1. Provided that the market shares of Koda and Yoku are information in the public domain, is it correct to state that Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Theta are the only distributors to which Koda and Yoku supply to?

Response: Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Theta are the only distributors.

2. Provided that the Printer Board Act is information in the public domain, is it correct to state that the Printer Board is a quasi-judicial authority based on the same lines as SEBI and the Petroleum Board?

Response: The Printer Board is a quasi-judicial body.

4. In Para 8, The list price is ONR 1,000 or ONR 10,000?

Response: The list price should be ONR 10,000.

5. For how long Koda and Yoku have been in the relevant market?

Response: The question is not relevant.

6. Subject to the answer to question 2, whether Yoku is an old competitior and Koda is a new entrant?

Response: The question is not relevant.

In Para 8 of the proposition, the list price is mentioned as ONR 1,000, can you clarify if it is ONR 10,000

Response: The list price should be ONR 10,000.

7. Paragragh 8: The purchasing quantity of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Theta are given as 50,000; 15,000; 10,000 and 5,000 respectively, however no information regarding the market requirement has been made which is causing difficulties in calculating the supply of 15% made by Yoku and the procurement of 38,000 printers by Alpha from Koda.

Response: Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Theta are the only distributors and, therefore, the entire market supply is through them.

In addition to this as per the long term agreements entered into by Yoku to supply half of Beta, Gamma, and Theta’s requirements Yoku must supply at least 15,000 printers. (50% of 15,000+10,000+5,000 = 15,000).Assuming the market requirement to be 80,000 (50,000+15,000+10,000+5,000 = 80,000) Yoku’s share comes to 12,000 (15% of 80,000) which is 3,000 less than it’s required production.

Response: It should read “Koda has long term agreements to supply half of Beta, Gamma and Theta’s requirements” instead of “Yoku has long term agreements to supply half of Beta, Gamma and Theta’s requirements” in Para 8 of the Moot Proposition.

8. The two appeals have been listed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. However, on the first page of the moot proposition, the appeals have been listed before the Competition Appellate Tribunal of Oregano.

Please clarify between the two.

Response: The appeals have been filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

9. In both the appeals the appellants and the respondents are different. So, who do we consider as the appellant and the respondent while drafting the memo?

Response: One side will argue for Koda Printers Limited, and the other side will argue for Yoku Printers Limited.

10. Whether or not the PB Act 2002 mentioned in paragragh 10 is hypothetical?

Response: There is no equivalent Act in India. Various statutes in India have a similar provision as the one extracted.

What is the current status of the complaint filed in PB? Has it been withdrawn or it has decided on it? if yes then did it hold Koda guilty of predatory pricing?

Response: It is pending.

11. The cover page states appeal no. 1/2012 but page 5 states appeal no. 2/2018. what is to be followed?

Response: The Appeal Nos. are 1/2018 and 2/2018 respectively.

12. The cover page states that the case is before CompAT but the last page states NCLAT. In which forum the matter is before?

Response: The appeals have been filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

13. The average variable cost is Rs. 7500 but their selling price is 1000. Are we to take this as typographical error?

Response: The list price should be ONR 10,000.