Date:27-04-2020

NOTICE
All students of last year are of
B.A.LLB (5 years) and LLB (3
informed that each student shall years) are hereby
2020 onwards and on 10:50 am present their moot court Problem on 03-05-
with proper documents. Student shall
as per their schedule .The moot
schedule and group has been
present
notice board. displayed on
Rules of Moot Court:
1)Students must present moot problem
gToup.
as per prescribed sequence and with

2)The presentation of Moot Court should be in

proper format.
3)All students must be present within time.(10:50 am)
4)Take a picture of your problem from notice board.

Hence forth all students should check al1 the

notices of moot court on
notice board regularly.

Moot court Coordinator

MYJaoculu sir
 MOOT PROBLEM 1
On 5.11.2003 in the evening, Raj Preet
Kaur Guddi, who was about eight years old, and a
Student of Ilnd Standard went to the house of her classmate and cousin, Amarpreet Kaur. At
about 5.00 p.m., she left from there to return to her house. She was accompanied to somne
distance by Amarpreet. When she crossed pakka water house, Amarpreet left her on her own.
Raj Preet Kaur was last seen with Amrit Singh, a 30 year old neighbour. She was seen walking
holding his finger. When Raj Preet Kaur did not reach her house, search was carried on. Some
Dersons then found her dead body in the agricultural field belonging to Amrit Singh situated in
front of his house. The dead body was found near a tree and some cotton crop was found near
the dead body. Some dry leaves were found in her hair. In her hand some strands of human hair
were also noticed. It was fully smeared with blood. There was
bleeding from vulva and the legs
were also stained with blood. Body was in state of rigor mortis. There were multiple marks of
contusions and abrasions on the neck. Face also had some abrasions. Abrasions over elbows and
knuckle were present. There were impressions of teeth on the lips. These were all ante mortem
in nature. Although external injuries were found on the neck which were said to be the cause of
death of the deceased, according to the doctor, the death took place because of loss of blood. It
was stated by him:
"20% loss of blood may cause shock and death.
Normally in a child of 6-7 years age there may
be about 2 litres blood in body. On examination of injuries it was found that more bleeding from
the injury has caused the death. In this case more than half litre blood had oozed.."

Amarjit was prosecuted for rape and murder. The lower court convicted him on both the counts
and sentenced him to death penalty which was confirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the
Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. The
Supreme Court noted that
Appellant, a neighbour and known to her was a person of trust. She was seen to be
holding Appellant's finger. It is clear that she was allured by Appellant to accompany
him to his own field which was near his house... Offence of rape took place on an
agricultural field. She might have suffered a lot of pain. She might have resisted also.
She might have been gagged. Possibilities of some assault on her person cannot be ruled
out. It would, however, be improper to hold that he killed her intentionally... The death
occurred not as a result of strangulation but because of excessive bleeding. The death
occurred, therefore, as a consequence of and not because of any specific overt act on the
part of Appellant.
Imposition of death penalty in a case of this nature, in our opinion, was, thus, improper.
Even otherwise, it cannot be said to be a rarest of rare cases. The manner in which the
deceased was raped may be brutal but it could have been a momentary lapse on the part
of Appellant, seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place. He had no pre-meditation for
commission of the offence. The offence may look heinous, but under no circumstances,
it can be said to be a rarest of rare cases.
The judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court on 10-11-2006. The media reports decried
the judgement for condoning the ghastly rape as 'a momentary lapse' especially when the
offence was committed on a very young girl by a person in the relationship of trust with the
victim and it caused uproar among women's organisations across the country. Fourteen national
level women organisations came together and filed a petition in the Supreme Court under the

43

M
Danner of 'Network Against Gender Bias (NAG B) on l1-12-06 and sought review of the
atorementioned judgement. They are praying for deletion of the sentence "The manner in which
the deceased was raped may be bnital but it could have been a momentary lapse on the part of
Ppellant, sceing a lonely girl at a secluded place" from the judgement as being unreasonable
Justification for the most horendous and unacceptable behaviour of the convict. They are also
prayng that death penalty to Pritam Singh should be restored as it is a rare of the rarest case
mvoling munder of a very young girl of only eight years afer diabolically and brutally raping
her by a person who was in a
relationship oftrust with the victim child.
Memonal is rquired to be filed only for one party. The date and time for submission of
memorial and oral arguments will be decided the teacher.
by

44
 MOOT PROBLEM - 2
Arohi was a middle-class, upper caste Hindu. He married Aruna in the year 1977. Aruna
gave birth to a daughter Mala in 1978, and a son in 1980. They were happy at the thought that
their family was conmplete. However, in unfortunate turn of events, their son died in an accident
at home when he was two years old. They were very upset but tried to have another child and
with God's grace. Aruna gave birth to another son in the year 1983. L0oking at his horoscope,
the pandit suggested special ritual to be followed every month for the welfare of this son till the
age of five as there was danger to his life till that time. Despite observance of the ritual with full
reverence by the couple, this son also died in a road accident just as he turned five years old. The
couple was completely devastated. They were apprehensive that another child may meet the
same fate if they tried for another child. However, they tried and yet another son was born to
them third time in the year 1990. On his naming ceremony, they consulted the astrologers and
were advised to give away that child in adoption to a person of the lower caste if they wanted
this child to live. They named him Kaushal and decided to give him in adoption. Their sweeper,
Maina Devi, a 50 year old widow with no children agreed to take the child in adoption and to
give him back to thenm for his bringing up as she did not have the means to bring him up.
In a formal ceremony Kaushal was given to Maina Devi by Arohi and Aruna and was
taken by Maina Devi. Thereafter, she gave him back to the couple for bringing him up on her
behalf. Maina Devi kept visiting them regularly and gave something for Kaushal every month till
he was ten years old when she died. In the meanwhile, in the year 1994 another son was born to
Arohi and Anuna and he was named Balraj.
The fact of adoption of Kaushal was treated by Arohi and Aruna as a formality to save
his life and he was brought up by Arohi and Aruna as their son with Mala and Balraj. Arohi died
intestate in the year 2012. Aruna decided to divide the property in four equal shares, one each for
herself, Mala, Kaushal and Balraj. Mala and Balraj objected to it and demanded 1/3 share in the
property as Kaushal had no right having been given in adoption to Maina Devi. Aruna's pleas
that the adoption was a mere ritual carried out on the advise of the astrologer to save Kaushal's
life but without any intention actually to give him up, had no effect on them. They maintained
that the adoption was legal and complete when Kaushal was given and taken in adoption with a
free will. Unable to resolve their dispute, Mala and Balraj filed a suit for division of property and
declaration that Kaushal was not an heir to any property of Arohi in the absence of a wil.
The lower court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Aruna and Kaushal filed an appeal
against the order asking for an equal share to Kaushal in the suit properties being the natural bormn
son. They pleaded that the
adoption was not valid in the absence of the intention to really give
him in adoption. Alternatively, they pleaded that the adoption was bad as Aruna's consent was
vitiated having been given under the mistaken belief that it was a religious ceremony aimed at
saving the life of her son. In addition, it was submitted that an adoption that put the child in
situation of deprivation cannot be held valid and binding being contrary to the principle of best
interest of the child.
Memorial is required to be filed only for one
party. The date and time for submission of
memorial and oral arguments will be decided
by the teacher.

45
 MOOT PROBLEM -3
Karim worked as a system operator at a computer Centre in Jajhhar Dist., Haryana and
lived in the town. His village was at a distance of 12 kms. from his workplace which he
ordinarily visited on Saturdays and Sundays.
Sher Shah was a farmer who lived with his family consisting of his wife, Sobti, son
Gajendar Shah and a daughter Naina. Sher Shah's brother, Suri Shah, also lived in the same
household. He was used to drinking and gambling and owed a debt of Rs. 20,000 to Karim.
Whenever Karim demanded his money, Suri Shah showed his helplessness but never denied to
pay off his debt. Karim was in love with Naina and used to meet Naina on the weekends when
her father was not at home on the pretext that he had come to collect the money. Sher Shah did
not like it and told Karim many a times not to visit his home in his absence. He also scolded his
daughter for meeting Karim but Karim did not stop visiting Naina.
During the day on Monday, 8h August 2010, Karim received a phone call from Suri Shah
inviting him to come that evening to collect his debt. Karim went to their house around 8.30
P.M. The members of Naina's family had finished their dinner and were preparing to go to sleep.
On hearing some whispering voices coming from the backyard of their house, Sher Shah with his
brother Suri Shah and son Gajendar Shah went there to investigate
They saw Karim talking with Naina. Sher Shah lost his temper and started abusing
Karim. Gajendar Shah brought a lathi from inside and gave a blow to Karim on the leg. Then
Suri Shah grabbed the lathi from Gajendar Shah and started beating Karim mercilessly giving
blows on his head and chest.
On hearing the hue and cry, other villagers came to the scene. They found Suri Shah
giving blows to Karim while the other two were shouting abuses on Karimn. Karim was bleeding
from the head and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital by the villagers where he
died three days later without regaining consciousness. The post-mortem report confirmed that
Karim suffered injuries on the head and fractures of three ribs. There were many concussions on
different parts of his body. There was much loss of blood. While none of the injuries
independently was sufficient to cause death, the cumulative result was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death.
FIR was registered against Suri Shah, Gajendar Shah and Sher Shah under Section 307
read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Three days later when Karim died, it was changed to
Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The session court charged and convicted all the three accused persons
under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the murder of
Karim. The accused persons pleaded grave and sudden provocation in their defence. They also
pleaded that the prosecution had failed to prove existence of common intention of all the three
accused to kill Karim. In the absence of proof of common intention, they cannot be convicted
under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.
The three accused have filed separate appeals to the High Court against the order of
conviction and sentence. You may choose to represent any party/ parties in this appeal keeping in
mind that you do not violate the principle of conflict of interests.
Memorial is required to be filed only for one party. The date and time for submission of
memorial and oral arguments will be decided by the teacher.

46 AAM
 MOOT PROBLEM-4
Mr. Swaroop, a Hindu and Ms. Honey, a Christian married in April, 2003 under Special
Marriage Act, 1954. As they did not have any child till 2006, Swaroop proposed to adopt a girl
child of one year old, in January 2007, who was none other than Swaroop's own sister's
daughter, who was already having two daughters and Honey reluctantly agreed for it. The girl
was given in adoption by her natural father to Swaroop. The child was named as Kranti. But
post-adoption, Honey was very much particular that they should have a child of their own genes.
So they planned to have a child through surrogacy and in consultation with Dr. Morris in Delhi a
surogacy agreement was entered with Ms. Neeta and they got a surrogated boy child, born on 1*
the child as James and Swaroop wanted to
name
September, 2008. As Honey wanted to name

him as Rahul, the naming ritual was postponed for some time. Unfortunately Mr. Swaroop
was

the child as James

involved in an accident and died on 15 October, 2008. Honey started calling
and got the name registered as James in the birth certificate.
When Swaroop's father, Ashok Lal, expressed that Kranti was entitled to a share in the property
valid as Honey was a
of Swaroop, Honey and her father replied that the said adoption was not
not get any share in
Christian who could not adopt under Christian law and hence Kranti would
his grand-daughter, Kranti, for a
Swaroop's property. Swaroop's father filed a suit on behalf of
share in Swaroop's property in the District Court and for a declaration
that James is not entitled
son of Swaroop. The
toany share in his father's property as he is neither the natural or adopted
court through its order dated 1st April, 2009 held that there was a valid adoption and the adopted
was entitled to
child, Kranti, would be entitled to a share in Swaroop's property as Swaroop
Christian wife's consent was
adopt as per Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and his refused to declare that James
irelevant as per proviso to S.7 of the said Act. The District Court
was not entitled to a share in Swaroop's property. Honey preferred an appeal before the High

challenging the validity of adoption on the ground that since their marriage
was
Court of Delhi
his right of adoption Hindu.
performed under Special Marriage Act, 1954, Swaroop had lost
as a

She also has requested the Court to declare that James has the same rights available to a natural
born child as he was conceived with Honey's egg and Swaroop's sperm.
submission of
Memorial is required to be filed only for one party. The date and time for
memorial and oral arguments will be decided by the teacher.

47
 MOOT PROBLEM - 5
Reema, an eighteen year old girl was a student of 12th class. She belonged to a lower middie
class family. Her father used to work as a clerk in a private fim. She had always been an
ambitious and a very bright student. To support her father she used to give tuitions. Ramesh,
Accused No.1, math's teacher of Reema in her school secretly developed emotions for her.
Reema had always admired him as her teacher. On Reema's 18th birthday Ramesh organised a
birthday party for her at his house and gifted her an expensive watch. Unaware of Ramesh's
feelings Reema aceepted the same.
On 14h Feb 2013, Ramesh proposed to Recma for marriage. Reema, however, told him to speak
to her parents regarding the same. On 20th Feb Ramesh approached her parents with the proposal.
However, they rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore as they did not want
that there should be any kind of distraction to their daughter as her XII boards were approaching.
They strongly admonished Reema and threatened that they will discontinue her studies.
Thereafter she started avoiding Ramesh. On one occasion Rcema also made it clear to him that
she will not go against the wishes of her parents and asked him not to follow her anymore.
Despite the disinterest shown by Reema, Ramesh continued to follow Reema to her tuition
classes and contacted her personally, on phone and through internet, believing that all her actions
were under pressure from her parents.
Reema reported the same to her parents. The parents rebuked him for his unwaranted acts. He,
however, tried to convince them about his feelings for her and further stated that he wanted to
marry her. They beat him and asked him to leave.
Enraged with the feling of dejection, Ramesh went to Mahesh in whom he always confided and
narrated the whole thing. Mahesh, aged 45, has always supported Ramesh, who was residing
with him, ever since his parents died in a road accident in 2000. Mahesh, who had always treated
Ramesh as his son, could not bear the pain of Ramesh. Mahesh suggested to Ramesh that he
should find Reema alone and take her to the temple for marrying her without information to her
parents. In case Reema would offer any resistance due to parental pressure, Mahesh will threaten
her with a bottle of acid to pressurise her to come with them to the temple.
Ramesh, who was initially reluctant, agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be
caused to Reema and bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for compliance to
their wishes.
On 23 march, 2013 as per the plan, finding Reema passing on a lonely road, Ramesh and
Mahesh, who were waiting for Reema, got out of the car. Ramesh approached Reema and asked
her to accompany him to the temple so that they can get married. On Reema's refusal, Mahesh
carying the bottle of acid, threatened Reema. Ramesh started dragging her into the car. Reema
started shouting loudly. To teach a lesson to Reema, Mahesh opened the bottle and threw the
acid on her face and then both Mahesh and Ramesh fled away in the
car belonging to and driven
by Mahesh leaving the girl in immense pain. The girl was taken to the hospital by some
passerby. The doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were
grievous. FIR was lodged. Statement of Reema was recorded. A case was
the accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 registered against both
IPC, 1860 and Ramesh was also charged under Sec
354D, IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was declared a
proclaimed offender while Ramesh was
arrested by police from his home and the bottle of acid and
car, used in the crime, were seized

48

(M
 Sessions Court, where h.
he
before the
put to trial
he was
After investigation,
from his possession.
trial.
guilty and claimed IPC, 1860 and sentenced
pleaded not
section 326A r/w
section 34 of
to Reema to the
under compensation
convicted Ramesh to pay
Sessions Court also asked
i m p r i s o n m e n t for 2
He was
rigorous imprisonment. awarded rigorous
him to 10 yrs of He was also
to be paid immediately. were to run
concurrently.
tune of Rs 2,00,000/-
1860. Botlh the sentences
Section 354D, IPC, Court seeking acquittal
years under before the High
the aforesaid judgment,
appealed e n h a n c e m e n t of the
Accused, aggrieved by also the
imprisonment and
life
Whereas, State filed appeal for demanding facts:
into account the following
amount of compensation taking
done till date;
been spent on the 6 major surgeries
R s 6.5 lakh have already
10-15 need to be done;
surgeries still
Reema has permanently lose
her left eye vision;
Despite various surgeries face and hands will
remain but also deep
the skin of her
Peranent scars not only on
affect her future prospects;
inside her memory which will adversely went on a leave foor
H e r father was a clerk in a private firm
which dismissed him after he
need to
other sisters of Reema who also
her treatment. Now he is jobless. There are two
be supported.
from charges the under
High court adjudicated in favour of the accused by acquitting him
Secion 326A r/'w Section 34 and Sec 354D IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal of the state,
the trial
being bereft of any substance by holding that under the circumstances of the case
court had wrongly held the accused liable under Section 326A, IPC 1860, by invoking
Section 34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit offence of Acid Attack under
Section 326A could be proved. The High Court held that the offence of stalking under
Section 354D was also not made out against the accused. The High Court, however,
recommended the District Legal Services Authority to decide upon the quantum of
compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the victim as per Section 357A, Cr
PC within one month.

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused, the State filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court on the ground that High Court has failed to take notice of the
fact that common intention was
present as Ramesh and Mahesh have agreed to the use of bottle
of acid in their plan of abduction. Acid
was thrown in furtherance of
state appealed for
that common intention. The
considering the offence as heinous and to award
life
326A r/w Section34 and Section
354D and also to enhance the imprisonment under Sec
Sessions Court to be paid by the accused
to the victim under Section
compensation
awarded by the
to the
compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 326A, IPC, 1860 in addition
sought permission for addition of 357A Cr PC. The State also
charge under Sec 366 IPC.
Memorial is required to be filed
memorial and oral only for one party. The date and time for
arguments will be decided submission of
by the teacher.

49
 MOOT PROBLEM -6
Arjun was seventeen years old in 1995 when he forcibly kissed Pinki, a sixteen years old girl in
his school he was very attracted to. Pinki filed a case of sexual assault against him. After
seventeen years of the case pending before a Magistrate, he was convicted and sentenced to six
months of simple imprisonment in 2012 and a fine of Rs.1000/- In this period, both Arjun and
Pinki had settled well in their respective families after marriage and both have their own
children. Arjun has a steady job and this imprisonment will cause him his job.
His appeal to the Sessions Court and the High Court was dismissed in quick succession on the
ground that offences against women were on the rise and needed to be dealt with severe
punishment.
Arjun filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on sentence. He prayed for setting aside of the
sentence of imprisonment under the IPC and sought release on probation either under the
Probation of offenders Act 1958 or under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000. The Supreme Court in
June 2016 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the magistrate.
Arjun has tiled a review petition against this decision praying for setting aside of the punishment
imposed on him. He is arguing that the sentence of imprisonment is against all principles of
sentencing and also not in consonance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 under
which his offence is classified as a petty offence.
Memorial is required to be filed only for one party. The date and time for submission of
memorial and oral arguments will be decided by the teacher.

50
 MOOT COURT PROBLEM-D O7
Mr. Ramesh agreed to purchase 500
quintals of flowers of different types from Avinash for Rs.
5,00,000/-, so that Mr. Ramesh could sell in
the open market on 24.03.2020. On that
festival was there. Accordingly, agreement day, 'Yugadhi"
entered into between Ramesh & Avinash on
was
20.03.2020, One of the conditions in theagreement was that Avinash had to supply 500 Quintals of
flowers on or before 22.03.2020 at 6.00 PM.
Mr Ramesh already
Rs. 5,00,000/- to Avinash.
.

paid the consideration amount of

Mr. Ramesh intimated to Mr.

Avinash about the existence of special
circumstances. Since, on
account of Yugadhi, there was heavy demand
for flowers, agreeing to supply the
Avinash entered into contract. flowers, Mr.

In the meanwhile,due the corona virus the

, Government of India declared Janatha Curfew to be
observed from 6 AM to 9 PM on 22.03.2020
compulsorily, the day on which Mr. Avinash was
supposed to supply flowers as agreed, in view of the same,. Mr. Avinash failed to
even on next day also l.e. 23.03.2020.
supply as agreed
In this respect,
though Mr. Ramesh tried to contact Mr.
Avinash, his mobile remained switched off.

As there is actual breach of

contract, Mr. Ramesh issued a legal notice on 01.04.2020 calling
upon Mr. Avinash to pay compensation of Rs.
10,00,000/- Mr. Avinash who received the legal notice
dated 01.04.2020 on04.04.2020, neither replied nor paid compensation; therefore Mr. Ramesh has
filed O.S. No 111/2020 before the Civil Judge at XXX seeking compensation of
against Mr. Avinash.
Rs.
10,00,000/
After receipt of summons, Mr. Avinash
appeared through a counsel and filed written
statement denying the averment made in the suit. And contended
that due to Janatha Curfew and
Lockdown from 24.03.2020 at midnight, he could not
discharge his liability under the contract dated
20.03.2020, because of supervening event, the same cannot be performed, Therefore Mr. Avinash
prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

Mr. Ramesh claimed that though there was a time for Mr. Avinash to supply flowers on
23.03.2020, Avinash failed to supply, when contacted, he
intentionaly avoided phone call,
therefore, the suit may be decreed based on the decision of Hadly V/S Baxendale case. After
hearing, the Learned Judge decreed the suit partly on 17.06.2020 holding that Mr. Ramesh is
entitled only to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 6% interest and not the compensation as sought as
the contract stands discharged due to supervening event.
Being aggrieved by the Judgement and decree dated 17.06.2020 passed by the Learned
Judge in .s. No 111/2020 dismissing suit in so far as compensation is concerned. Mr. Ramesh
preferred Regular Appeal No: 22/20 Under Section 96 of CPC before the Senior Civil Judge at XXX.

Now the Appeal No:22/2020 is listed to hear the following issue.

() Whether the contract stands discharged due to supervening event as alleged.

(ii) Whether Mr. Ramesh is entitled Compensation or Not.

The students to prepare plaint, written statement and Regular Appeal and argue the case
on behalf of either of the parties.
NOTE The students can assume certain facts and circumstances.
 MOOT COURT PROBLEM-4
08
The Government of India declared on 24.03.2020, a complete Lock down throughout India due to
spreading of Corona Virus .On 28.03.2020 Mr. Quarantine S/o of Mr. Covid,, the owner of the Mini
Aus bearing No KA 00T 0000, was going in his Bus to his native Wuhana .The Bus was driven by his
driver namely Mr. Mask. Though such movement during such Lockdown period is restricted
Mr. Quarantine was travelling in his vehicle as stated above. The police, on duty ,prevented his bus
on the road, but escaped.

One person namely Mr. Sealdown tested Corona positive, as there was no vehicle facility in
the vilage, the local Doctors and police were unable to arrange vehicle to shift the patient to the
nearby Govt Hospital, at that time, when they were looking for any vehicle, they found the vehicle of
Mr. Quarantine, who was travelling in his mini bus, was going in the same route. The said mini bus5
was intercepted and forcibly the vehicle was used for shifting of the Corona infected patient, in view
of emergency situation, while shifting in the said vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver. Mr Mask, in which patient died on the spot on 28.03.2020

The MVC No 22/20 was filed seeking compensation by Mrs. Coron wife of Mr. Sealdown
against Mr. Quarantine, Mr. Mask & ABC insurance Company, before the Wuhan MACT.

After registering the cases, summons was issued, after appearance, ABC insurance company
filed written statement denying liability, while admitting the fact that the driver had effective driving
licence and the policy is in force, but denied liability on the ground that the vehicle was illegally
moving on the road which was not permitted to move during the Lock Down period that amounts
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance contract. Mr. Quarantine and Mr. Mask in their
written statement admitted the accident and contended that the policy is in force and there is a
valid driving licence. Further the Government used the Vehicle for shifting of Mr. Sealdown, a corona
patient. Hence, ABC insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

After conclusion of hearing, the MACT, Wuhan, awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,0o0/- but
fixed liability on the ABC insurance company by Judgement and award dated 01.06.2020. Being
aggrieved bythe same, the ABC insurance company preferred the appeal in MFA No: 111/2020
before the Hon'able High Court, Wuhan, against Mrs. Coron w/f of Mr. Sealdown, Mr. Quarantine
and Mr. Mask arrayed as respondent No :1, 2 and 3 respectively in MFA No : 111/2020. The said
case is listed for hearing to consider the following issue.

"Whether the ABC insurance company shall be absolved from liability to pay
compensation
as Mr.
Quarantine and Mr, Mask took the Mini bus to the road during Lockdown period without
permission even though the Government used the mini Bus to shift Mr. Seal down,a corona
patient,
to the hospital.

The students to prepare the

appeal behalf of the ABC Company and also to prepare
on
written statements on behalf of Mr.
Quarantine, Mr. Mask and argue on behalf of either of the
parties.

ww
 Moot Problem
Both Houses of the Parliament passed the 124th Constitutional Amendment
Bill to provide 10 % reservation in government jobs and educational institutions
in favour of economically weaker sections on o9th January 2019 and enacted as

Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 to enable the State
to make reservations based on the economic criterion alone. The Act received the
assent of the Hon'ble President on 12th January 2019 and was published in the
Gazette on the same day. Through this Constitution (One Hundred and Third
Amendment) Act, 2019; a new clause (6) was inserted in Article 15 and 16 of the
Constitution. Clause (6) as inserted in the Article 15 reads as follows:

(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2)
of article 29 shall prevent the State from making, -

(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker
sections of citizens, other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
) advaneement
any special provision for the of
any economicaly weaker
sections of citizens, other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so
far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions,
including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State,
other than the minority educational institutions r ferred to in clause (1) of article
30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing
reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the total seats in each
category."

Explanation:- For thepurpose ofthis Article andArticle 16, "economically weaker

sections" shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the
basis offamily income and other indicators of economic
disadvantage.'
Similarly, Clause (6) was inserted into the Article 16 and it reads as follows
"(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for
the reservation of appointments in
or postsfavor of any economically weaker
sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in
clause (4), in addition to
the existing reservation and
subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the posts in
each category."
Mr. X
challenged the
constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional
(Amendment) Act, 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under
Article
 Moot Problem II

struct
Indian Constitution
claiming that,
it violates the basic structure of the
32 of the
Constitution.

ISsUES:
Whether 103rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2013 violates any of the
basic struetures of the Constitution of India.
Whether the additional 10% reservations for
in
Economically Weaker
Sections
educational institutions and
public employment is
breaches and exceeds the unconstitutional, as it
50% limit for reservations as
Sawhney vs laid down in Indra
Union of India (AIR
1993 SC 477) in
Whether reservations 1993?
on the basis of
under the Constitutional scheme
can be
economic criteria and prescribed only
backwardness also? not on social
social and
and educational
 MOOT COURT PROBLEM -10
The complainant (Beemaiah) in the capacity of
Fastem Railway, Bangalore, met
an employee under South
with an accident on 27.04.05 and sustained
injury on his lett wrist.

Initially the complainant got first aid from Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, on
8405 and subsequently he was admitted in
Surgical Ward of South Eastern
Railway Hospital, Bangalore. According to the Complainant, though there was
sutticient pain in the left wrist of the
complainant, but the attending doctor
ignoring such state of affairs conducted P.O.P. pluster in the injured hand of the
complainant thereby also ignoring the fact that there was swelling in the
tractured limb of the complainant. According to the Complainant, there was no
relief to the complainant and as there was subsisting pain and swelling in the
fractured limb of the complainant, the complainant got himself examined by an
orthopaedie surgeon namely Dr. D.Sridhar, Orthopaedic Center, Jayanagar, who
detected that there was existence of fracture in the left wrist of the complainant,
which clearly indicated that the OP No. 2, i.e. the concerned Railway Hospital,
was negligent in performing proper duty. Subsequently the complainant was
referred to South Easterm Railway Hospital, Garden Reach, Kolkata, where the
opined post immobilization fracture and advised for extensive physiotherapy.
According to the complainant, due to negligent acts and omissions on the part of
the Opponents the complainant has suffered physical discomfort and harassment
and hence, the petition of complaint for a compensation to the tune of Rs.
4,75,000/- along with litigation cost was filed before the consumer Court at
Bangalore.
The Opponents contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all
the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter
alia that the petition of complaint was not maintainable on the ground that the
complainant was not a Consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the
Opponents, the hospital and the physician attached to

Bangalore Railway Hospital did not effect any manipulation in the injured limb
of the complainant as that would have aggravated the situation considering the

age of thecomplainant. According to the Opponents, proper medical treatment

thne
and guidance was given to the complainant by the Opponents /Hospital and
 the instanes
absence of any
negligence at instance of the
and in the
concerned physician dismissed.
was liable to be
complaint
Opponents, the petition of
of complaint has obser ed
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition
of the Consuma
that the complainant was not a Consumer as per provisions
in service at the instance of
Protection Act and in the absence of any deficiency
the Opponents, as claimed by the complainant, the complainant was not entitled
to get any relief as per prayer of the petition of complaint and accordingly
dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without any order as to cost as
mentioned above.

Being aggrieved by the order

of the district forum, the
before the Kamataka State present Appeal is filed
Consumer Dispute Redressal
Bangalore Commission at
Prepare memorial on both sides
Appellant or Respondent and argue either
on behalf of the
 Moot Problem 11
Union of Indiva is a Democratic
country. Democratic Reformers Association is a group of
certain Professionals working in this
country which has large network throughout the country. In
this Association many Doctors,
for social cause and social
Lawyers, Cine Artists, Engineers, Writers are working together
problems. They have framed WhatsApp groups and Facebook
Communities and other social media
groups through which they share thoughts and different
initiatives taken by their group.
People from different places have joined their group. There are
different kinds of discussions on the
group. The office bearers of the Association always request
other members to add
people different communities in the said Association. Members meet
of
with each other and
post discussions on WhatsApp and other Social media group about the
decisions taken by the govenment which includes giving reservations and curtailing the
reservations for certain communities. The
discussion started aggressive arguments about the
government and many members expressed their critical views about the government. Few people
who were the members of the
existing Ruling party protested against this on WhatsApPP group
and other Social media group. Furious arguments were shared on WhatsApp group and other
social media group. Some people brought these arguments to the notice of Ruling party members
and thus it reached up to some of the ministers. An urgent cabinet meeting was called and a
resolution was passed for banning these kinds of activities in the country. Certain Police
complaints were made against the members of the Democratic Reformers Association. Some
members of this group were arrested by the police stating that they are disseminating false
information about the government and its policies with the aim of instigating people against the
government. There were also violent protests against the resolution by the opposition party.
Members found to have propagated such information were charged under section 124-A of
Indiva Penal Code. Their Anticipatory Bail Applications were rejected by Trial Court and High
Court. The Home Ministry of the country passed order in exercise of the powers conferred by the
Information Technology Act, which talks about Monitoring and Decryption of Information. The

Government also authorized its Security and Intelligence Agencies for the purposes of
interception; monitoring and decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or
stored in any computer resource. The Democratic Reformers Association argued that it is the
ultimate assault on fundamental rights and the right to privacy. This kind of order is violation of
right to privacy which is a fundamental right.

In this background, Democratic Reformers Association has filed a petition by challenging the
constitutional validity of the order passed by the Home Ministry of Indiva, Section 124-A of
Indiva Penal Code, and against the order of rejection of bail applications before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Indiva.

Note-1)The participants to the competition have to frame the issues and make submissions by
presuming that the laws of Indiva are pari materia to the Laws of India.

2) All the Participants have to prepare the arguments.

 MOOT COURT PROBLEM 12
The Republic of Indica is located in the South Asian Kegion ot Asia. It is one of the ancient nations in

the world Till 1947, Republic of Indica was a British colony for about 150 years. It achieved independence
in 1947, Now the Republie of lndicais a democratic country with a written Constitution which came
into
force in 1950. Ithas 29 States and 7 Union Territories. The Constitution has adopted
Parliamentary system
wherein President is the executive Head of the government. The of the majority population of the country
belongs to Hindu religion. Buddhism, Christianity. Islam, Jainism and Sikhism are the other major religions
followed by the people of Republie of Indica. The Republic of Indica is characterized by a diversity of
religious beliefs and practices. dressing, cultural outlook, food-habits etc. Some religion like Jainism strictly
follow the principle of non-violence and therefore stressed upon vegetarian food habit. This is not so in case
ofother religions. Under Hindu religion some are vegetarians and some are non-vegetarians. Throughout the
Republic of lndica's history, religion has been an important part of the country's culture. The history of
Republic of Indica has witnessed some prominent instances of religious disharmony amongst various

eligious groups.
The Constitution of Republic of Indicadeclaresvarious rights as fundamental rights. Some of the
fundamental rights are the right to freedom of religion, freedom to cary on any trade. profession and
business. right to life and personal liberty etc. The fundamental rights are mostly enforceable against the
State. The concept of State'is defined by the Constitution ofRepublic of Indica. The Constitution also
incorporates some features of secularism.The Supreme Court of Republic of Indica, in its few landmark
judgments has expanded the meaning of 'right to life and personal liberty'. Almost everything which has
connection with person's meaningful life has been held as integral part of this right. Recently the Supreme
Court of Republic of Indica held that right to privacy is a part of right to life and personal liberty'.
The Constitution on Indica also laid down some Directive Principles of State Policy. These directives are
not enforceable in the court of law, nevertheless these principles are to be looked into while formulating any
policy and enacting any law. One of those directives laid down that the "State shall endeavor to organize
agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific line and shall take steps in particular for
preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and caves and other
milch and draught cattle." This directive was inserted in the Constitution of Indica after a long-heated
debate. On the one hand the economy of the Republic of Indica is largely based upon agriculture and on the
other hand cow is treated as 'Holy' under Hindu religion. Therefore, the above-mentioned directive was

between the scientific rationality and religious sentiments of

perceived to be an outcome of a compromise
the majority Hindu citizens.
The Constitution on Indica also laid down some fundamental duties for its citizens. One of the

fundamental duty of the citizens is to protect and improve the natural environment and to have compassion

for living creatures.

protection of Cows. Some of these
Since 1950 Republic of Indica and various States enacted laws for the
of cow whereas some of them were enacted in the name
laws are enacted with specific object of protection
of 'protection of animals from cruelty'.
 second most
populous state of th
of Indica and
in
regionofRepublie
In 1995, amendments
Act, 1978.
situated western
d k a is
Preservation
Maratlha Animal (Under the
ot Indica.In 1978 it enacted the Preside
President.
une

reserved for the

assent ofthe
Amendment Aet of 1995 was
as state legislature
eTe nade in 1978 Act and as well
both the Republic
of the Republic of ndica, ifon a subicct-matter
has been
reserved for the
only if it
Onstntution
Law
over the Republic the
a law, then the state law vill prevail changes in
Cnacted
to make following
These amendments sought
Tesident s assent and received such assent).

Act ot 1978- bullocks.

bulls and
l t sought to extend the bans on the slaughter
of cows and calves to as well as
another state), the export,
State of Maratha to
It to prohibit the transport (from the
sought
bullocks for the purpose
of slaughter.
purchase, sale and disposal of cows, bulls and
bull or bullock slaughtered in
of the cow,
. lt sought to prohibit the possession of the flesh
contravention of the provisions of the Act.
not this was obtained through lawftul
+ l t also criminalizes the possession of beef per se, whether or

slaughter from another state.

not in contravention of
. The amendment sought to put the burden on the accused that he/she was

provisions of the Act.

6. The amendment also stipulated punishment for the contravention of the Act.
of the President in 2015 and came into force
The Amendment Act, 1995 received the assent

immediately. Meanwhile there was a political turmoil throughout the Republic of Indica. Various
of cows. Few individuals were
religious organizations started large scale mobilization against slaughter
createdthetension between those
attacked on the accusation that they stored cow-flesh in their home. It
X* was affected
who were beef-eater and those who were not.More particularly, a minority community

drastically as beef eating was their common food habit. Moreover, beef was less costly as compared to

other non-vegetarian food. As the degree of poverty is higher in community 'X', beef eating was an

easy source of protein for them. But with the new amended law by the state of Maratha, they were

deprived of this source.

In this background, writ petitions were filled by various associations and individuals before the
Hon'ble High Court of State of Maratha challenging the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of

1995.Maratha Butchers' Association, a Registered Society is one of the petitionerworking for the

protection of the interest of minority community'X'.

This petition is posted for final arguments and for disposal on 20 January, 2018.

Note: The students have to frame the issues and make submissions by presuming that the Constitution of
With reference to the Act of
India and all other laws applicable in India are applicable in Republic of Indica.
the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1978
1978 and amendment of 1995, the students shall refer
to

made to it from time to time.

along with the amendments