the Claimant has the Ownership of the Copyright.
3.2 Whether the Claimant was working under a contract of service for the
Respondent.
ISSUE 4 Whether the Respondent has breached the Agreement, thereby
entitling the Claimant to seek damages.
4.1 Whether there is a material breach of the agreement by the
Respondent.
4.2 Whether the Respondent is liable for misrepresentation.
4.3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages.
ISSUE 5 Whether the Print screen produced by the Respondent at the
stage of hearing, is admissible?
7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 31
3|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Sr.No CASES CITATIONS

Laurentienne-vie, Cie d’assurances Inc. v. Empire, 12 June 2000, [2000] CanLII
1. Cie d’assurance-vie, Court of Appeal of Quebec, 9001 (QC CA).
Canada
2. CLOUT case No. 406 [Bundesgerichtshof,
Germany, II ZR 373/98, 3
April 2000].
3. Francis Travel Marketing Pty. Limited v. Virgin 7 May 1996, [1996] NSWSC
Atlantic Airways Limited, Supreme Court of New 104.
South Wales— Court of Appeal, Australia
4. East African Development Bank v. Ziwa 20 October 2000, [2000]
Horticultural Exporters Limited, High Court at UGCommC 8.
Kampala, Uganda
5. Alfred Wekesa Sambu & 4 others v. Mohammed 16 May 2007, Civil Suit
Hatimy & 12 others, High Court at Nairobi, Kenya 1281 of 2006.
6. Livingstone Kamadi Obuga v. Uhuru Kenyatta & 3 18 December 2006, Civil
others, High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts), Suit 1159 of 2006.
Kenya
7. CLOUT case No. 1072 [High Commercial Court,
Croatia, 29 April 2001], VTS
RH, Pž-5168/01.
8. CLOUT case No. 1071 [Hrvatsko Mirovinsko
Osiguranje d.o.o. v. EDIS
d.o.o., High Commercial
Court, Croatia, 17 April
2007].
9. XLVII Pž-6756/04-3; D. Andrés v. Díez Carrillo 5 October 2006, rec. apel.
S.L., Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca 399/2006.
(sección 5ª), Spain
10. Re Arbitration Between Terminal Auxiliar Mari v. 189 N.Y.S.2d 655 (1959).
Winkler Credit Co.
4|Page
11. Clevenger v. Clevenger 189 Cal.App.2d 658 (Cal.

Ct. App. 1961).
12. Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co 252 N.Y. 284, 169 N.E. 386
(1929).
13. Orchard Capital I Ltd. v. Ravindra Kumar [2012] 2 SLR 51.
Jhunjhunwala
14. Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf v. Hii Yii Ann [2014] 4 SLR 1042.
15. Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Islamic [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 571.
Republic of Pakistan
16. Jung Science Information Technology Co. Ltd. v. 22 July 2008, [2008] HKCFI
Zte. Corporation, High Court—Court of First 606.
Instance, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
of China.
http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/
hkcfi/2008/606.html
17. Case 665: MAL 12 (2) - Germany: 10 SchH 3/01 (19 December
Oberlandesgericht Naumburg 2001).
18. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/S Raja Civil Appeal No. 5760 of
Transport(P) Ltd 2009 arising out of SLP (C)
No. 26906 of 2008.
19. Nav Sahitya Prakash v. Anand Kumar AIR 1981 All 200.
20. Manojah Cine Productions v. A. Sundaresan AIR 1976 Mad 22.
21. National Power plc v. United Gas Company Ltd (1998) All ER (D).
22. Bishamber Nath Agarwal v. Kishan Chand AIR 1990 All 65.
23. Peoplesoft U.S.A., Inc. v. Softeck, Inc. 227 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D.
Cal. , 2002).
24. Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass [2013] EWCA Civ 200.
Group UK and Ireland
25. Pomeranz v. McDonald’s Corp 843 P.2d 1378, 1381 (Colo.
1993).
26. Methanex Corporation v. United States of America (2005) 44 ILM 1345.
5|Page
Sr.No STATUTES
1. Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, SIAC Rules
(6th Edition, 2016).
2. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 (2006
Amendments).
3. Indian Contract Act, 1872.
4. Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
5. The Copyright Act 1957.
Sr. No. ARTICLES

1. YEO, Tiong Min. The Contractual Basis of the Enforcement of Exclusive and
Non-Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements. (2005). Singapore Academy of Law
Journal. 17, (1), 306-360. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/759.
2. Goetz, Charles J., and Robert E. Scott. “Enforcing Promises: An Examination of
the Basis of Contract.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 89, no. 7, 1980, pp. 1261–322.
JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/795967. Accessed 23 Oct. 2023.
3. Mansour Fallah, Sara, The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence before
International Courts and Tribunals (2020). The Law and Practice of International
Courts and Tribunals 19 (2020) 147–176, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3950691.
6|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS
Hon’ble Honourable
Sec. Section
Art. Article
NYC New York Convention
UNCITRAL The United Nations Commission on

International Trade Law
V. Versus
SCC Supreme Court Cases
IBA International Bar Association
SLP Special Leave Petition
Cal Calcutta
Corp Corporation
Ltd Limited
IPR Intellectual Property Right
Co Company
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad
SIAC Rules Singapore International Arbitration Centre

Rules
WTO World Trade Organisation
TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property Rights
7|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that the tribunal does have the jurisdiction
to decide on the merits of the case by virtue of Clause 25 of the Collaboration Agreement 1
and Rule 28.2 of the SIAC Rules, 20162.
1. Clause 28.3 of the agreement -

Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 25.2, any Dispute may, upon the will of either
Party, be referred to and finally resolved in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of
the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), 2016, which rules are,
subject to the provisions of this Clause 25, deemed to be incorporated by reference into
this Clause 25.
Clause 25.4 of the agreement -
The place of arbitration shall be Singapore and proceedings shall be conducted in
English.
2. Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), 2016

Rule 28.2 - The Tribunal shall have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including
any objections concerning the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement.
An arbitration agreement that forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement
independent of the other terms of the contract. A decision by the Tribunal that the
contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration
agreement, and the Tribunal shall not cease to have jurisdiction by reason of any
allegation that the contract is non-existent or null and void.
1
Moot problem, Annexure A, Clause28.3.
2
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules, 2016, Rule 28.2.
8|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Tribunal, the facts of the present
case are summarized in the following chronological order.
DATE EVENT
MARCH 15, 2022 AI Innovations and Artificiana entered into a Collaboration Agreement
to formalize their partnership for the development of the software
application named 'MindFlayer'.
JUNE 13, 2022 Artificiana appointed a new CEO, Mr. Jim Brenner. In his interview
with a global business magazine ‘MindVerse,’ he talked about the new
software ‘MindFlayer’ which would be a game changer for the
industry.
JUNE 24, 2022 MindVerse printed this interview with the headline ‘Artificiana’s new
Mind-Flaying invention! A game changer.’ The interview had no
mention of collaboration between the two companies.
JUNE 29, 2022 AI Innovations initiated a direct communication channel to discuss the
omission of their collaboration from the interview.
JULY 11, 2022 Artificiana publicly stated to clarify the situation. They referred to
them as a "technical support partner."
JULY 15, 2022 AI Innovations through a formal letter to Artificiana elaborated on their
multifaceted contributions to the collaborative project, highlighting
their role beyond mere "technical support."
JULY 25, 2022 Artificiana’s legal representatives responded acknowledging AI
Innovations' contributions and their desire for accurate representation.
However, it is not mentioned on the account of rectifying the situation.
OCTOBER 10, 2022 Artificiana’s legal representative, Ms Nancy Hopper privately reached
out to Mr Steeve Byers from AI Innovations, for negotiation.
NOVEMBER 15, AI Innovation sent a notice invoking arbitration to Artificiana. They

2022 claimed damages worth $500 million from Artificiana for the
misrepresentation and the breach of the Agreement. AI Innovations
appointed Ms. Joyce Mayfield as their arbitrator.
9|Page
NOVEMBER 29, Artificiana sent its answer to the Request for Arbitration and also
2022 appointed Mr Will Henderson, as its co-arbitrator. Artificiana
responded to the notice stating that the pre-arbitration stage has not
been concluded.
DECEMBER 15, Upon the Claimant’s request, the SIAC appointed Ms Erica Sinclair,
2022 as chairperson.
JANUARY 4, 2023 Ms. Erica Sinclair responded to the request for clarifications submitted
by the Respondent.
JANUARY 5, 2023 The Respondent submitted the challenge to Ms Erica’s appointment.
MARCH 15, 2023 The Arbitral Tribunal identified the issues under consideration.
JUNE 4, 2023 The Arbitral Tribunal added one more issue of admissibility of
evidence to the pre-existing list of issues, it was decided that the
hearing on merits shall take and the Arbitral Tribunal shall decide upon
the issues.
NOVEMBER 5, The Arbitral Tribunal has listed the matter for final hearing.
2023
10 | P a g e
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the dispute?
ISSUE 2
Whether the challenge raised by the Respondent over Ms. Erica’s appointment maintainable?
ISSUE 3
Whether the Claimant have Ownership and Proprietary Rights over the Intellectual Property
Rights of MindFlayer?
ISSUE 4
Whether the Respondent has breached the Agreement, thereby entitling the Claimant to seek
damages?
ISSUE 5
Whether the Print screen produced by the Respondent at the stage of hearing, admissible?
11 | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the dispute?
1. It is submitted that the tribunal does have the jurisdiction to rule over claims regarding
its jurisdiction, merits and existence of the collaboration agreement [agreement]. The
Respondent has challenged the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal to consider the
disputes arising out of the agreement on the ground that the agreement was not valid
and effective. The Claimant has invoked Clause 25.3 of the agreement and approached
the Hon’ble tribunal.
2. It is submitted by the Claimant, that as the Hon’ble Tribunal is empowered to rule on
its own jurisdiction as per the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz [1.1], the Tribunal
should find that the parties entered into a valid agreement. [1.2] Additionally, the parties
agreed to the application of the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
(hereinafter, the SIAC Rules 2016) [1.3]. The dispute is arbitrable under the applicable
laws [1.4].
[1.1] The doctrine of Kompetenz - Kompetenz will apply.
3. It is submitted that the tribunal has jurisdiction as the arbitral tribunal is competent to
determine its own jurisdiction. The SIAC rules have empowered the tribunal to decide
the validity of its own jurisdiction including any objections concerning the existence,
validity or scope of the agreement.3
4. The principle of Kompetenz – Kompetenz is also mentioned in the UNCITRAL Model
Law, “for that purpose, an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be
treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. A decision by
the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the
invalidity of the arbitration clause.”4
[1.2] The tribunal should find that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement.
5. It is submitted that the agreement concluded by the parties is both valid and enforceable.
It is submitted that the laws of Indovia govern the formation of the Agreement. [1.2.1]
and it is a valid agreement. [1.2.2]
3
Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, SIAC Rules (6th Edition, 2016), Rule 28.1.
4
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art. 16.
12 | P a g e
[1.2.1] The agreement is governed by the laws of Indovia.
6. It is submitted that the agreement includes a dispute resolution clause and according to
clause 25.5 of the agreement it shall be governed by the laws of Indovia.
“Arbitration agreement -
(1) In this Part, “arbitration agreement” means an agreement by the parties to submit
to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between
them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.
(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract
or the form of a separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.”5
It is submitted that clause 25.3 of the agreement empowers the parties to bring the
matter before the arbitral tribunal. Also, if the Parties successfully resolve the dispute
through negotiation, they shall formalize the agreement in writing, and no further
arbitration will be pursued. 6The lack of progress in rectifying the situation heightened
Claimants' concerns about their contributions being undervalued or misrepresented. 7
Untimely payment of fees by the Respondent has caused financial strain on the
operations of the Claimant and has significantly hampered further development of the
software application. It is not possible now to resolve the dispute through negotiation
amicably and the Claimant is entitled to damages.
[1.2.2] The agreement is valid.
7. It is submitted that the NYC is applied in Indiovia through Part II of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 titled ‘Enforcement of Certain Foreign Awards’. The Act is
broadly based on UNCITRAL Model Law and Indiovian’s reservations under the NYC,
which can be found in Part II of the Act in Sec. 44.
8. According to ICA “What agreements are contracts. - All agreements are contracts if
they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be
void. —All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not
hereby expressly declared to be void." Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in
5
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, sec. 7.
6
Moot problem, Annexure A, clause 25.1.
7
Moot problem, para 14.
13 | P a g e
force in 1[India], and not hereby expressly repealed, by which any contract is required
to be made in writing or the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration
of documents.”8
9. It is submitted that under Art. II (3) of the NYC, an arbitration agreement is said to be
invalid if it is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The party
alleging invalidity of the arbitration agreement bears the burden of showing that the
arbitration agreement is invalid.
10. It has been further submitted that under Art. 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, 1985, an
arbitration agreement is null and void when it was defective or invalid at formation,
typically as a result of fraud, duress, illegality, mistake, and lack of capacity. Further,
an agreement is inoperative where it was once valid but has ceased to have effect, inter
alia, where the agreement was explicitly or implicitly revoked or waived, where it is res
judicata, or where a relevant time limit has expired. In the instant case, the Respondent
alleged that the Claimant had misrepresented its technological capabilities and financial
standing to induce the Respondent into entering into this collaboration. 9
11. The importance of the right to arbitrate has also been highlighted: one court has
characterized it as a “fundamental right”,10 and it was stated by the German Federal
Court of Justice to derive from the constitutional rights to personal freedom and private
autonomy.11
12. It is submitted that there is no inducement from the side of the Claimant. The Claimant
stands out for its pioneering work in artificial intelligence, harnessing the potential of
cutting-edge algorithms to drive meaningful change in diverse sectors. 12 Also, the
Respondent has not made timely payments for its services and expertise during the
collaboration and the non-payment of fees has caused financial strain on the operations
and has significantly hampered further development of the software application. 13
13. It is submitted that the allegations of misrepresentation by the Respondent of
technological and financial capabilities are not valid and it was the duty of the
Respondent to verify the statements made by the other party before entering into
agreement. Many contracting parties investigate the market in part to identify and select
8
Indian Contract Act 1872, sec.10.
9
10
Laurentienne-vie, Cie d’assurances Inc. v. Empire, Cie d’assurance-vie, Court of Appeal of Quebec, Canada,
12 June 2000, [2000] CanLII 9001 (QC CA).
11
CLOUT case No. 406 [Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, II ZR 373/98, 3 April 2000].
12
13
14 | P a g e
prospective contract partners whose reputations for business integrity reduce the risk of
disappointing contract performance. Such information never will be wholly complete
or trustworthy. Contract parties who wish to reduce uncertainty as to their prospective
partners' integrity may gather more information and conduct a proper investigation.
14. It is submitted that in the case of such arbitrations covered by the NYC, the Court can
decline to refer a dispute covered by the arbitration agreement only if it concludes that
the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed,
and not on the ground that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation have to be inquired
into while deciding the disputes between the parties.
15. The arbitration clause is valid because the parties unequivocally agreed to submit
disputes arising out of the Agreement to arbitration as mentioned in clause 25.3 of the
agreement and the parties’ intention to arbitrate under the Singapore International
Arbitration Centre Rules, 2016 (SIAC Rules) is discernible and should be given effect. 14
[1.3] The parties agreed on arbitration under the Singapore International Arbitration
Centre Rules 2016.
16. It is submitted that the parties to the Agreement chose to have their disputes fully and
finally resolved by the most recent rules of the Singapore Arbitration Centre. However,
any reasonable interpretation leads to the conclusion that the Parties intended the SIAC
Rules to be applicable. It is a non-obstante clause that has an overriding power.
17. It is submitted that clause 25.3 of the agreement explicitly mentions that any Dispute
may, upon the will of either Party, be referred to and finally resolved in accordance with
the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”),
2016. It is further submitted that clause 25.6 of the agreement mentions that the place
of arbitration shall be Singapore and proceedings shall be conducted in English.
18. It is submitted that Rule 1 of SIAC Rules, 2016 which defines the Scope of Application
and Interpretation, mandates deemed acceptance that the arbitration shall be conducted
under and administered by SIAC by these Rules where the parties have agreed to refer
their disputes in accordance with the SIAC Rules.
[1.4]The dispute is arbitrable under the applicable laws.
19. It is humbly submitted that the dispute is arbitrable under the applicable laws. The
procedure for dispute resolution shall be followed by the SIAC Rules, 2016 and the
14
Moot problem, Anex-A 25.3.
15 | P a g e
agreement shall be governed by the laws of Indovia according to clause 25.3 and clause
25.5 of the agreement respectively.
20. The law chosen by the parties to govern the contract in which the arbitration clause is
inserted has no impact on the conditions under which a referral application will be
granted.15
21. Further illustration of this pro-party autonomy approach can be found in Ugandan and
Kenyan cases explicitly alluding to the courts’ duty to actively encourage resort to
arbitration and other means of extrajudicial dispute resolution. 16
22. The courts have confirmed that they may only refer an action to arbitration if a request
to that effect has been made by a party. 17 The Claimant is requesting to refer and finally
resolve the dispute through arbitration.
23. It is submitted that there has been a material breach of clause 5 of the agreement that
resulted in a dispute. It is in this regard that the Claimant has invoked the dispute
resolution clause. Also, the Respondent fails to rectify the situation of misrepresentation
and hence fails to cure the breach of the agreement.
24. It is submitted that the decision in Re Arbitration Between Terminal Auxiliar Mari
v. Winkler Credit Co. 18 where "any dispute (arising) under." the contract was to be
submitted to arbitration. There the plaintiff was not allowed to term the breach a
termination; the Court said: "the so-called termination . . . was nothing more or less
than a 'termination' of a contract for an alleged breach or non-performance of its terms.
That does not put an end to the right to arbitrate claims accruing prior thereto, for, if it
did, an arbitration clause could rarely, if ever, be carried out." 19An agreement to submit
"any controversies growing out of the contract" to arbitration will not only give the
arbitrators authority to adjudicate a breach but also to assess the damages.' 20
15
Francis Travel Marketing Pty. Limited v. Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited, Supreme Court of New South
Wales— Court of Appeal, Australia, 7 May 1996, [1996] NSWSC 104.
16
East African Development Bank v. Ziwa Horticultural Exporters Limited, High Court at Kampala, Uganda, 20
October 2000, [2000] UGCommC 8; Alfred Wekesa Sambu & 4 others v. Mohammed Hatimy & 12 others, High
Court at Nairobi, Kenya, 16 May 2007, Civil Suit 1281 of 2006; Livingstone Kamadi Obuga v. Uhuru Kenyatta
& 3 others, High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts), Kenya, 18 December 2006, Civil Suit 1159 of 2006.
17
CLOUT case No. 1072 [High Commercial Court, Croatia, 29 April 2001], VTS RH, Pž-5168/01; CLOUT case
No. 1071 [Hrvatsko Mirovinsko Osiguranje d.o.o. v. EDIS d.o.o., High Commercial Court, Croatia, 17 April
2007], XLVII Pž-6756/04-3; D. Andrés v. Díez Carrillo S.L., Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (sección
5ª), Spain, 5 October 2006, rec. apel. 399/2006.
18
Re Arbitration Between Terminal Auxiliar Mari v. Winkler Credit Co.,189 N.Y.S.2d 655 (1959).
19
Clevenger v. Clevenger, 189 Cal.App.2d 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961).
20
Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co, 252 N.Y. 284, 169 N.E. 386 (1929).
16 | P a g e
25. The classification of each clause as non-exclusive or exclusive is an exercise in

contractual construction, whether it is exclusive or non-exclusive on its face. 21 A
jurisdiction clause that appears to be non-exclusive on its face can be interpreted as
carrying with it intentions similar to that of an exclusive jurisdiction clause if an
analysis of contractual intention points in that direction. 22
26. It is further submitted that the Claimant is not satisfied with the negotiation process and
hence approached the Hon’ble Tribunal invoking clause 25.3 of the agreement. The
Tribunal shall not cease to have jurisdiction by reason of any allegation that the contract
is non-existent or null and void under SIAC rule 28.2.
21
Orchard Capital I Ltd. v. Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala, [2012] 2 SLR 51.
22
YEO, Tiong Min. The Contractual Basis of the Enforcement of Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Choice of Court
Agreements. (2005). Singapore Academy of Law Journal. 17, (1), 306-360.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/759.
17 | P a g e
ISSUE 2 Whether the challenge raised by the Respondent over Ms. Erica’s appointment
maintainable?
1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that the challenge raised is invalid
and will not be accepted in the purview of the law.
2. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that SIAC has appointed Ms Erica
under Rule 11 which states that “If a party fails to make a nomination of an arbitrator
within 14 days after receipt of a party’s nomination of an arbitrator, or within the period
otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the President shall proceed to
appoint an arbitrator on its behalf.” In the absence of the agreement of the co-
arbitrators, and upon the Claimant’s request, the SIAC appointed Ms Erica Sinclair, as
chairperson.23
[2.1] Whether the guidelines of IBA will be applicable in this situation.
3. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that the International Bar
Association (“IBA”) has published several rules and guidelines relating to international
arbitration which are designed to streamline the arbitral procedure and facilitate the use
of international arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution.
4. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that the IBA rules and guidelines
do not override any applicable law of the Agreement or arbitration rules chosen by the
parties. They become binding only upon agreement by the parties and there is nowhere
mention of the use of IBA rules or guidelines in the Agreement while resolving their
dispute therefore it is clear that the IBA rules or guidelines won't be applicable in this
given situation.
[2.2] Whether the challenge filed in 21 days by the Respondent for the appointment of the
arbitrator is maintainable.
5. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that according to Rule 14 of SIAC
which is regarding challenge to the arbitrator by either party if any of them doubt the
independence and impartiality of the arbitrator,
6. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that the period to do so has been
mentioned in Rule 15.1 of SIAC which states that “ a party that intends to challenge
an arbitrator shall file a notice of challenge with the Registrar in accordance with the
23
18 | P a g e
requirements of Rule 15.2 within 14 days after receipt of the notice of appointment of
the arbitrator who is being challenged or within 14 days after the circumstances
specified in Rule 14.1 or Rule 14.2 became known or should have reasonably been
known to that party”.
7. It is submitted that in the present case, the Respondent was aware that the information
about the relationship was accessible on specialized websites where details about
various arbitrators are available and the information about stakeholding was mentioned
in the available official website of Data-mension from the right beginning of the
arbitration and it will be considered that the Respondent had constructive knowledge of
the same but still the challenge was filed after 21 days of the appointment of the
arbitrator and having a reasonable doubt the Respondent did not challenge on the
appointment of the arbitrator. The appointment was made on the 15 th of December 2022
and the challenge was raised on the 5 th of January 2023 i.e., 21 days.
8. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that according to rule 41.1 “Any
party that proceeds with the arbitration without promptly raising any objection to a
failure to comply with any provision of these Rules, or of any other rules applicable to
the proceedings, any direction given by the Tribunal, or any requirement under the
arbitration agreement relating to the constitution of the Tribunal or the conduct of the
proceedings, shall be deemed to have waived its right to object.” This clearly shows
that their right to challenge the appointment of the arbitrator has been waived as they
have exceeded the time frame by SIAC.
[2.3] Whether the connection between Ms Erica and the Claimant is sufficient enough to
raise the challenge.
9. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that according to the SIAC rules, it
is nowhere mentioned that a particular type of relation between the arbitrator and the
arbitrating parties would lead to disqualification of the arbitrator.
10. It is submitted that the statement that an arbitrator’s failure to comply with the
disclosure requirement may, in itself, give rise to justifiable doubts as to that arbitrator’s
impartiality and independence. 24
24
Jung Science Information Technology Co. Ltd. v. Zte. Corporation, High Court—Court of First Instance, Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region of China, 22 July 2008, [2008] HKCFI 606,
http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/ hkcfi/2008/606.html.
19 | P a g e
11. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that merely being the wife of Mr
Murray Sinclair the chairman of the board of Data-mension, a Japanese-incorporated
company that held 99% of Algorithm, a company incorporated in England, and which,
in turn, holds 57% of AI Innovations’ shareholding and stating that she would be not
independent and be partial during the process of arbitration cause she is a person who
follows professional ethics due to which she may have been given the present case.
12. It is submitted that a German court has held that the disclosure duty only extends to
facts that, based on an objective assessment, can raise doubts as to the arbitrator’s
impartiality or independence. Applying that standard, the court found that an arbitrator
had not breached its disclosure duty by not revealing that he and the Respondent’s
managing partner were both members of the board of a German legal institute, that he
was a limited partner in a company set up by the Respondent’s managing director, that
he and that managing director were both engaged as arbitrators and experts in arbitral
proceedings and that he had failed to disclose his business relationships with the
Respondent’s managing director. 25
13. It is submitted that the court pointed out, however, that a justifiable apprehension as to
the impartiality and independence of the arbitrator could arise where he or she was
involved in the contract at issue. Furthermore, the court held that this reasoning may
not be applicable where the arbitrator is related to a company, an individual or a body
other than the State or its instrumentalities. 26
14. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that SIAC is one of the world's
leading arbitration institutions and it is known for its credibility in resolving
international disputes through its supportive legal framework, excellence in arbitration
services, and many more.
15. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that therefore questioning the
independence and impartiality of Ms. Erica is nothing but questioning the credibility of
SIAC Rules as Ms. Erica was appointed through the legal procedure established by the
SIAC Rules without the interruption of any third party in the appointment. Questioning
the independence and impartiality of Ms Erica is an absolute waste of time, and an
25
Case 665: MAL 12 (2) - Germany: Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, 10 SchH 3/01 (19 December 2001).
26
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/S Raja Transport(P) Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5760 of 2009 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 26906 of 2008.
20 | P a g e
institution such as SIAC would have done a thorough investigation regarding the
background of the chairperson who has been appointed.
ISSUE 3- Whether the Claimant have Ownership and Proprietary Rights over the
Intellectual Property Rights of MindFlayer?
1. It is submitted before the tribunal that clause 25 of the agreement states that any dispute,
claim, or difference arising out of or in connection with the Agreement, which includes
disputes that are related to IPR as the agreement contains a clause pertaining to IPR
(clause 20 of the agreement).
2. It is further submitted that as per clause 20.4 of the Agreement, the transfer by the
Claimant to the Respondent shall be subject to payment of all outstanding fees and
payment owed to the Claimant, the Claimant retains the right to withhold the transfer
and assignment of the Intellectual Rights until such payments are settled. 27
3. It is submitted before the tribunal that the Claimant has the right to claim the copyright
of MindFlayer even if it has not been registered, the Allahabad High Court in the case
of Nav Sahitya Prakash v. Anand Kumar 28 held that sec. 13 of the Copyright Act
which deals with “works in which copyright subsists” and sec. 17 lays down that subject
to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the
copyright. There is nothing in either of these two sections which provided for the
registration of copyright as a condition precedent for acquiring a right in it. The
common law right of property in literary or intellectual production exists independently
of the statute. It belongs essentially to the owner. He has the sole and exclusive right
over it. However, sec. 13 and sec.17 which confer and recognise the copyright do not
lay down any condition for the infringement of which registration is mandatory.
4. It is further submitted that A Division Bench of the Madras High Court again considered
the question in Manojah Cine Productions v. A. Sundaresan 29 and held that they did
not find any justification for holding that registration is a condition precedent for the
subsistence of copyright or acquisition of Ownership thereof. According to the learned
Judges, sec. 4530 is only an enabling provision and the effect of Registration under sec.
4831 is that it shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered in the register .
27
Moot problem, Annexure A, clause 20.4.
28
Nav Sahitya Prakash v. Anand Kumar, AIR 1981 All 200.
29
Manojah Cine Productions v. A. Sundaresan, AIR 1976 Mad 22.
30
The Copyright Act 1957, sec. 45.
31
The Copyright Act 1957, sec. 48.
21 | P a g e
5. It is therefore submitted that the Claimant is entitled to claim Ownership and

Proprietary Rights over the application.
[3.1] Whether the Claimant has Ownership of the copyright?
6. It is submitted before the tribunal that as per clause 20.1 of the agreement, in
consideration of the services rendered and any payments made under this Collaboration
Agreement, the Claimant shall retain all rights to any intellectual property created or
developed during the course of the project till the completion of the project. So as per
this clause, the Claimant is entitled to all the Ownership and Proprietary Rights over
the application.
7. It is humbly submitted before the tribunal as per section 2(d) of the copyright act which
defines the term author, according to section 2(d)(i), the author means in relation to a
literary or dramatic work, the author of the work, and as per section 2(o), “literary
work” includes computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer
databases.
8. It is humbly submitted before the tribunal that Copyright is a protection given to
creators of certain types of works as a tribute and an acknowledgement of their creative
intellectual input and labour applied. 32 This is known as the ‘Doctrine of Sweat of the
Brow’, whereby a work is given copyright protection if the author has applied ‘labour,
skill or judgment’ in creating the work irrespective of the level of originality in the
work. Applying this doctrine in the present matter, the Claimant has provided all the
labour as it is only the Claimant’s employees who were involved in the development of
the software; as per clause 5.2 of the agreement, all the skills that are the technical
expertise, AI algorithms, and innovations were also provided by the Claimant so
according to this doctrine even if it is considered that there was lack of use of updated
technology still the Claimant being the creator of the work shall have the right to
withhold the Ownership of copyright.
9. The application of copyright protection for software products was firmly established
internationally via the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Under Article 10 of the TRIPs
agreement, WTO members are required to treat computer programs, whether in object
or source code, as literary works as defined in the Berne Convention. Copyright
32
Ladbroke v William Hill, [1964] 1 All E.R. 465.
22 | P a g e
protection thus extends automatically to software code once the code has been written
and recorded in a medium (i.e., the hard drive of a computer).
10. It is further submitted before the tribunal that another important right conferred on the
author of a work is the right to communicate his work to the public. The exclusive right
to do this vest with the author, irrespective of the nature of the work. 33 It is to be noted
that the development of the software is not completed yet and as per clause 20.1 of the
agreement, all the rights of IPR vest with the Claimant, and since the Claimant is the
author of the work so they are the ones who have the right to communicate the work to
the public.
[3.2] Whether the Claimant was working under a contract of service for the Respondent?
11. It is submitted that as per sec. 17 of the copyright act, which states that the author of a
work shall be the first owner of the copyright. So, as per this sec., the general rule is the
author shall have the copyright, but this general rule contains exceptions and as per
sec.17(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author's employment under a
contract of service or apprenticeship, the employer shall, in the absence of any
agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright. 34
12. It is submitted before the tribunal that the parties were engaged in extensive
deliberations regarding the specific obligations and roles that each entity would
undertake within the partnership. 35 The intention of the parties while entering into the
contract was of partnership and not a contract of service. 36
13. In Stevenson Jordan Harrison Ltd v. MacDonald & Evans 37, the Court
distinguished between a “contract of service” and a “contract for services” provided to
a company or business entity. The Court applied the traditional ‘control test’ concerning
whether the employer has the right to control the way in which a person does the work.
The Court further stipulated that a person is considered an employee under a “contract
of service” when the work is integrated into that of the business and considered an
integral part of the business, whereas an independent contractor for services is merely
an accessory to the business and, thus, not an employee.
33
Articles 11, 11bis, 11ter, 14 and 14bis of the Berne Convention, 1886.
34
The Copyright Act 1957, sec. 17(c).
35
36
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reed, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).
37
Stevenson Jordan Harrison Ltd v. MacDonald & Evans, (1952) 1 TLR 10.
23 | P a g e
14. It is therefore submitted that since there exists no contract of service and it is a
collaboration agreement and the nature of the contract is partnership and as per the
terms of the contract both parties owe equal contributions for the development of the
MindFlayer application and the Claimant is an independent contractor and not an
employee of the Respondent, thus it can be concluded that the Claimant is the author 38
of the work under copyright act and the Claimant as per clause 5.2 of the collaboration
agreement has the obligation to provide all the technical expertise, AI algorithms, and
innovation and the same has been performed by the Claimant. Therefore, being the
author of the work, the Claimant is entitled to the Ownership and Proprietary Rights
over MindFlayer.
38
Khemraj Shrikrishnadass v. M/s Garg & Co., AIR 1975 Delhi 130.
24 | P a g e
ISSUE-4 Whether the Respondent has breached the agreement, thereby entitling the
Claimant to seek damages.
1. It is submitted before the Arbitral Tribunal that clause 5 of the agreement specified the
obligations of the parties and there has been a material breach of clauses 5.1 and 5.3 of
the agreement, the Respondent shall provide financial contributions as agreed upon
between the Parties and ensure accurate representation of Claimant’ contributions to
‘MindFlayer’ in all relevant communications, and media interactions. They shall
provide due credit to the Claimants’ role.39
[4.1] Whether there is a material breach of the agreement by the Respondent?
2. It is submitted before the Hon’ble tribunal that on June 24, 2022, MindVerse, a global
Business Magazine printed the interview with Mr Jim Brenner with the Headline
‘Artificiana’s new Mind-Flaying invention! A game changer.’ This interview however
has no mention of the collaboration between the Claimant and the Respondent for the
development and deployment of this software. 40
3. Taking this into consideration, the Claimant reached out to the Respondent expressing
their concerns about the oversight and highlighting their significant role in the
development of the application. The Respondent acknowledged the same and publicly
issued a statement in which they referred to the Claimant as a “technical support
partner.” 41 It is to be noted that in this statement the Respondent has degraded the role
of the Claimant by referring to them as mere technical support partner whereas as per
clause 5.2 of the agreement itself mentions that the Claimant is responsible for technical
expertise, AI algorithms and innovation for the development of the ‘MindFlayer”.
4. It is submitted that the work according to the agreement has been divided between the
two companies as per their expertise and MindFlayer being a software application, falls
under the expertise of the Claimant as the Claimant stands out for its pioneering work
in artificial intelligence, harnessing the potential of cutting-edge algorithms to drive
meaningful change in diverse sector. 42 Therefore, it can be inferred that the majority of
work relating to the innovation and development of the project lies in the hands of the
39
Moot problem, Annexure A, clause 5.
40
41
42
25 | P a g e
Claimant, so referring to them as mere “Technical support partner” is equivalent to not

giving them due recognition.
5. It is further submitted that the Claimant sent a formal letter to the Respondent about the
misrepresentation made by the Respondent and also elaborated instances of their
innovation, technical expertise, and integral contributions and highlighted their role
beyond mere “technical support.” Respondent did not provide a detailed account of how
they intended to rectify the situation hence, it failed to cure the breach of the agreement.
6. It is therefore submitted before the tribunal that firstly, the Respondent failed to give
due recognition to the Claimant’s role by referring to them as a ‘technical support
partner’ and secondly when the Claimant reached out to the Respondent for the
rectification of the same, the Respondent failed to do so as well, thus resulting in
material breach43 of clause 5.3 of the Collaboration Agreement. In the case
of Bishamber Nath Agarwal v. Kishan Chand 44, it was held by the Allahabad High
Court that when a contract contains specific guidelines, actions must be taken
accordingly and the obligations must be fulfilled accordingly. The party cannot do it
according to their wishes or schedule.
7. It is further submitted that the Respondent has not made timely payments for the
services and expertise provided by the Claimant during the collaboration and non-
payment of fees has caused financial strain on the operations and has significantly
hampered further development of the software application . Clause 5.1 is an express
term of the agreement for payment 45 and there has been a material breach of the same.
[4.2] Whether the Respondent is liable for misrepresentation.
8. It is submitted before the tribunal that Sec. 18 of The ICA defines Misrepresentation as
a) The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person
making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
b) Any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the
person committing it, or anyone claiming under him, by misleading another to his
c) prejudice or to the prejudice of anyone claiming under him;
43
National Power plc v. United Gas Company Ltd., (1998) All ER (D) 321.
44
Bishamber Nath Agarwal v. Kishan Chand, AIR 1990 All 65.
45
Peoplesoft U.S.A., Inc. v. Softeck, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
26 | P a g e
d) Causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the

substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement. 46
9. It is humbly submitted before the tribunal that there is a material breach of duty
mentioned in clause 5.3 of the Agreement and according to sec. 18(2) there are two
essentials i.e.
a) There must be a breach of duty, without an intention to deceive.
b) That breach of duty must cause advantage to the person who is committing it, or anyone
claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice or the prejudice of anyone
claiming under him.
10. It is submitted before the tribunal that even if it is proved that there was no intention of
deception by the Respondent since there is a breach of duty which certainly resulted in
the Respondent’s advantage as they were recognized as the ones who were makers of
the application through the magazine Art. which was published on June 24, 2022 with
the Headline ‘Artificiana’s new Mind- Flaying invention! A game changer.’
11. It was the duty of the Respondent to ensure accurate representation so that there could
be no other inferences drawn by the media persons. It created the image of the Claimant
as mere “supporters” and not the “creators” of the applications which has hampered the
goodwill in the global market, therefore, as per sec. 18(2) of the Indian Contract Act, it
can be concluded that the Respondent misrepresented the role of the Claimant in the
development of the application.
[4.3] Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages.
12. It is humbly submitted before the tribunal that the Claimant has approached the tribunal
for claim compensation under sec. 73 of the Indian Contract Act which states that
“when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to
receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or
damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from
such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to
result from the breach of it.”
13. It is humbly submitted before the tribunal that the Respondents were obligated under
clause 5.1 of the Collaboration Agreement to provide financial contributions but
Respondents have not made timely payments of fees which has caused financial strain
46
Indian Contract Act 1872, sec. 18.
27 | P a g e
on their operations and has significantly hampered further development of the software
application.
14. It is submitted that the security of contractual transactions and the reliability of promises
are enhanced by the requirement that a party in breach compensate the promisee for the
disappointed expectation.47
15. It is therefore submitted before the tribunal that there is a material breach48 in clause
5.3 and also clause 5.1 which explained the duties of the Respondent so, it can be
concluded that the Respondent failed to comply with their part of the obligation.
16. It is also humbly submitted that the goodwill of the Claimant has also been hampered
by the Respondent as no rectification was made to the statement recorded by them in
July 2022. Therefore, the Claimant is seeking damages on the grounds of breach49 of
contract under sec. 73 of the ICA and the concludingly breached clauses 5.1 and 5.3 of
the agreement. Therefore, the Claimant is seeking $500 million from the Respondent
under sec. 73 of the ICA.
47
Goetz, Charles J., and Robert E. Scott. “Enforcing Promises: An Examination of the Basis of Contract.” The
Yale Law Journal, vol. 89, no. 7, 1980, pp. 1261–322. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/795967. Accessed 23 Oct.
2023.
48
Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland, [2013] EWCA Civ 200.
49
Pomeranz v. McDonald’s Corp., 843 P.2d 1378, 1381 (Colo. 1993).
28 | P a g e
ISSUE 5 Whether the PrintScreen produced by the Respondent at the stage of the
hearing, is admissible?
1. It is humbly submitted before the tribunal that the Respondent produced the PrintScreen
during the hearing on June 4, 2023, which is just before the final hearing of the matter
and Rule 19.1 of SIAC Rules, 2016. The Tribunal shall conduct the arbitration in such
manner as it considers appropriate, after consulting with the parties, to ensure the fair,
expeditious, economical, and final resolution of the dispute. 50
2. It is humbly submitted before the tribunal that the whole purpose of choosing arbitration
for dispute resolution is due to speedy disposal of the matter and admission of
PrintScreen as evidence at this stage of the proceeding will clearly hamper the
expeditious proceedings of the tribunal and it will ultimately result in the delay of the
pronouncement of the award by the tribunal.
3. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that the evidence has been obtained
illegally and produced before the Hon’ble Tribunal and this email communication is
internal communication between the legal team and the CEO of the Claimant company.
And here in this case the evidence produced by the Respondent is irrelevant and has
been obtained by using the antithetical means and admission of such evidence will
hamper the integrity of the proceedings. 51
4. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that the specific value of the
principle of good faith in the context of admissibility of evidence was recognized in the
Methanex v. United States 52 arbitration, where the tribunal was faced with evidence
obtained through trespass. The Respondent challenged the introduction into evidence
of documents that were allegedly copied illegally from the private files of a witness and
his company. The tribunal indeed excluded the evidence, which it confirmed as having
been obtained by “deliberately trespassing onto private property and rummaging
through dumpsters inside the office building for other persons’ documentation.” The
decision was predominantly based on the duty to act in good faith, which the tribunal
saw reflected in the applicable UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in the given case there has
50
Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Rules 2016, Rule 19.1.
51
Mansour Fallah, Sara, The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence before International Courts and
Tribunals (2020). The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 19 (2020) 147–176,
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3950691.
52
Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, (2005) 44 ILM 1345.
29 | P a g e
been the illegal obtainment of the emails of the Claimants and therefore the produced
copies must not be accepted by the tribunal after looking into the laws around the world.
5. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that according to Art. 19.3 of IBA
Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration which states “The Arbitral
Tribunal may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, exclude evidence obtained
illegally.”53 Therefore on this ground, the Claimant can plead for exclusion of the
PrintScreen provided to the tribunal as it has been obtained illegally.
6. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that according to Rule 4.4 of the
Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (Prague
Rules) “A party can request the arbitral tribunal to order document production at a later
stage of the arbitration only in exceptional circumstances” 54
and in this case, the
Respondent has produced it at a later stage and there exist no exceptional circumstances
as the document is not a crucial piece of evidence as it contains an internal
communication about the interaction with Ms Hopper and just a mere request by the
Respondent to use updated technology which has been caused due to untimely
payments made by the Respondent which hampered of further development of the
software and this has already been communicated to the Respondent by sending 10 days
prior reminder to make payments.
7. Therefore, it is submitted by the Claimant that the evidence produced shall not be
admissible and only hamper the expeditious proceedings of the tribunal and it will
ultimately result in the delay of the pronouncement of the award by the tribunal.
53
International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, Art. 19.3.
54
Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (Prague Rules), Rule 4.4.
30 | P a g e
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Claimant submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The Arbitral Tribunal does have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
2. The challenge to the appointment of the chairperson raised by the Respondent is not
maintainable.
3. The Claimant does have Ownership and Proprietary Rights over the Intellectual
Property Rights of MindFlayer.
4. The Claimant is entitled to damages worth $500 million, for the breach of clause 5 of
the agreement by the Respondent.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in favour of the Respondent in the light of equity,
justice, and good conscience. And for this act of Kindness, the Respondent as in duty bound,
shall forever pray.
Respectfully submitted
….……………………
Counsel(s) for the Claimant
31 | P a g e

Memorial For The Claimant - JNMC 12

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

Memorial For The Claimant - JNMC 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

-before THE HON’BLE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL-

-IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION-

ARTIFICIANA PVT LTD. ………………………………... (RESPONDENT)

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT-

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3-4

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-30

2.3 Whether the connection between Ms Erica and the Claimant is

7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 31

Sr.No CASES CITATIONS

11. Clevenger v. Clevenger 189 Cal.App.2d 658 (Cal.

Sr. No. ARTICLES

NYC New York Convention

UNCITRAL The United Nations Commission on

SCC Supreme Court Cases

IBA International Bar Association

SLP Special Leave Petition

IPR Intellectual Property Right

AIR All India Reporter

SIAC Rules Singapore International Arbitration Centre

TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual

1. Clause 28.3 of the agreement -

2. Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), 2016

NOVEMBER 15, AI Innovation sent a notice invoking arbitration to Artificiana. They

JANUARY 5, 2023 The Respondent submitted the challenge to Ms Erica’s appointment.

[1.2.1] The agreement is governed by the laws of Indovia.

[1.2.2] The agreement is valid.

25. The classification of each clause as non-exclusive or exclusive is an exercise in

[2.1] Whether the guidelines of IBA will be applicable in this situation.

5. It is therefore submitted that the Claimant is entitled to claim Ownership and

[3.1] Whether the Claimant has Ownership of the copyright?

[4.1] Whether there is a material breach of the agreement by the Respondent?

Claimant, so referring to them as mere “Technical support partner” is equivalent to not

[4.2] Whether the Respondent is liable for misrepresentation.

d) Causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the

[4.3] Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Counsel(s) for the Claimant

You might also like