Moot Problem

MOOT PROBLEM
1. Grey Park is considered to be the fastest growing country and is ranked fifth in terms of
area and population according to the recent census. Grey Perk is a newly established
democratic state which was recently formed after the collaboration of different states.
2. After borrowing different aspects and laws and amending them according to its
suitability, the law makers of Grey Perk framed World’s lengthiest Constitution for the
welfare of its citizens in order to promote parity among the citizens of the country.
3. The country was already excelling in the agricultural sector and wanted to promote its
trade and economy of the country. The legislature had strengthened the laws relating to
promote trade and encourage employment. The country was following westernisation in
almost every aspect.
4. A well-known government pharmaceutical company named PLUS PHARMA ltd. has
captured a large share of the target market. The company produced medicines in three
forms: Liquid, capsules and tablets. After completion of ten years of its successful
business in Central Perk they released an advertisement on 1st February 2016, to hire
qualified Medical Representatives in order to extend their trade.
5. Dr. John House (hereinafter referred to as ‘John’), being proficient in the field of
medicine, got appointed as a Medical Representative, along with nine others after clearing
the interview and meeting the required criteria, was awarded a letter of appointment. The
joining date according to the contract of employment was 18th February 2016.
6. John joined on the said date and started representing the pharmaceutical company. He
played a major role in increasing the company’s sales by 3% in first two months, proving
himself to be efficient and effective in discharging his duties. He received great
appreciation and applause from his employer Mr. Mike Ross(hereinafter referred to as
‘Mike’) who was the director of the company.
7. On one of the occasions he received recognition for handling a situation, where the
company supplied mislabelled medicines to a retailer because of which the sleep cycles of
the people purchasing the cough syrup with the label of stomach ache syrup got disturbed.
The company had great chances of getting sued by that retailer. The goodwill of the
company was restored by of John’s good behaviour towards the owner of the retail shop.
8. John was jolly by nature and liked interacting with people around him. His way of
working was different. He used good communication skills and persuasive power to grab
orders from other small pharmacies and wholesalers. His actions were misconstrued by
rest of the employees and were communicated in a distorted manner to the employer. The
word that went around the office was about him having illicit relationships with the
owners of certain pharmaceutical companies.
9. After listening to all this, Mr. Mike called him and accused him for having illicit
relationships during the course of his employment. He further accused him for the
decrease in sales of the company because of his attempts of having such relations with the
owners of other pharmaceuticals with whom the company contracted.
10. On the day of receiving his salary, John realized that his account was not credited with
the requisite amount. He sent several reminders to the employer but his efforts were
unrecognized. No reason was provided to him for not crediting his salary to his bank
account, even by 30th April 2016. However, his employer kept on defaming him on the
aforementioned allegations.
11. On 20th May 2016, at 9:30 pm, John posted some statements on twitter and other social
networking platforms, stating that- “It is ironical that Mike accuses me of maintaining
illicit relations with others when he himself approached me for the same.” He further
added that “He is misusing his position by not crediting my salary in order to satisfy his
personal grudges.”
12. As Mike was a famous personality many people started sharing the post which led him to
face severe criticism in the society further not only resulting in downfall of the company’s
sale but also adversely affecting the goodwill. There was no company who wanted to
enter into new contracts with PLUS PHARMA. The value of market share of the company
also went down. Subsequently, Mike terminated the contract of John stipulating clause-
“If the sales of the company decreases because of any employee, directly or indirectly,
would lead to the termination of such contract with that employee and the employee will
be fired”
13. Mike also filed a suit against John in the district court on 10th June 2016, for such
defamation and asked him to pay compensation for the loss occurred to the company and
also for the criticism he had to face from the society. John, in his statement of defense,
also stipulated that the breach of contract was invalid and that he too had been defamed
by Mike and the employees of the company. The district court held on 10th September
2016 that the termination is valid because of the non-negotiable terms and conditions of
the employment contract. Also, the District court asked john to pay a compensation of Rs.
5 lakhs for personal defamation of Mike, and a subsequent amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for
losses incurred by the company on account of loss of goodwill and anticipated sales.
14. Subsequent to this, a major incident was noted in which John revealed in an exclusive
interview scheduled on 5th October 2016 that even if he had relations with other males it
had no concern with Mike and his employment contract. He talked of exercising his Right
to Privacy and right of not being discriminated on such basis.
15. The dissatisfaction of John led him to file a writ petition on 10 th December 2016, in the
honourable Supreme Court contending that there has been a breach of his fundamental
rights against the Union of Central Perk and the PLUS PHARMA. He further contented
that, he had faced huge social ostracization and had lost his means of living as well,
owing to unconstitutional statutes.
16. The Supreme Court took the cognizance of the matter and agreed to hear and adjudicate
on the following issues on merits:
1. Whether the writ petition filed by Dr. John House is maintainable or not?
2. Whether Section 377 of the Grey Perk’s Penal Code 1860 violates Article 21 of
the Central Perk’s Constitution or not?
3. Whether the termination of employment of Dr. John House based on contract is
valid or not?
***The laws used in this particular proposition are in pari materia to the Indian Laws***
[The Participants are at liberty to frame and prepare on any other issues in addition to the
abovementioned]

Moot Problem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Problem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Moot Problem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOOT PROBLEM

You might also like