Scribd
Upload
80 views2 pages

Argument 1

The counsel is seeking permission from the bench to address two issues: 1) whether the contract between RPL and PQRIL was an arms-length transaction, and 2) whether the terms and conditions of the agreement were one-sided and payments made were unusual and at a higher price than market rates. The counsel wishes to present arguments for the first issue regarding whether the contract was an arms-length transaction.

Uploaded by

Anay Mehrotra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views2 pages

Argument 1

The counsel is seeking permission from the bench to address two issues: 1) whether the contract between RPL and PQRIL was an arms-length transaction, and 2) whether the terms and conditions of the agreement were one-sided and payments made were unusual and at a higher price than market rates. The counsel wishes to present arguments for the first issue regarding whether the contract was an arms-length transaction.

Uploaded by

Anay Mehrotra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The counsel seeks permission to address this bench as your lordship.

*Much obliged your lordship.*

At this juncture, the counsel would like to point out that all the sub-issue said by this counsel are
without prejudice to that of my co-counsel and alongwith that the counsel would be presenting two
distinct issues that are issue number 2 and issue number 3 of the given moot proposition which are 

 whether THE CONTRACT BETWEEN RPL AND PQRIL IS AN ARMS LENGTH TRANSACTION

 whether WHETHER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT WERE ONE SIDED,
AND PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE CONTRACTS WERE UNUSUAL AND AT A PRICE / RATE
MUCH HIGHER TO THE MARKET PRICES/RATES, AND THUS WHETHER ANY LOSS IS SUFFERED
BY EFGPL

Your Lordships the counsel seeks permission to begin the arguments for issue number three. 

*Much obliged your lordship.*

In issue number 2, which the counsel is dealing with, is THE CONTRACT BETWEEN RPL AND PQRIL IS
AN ARMS LENGTH TRANSACTION LENGTH PRICE.

Your Lordships moving on to the first aspect of the argument,

Your Lordships if you are satisfied then the counsel would like to move on to the 3th issue
which talks about THE DIRECTOR SHOULD BE MADE LIABLE FOR THE LOSSES
INCUFRRED BY EFGPL

 
HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE CONTRACT FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND
THE CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS ENTERED BETWEEN
THE PQRIL AND RPL ARE NOT RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS UNDER
SECTION 188 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013.

HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE CONTRACT IS NEITHER COVERED UNDER


ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS NOR FULFILLS THE ARM’S LENGTH PRICE
CONDTION.

HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE


AGREEMENT WERE ONE SIDED, AND PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE
CONTRACTS WERE UNUSUAL AND AT A PRICE / RATE MUCH HIGHER TO THE
MARKET PRICES/RATES.

You might also like