The speaker then argued that even though the respondents signed the agreement, they didn't intend to be bound by the arbitration clause which can be severed from the rest of the agreement. Ms. Prasad asked the reason of this assertion to which the speaker cited a case. Mr. Mishra asked as to why didn't the respondents challenge the addendum in the first place. The speaker then came on to the third prong of argumentation to answer their questions. Mr. Chopra said that the words of the agreement show a clear intention to be bound by it in entirety. The speaker cited an exhibit from the facts and was asked to proceed further.

Mr. Mishra came back to the consent part again and pointed out the arbitration clause, asking the speaker as to why shouldn't those words be construed as binding. The speaker said that the said clause was merely laying down a possible condition, not a binding one. Mr. Chopra asked a factual question to which the speaker gave a satisfactory question and was asked to proceed. Ms. Prasad stopped the speaker again and asked a three fold question, to which the speaker answered by citing facts. The judges bought the answer and were satisfied with it. The speaker then proceeded to argue the second issue. He cited the closest connection rule and cited IBC Section 14. Mr. Mishra pointed out that the argument does not hold good in practice. The speaker then presented the alternative argument that was bought by the judges. The speaker ended by concluding his issue.