Memorial - Petitioner

TEAM CODE: ZL - 27
Republic of ELYSIA, 1st OCTOBER 2023
RepubliRepublic
BEFORE
Patrick Bate …. PETITIONER
THE CIVIL COURT OF SUNAGA, REPUBLIC OF ELYSIA
VERSUS
Frankenstein Production House Pvt. Ltd. …. RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION
JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT OF SUNAGA
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
[MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF]

8TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................

I. TABLE OF CASES ....................................................................................................
II. BOOKS .......................................................................................................................
III. STATUTES .................................................................................................................
IV. LEGAL DATABASE…………………………………………………………………
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION… .................................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..........................................................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................
I. WHETHER THIS SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL
COURT OF SUNAGA? AND, IF THE COMPANY IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE
FOR THE ACTIONS OF ZIYA…………………………………………………
II. WHETHER THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE CAN BE ENFORCED BY

BATE? AND WHETHER THE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION
TO BATE?..............................................................................................................
III. WHETHER THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ZIYA IN THE INTERVIEW ARE

DEFAMATORY IN
NATURE?..............................................................................................................
PRAYER......................................................................................................................….
[MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED
S No. CASE NAME

1. R. Rajagopal and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
2. Globe Transport Corporation vs Triveni Engineering Works and another
(1983) 4 SCC 707
3. T.V. Ramasubba Iyer And Anr. vs A.M. Ahamed Mohideen AIR 1972 Mad
398
4. Radheshyam Tiwari vs Eknath Dinaji Bhiwapurkar And Ors AIR 1985 Bom
285
5. Anita Bhandari & Ors. v. Union of India (2003) 2 GLR 1093
6. Barwick v English Joint Stock Bank (1867) LR 2 Ex 259
7. Asoke Kumar Sarkar And Anr. vs Radha Kanto Pandey And Ors. AIR 1967
Cal 178, 1967 CriLJ 455
8. Youssoupoff v. MGM Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581, CA
9. Webb v Beavan (1883) 11 QBD 609
10. Commissioner of Police of the Magistrate Metropolis v. Woks (2012) EQLR
209
11. Subramaniam Swamy vs Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 2728
12. Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy (2006) 126 DLT 535.
13. Bayley v Manchester S&L Railway (1873) LR 8 CP 148
14. Barwick v English Joint Stock Bank (1867) LR 2 Ex 259
15. Lloyd v/s Grace, Smith (1912) AC 716
16. The 'Ad Hoc' Committee, the Indian Insurance Company Association Pool v.
Smt. Radhabai, AIR 1976 MP 164
17. Frank Finn Management Consultants v. Subhash Motwani, 2008 SCC
OnLine Del 1049
18. Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. 1977
AIR 1735, 1977 SCR (3) 372

19. Bishambhar Nath Agarwal v. Kishan Chand, 1989 SCC OnLine All 426
20. Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554
21. Egon Zhender International (P) Ltd. v. Namgayal Institute, 2013 SCC
OnLine Del 4288
22. Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 3780
23. Sreepathi Hosiery Mills (P) Ltd. v. Chitra Knitting Co., 1976 SCC OnLine
Mad 210
24. Herbicides (India) Ltd. v. Shashank Pesticides (P) Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine
Del 2249
25. State of Kerala v. K. Bhaskaran, 1984 SCC OnLine Ker 198
26. M.N. Gangappa v. Atmakur Nagabhushanam Setty & Co., (1973) 3 SCC
406
27. Raghavan v. Kalanithi Maran, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 1811
28. Joynt V. Cycle Trade Publishing Company., [1904] 2 K.B. 292
29. E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones [1910] A. C. 20.
30. State of Maharashtra v Kanchanmala Vijaysingh Shirke & Ors, (1995) 5
SCC 659
31. Y.A. Dikshit v. Radhakrishna Pratap Singh, AIR 1948 Oudh 226
32. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Shatwell, [1965] A.C. 656
33. Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, 1956 SCC
OnLine SC 11
34. Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2004) 3 SCC
514
BOOKS
S No. BOOK NAME

1. DR. J. N. PANDEY, Law Of Torts With Consumer Protection Act And Motor
Vehicles Act
2. Eigth Edition, C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963
3. 27th Edition, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts
4. 13th Edition, Mulla, The Indian Contract Act, 2012
STATUES
S No. NAME OF THE STATUE

1. The Indian Contract Act, 1872
2. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908
LEGAL DATABASES
S No. LEGAL DATABASES

1. SCC Online
2. LexisNexis
3. Manupatra
4. Westlaw
5. AIR Online
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.No Abbreviation Definition
1. HC High Court
2. Sec. section
3. & and
4. CPC Civil Procedure Code
5. M/S Messrs
6. Anr Another
7. ors Others
8. v Versus
9. Hon’ble honorable
10. Pvt. Private
11. Ltd. Limited
12. Co. company
13. Org. Organization
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners most humbly submit that the Hon’ble Civil Court of Sunaga has the
jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate upon the matters of the present lawsuit under
SECTION 19 of THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908.
Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 states: “Where a suit is for compensation for
wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit
may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Frankenstein Production House Pvt. Ltd. (“the Company”) is a film house located in the
Republic of Elysia, with its head office situated in the capital city of Konoha. They deal with
biographies and stories inspired by actual events and have won numerous awards. The CEO
is Mr Abhilash, who holds a reputable position in the film industry, with over a million
followers across multiple social media platforms.
Patrick Bate is a social media influencer from the city of Sunaga who gained popularity
during the nationwide lockdown imposed due to the BROVID-19 pandemic. He had 20
million followers on FlexTube, which made him the most trending FlexTube influencer in
2021. He conducts the 'Hustlers Academy' classes to train young minds to live successful
lives. He is on trial for allegedly being involved in human trafficking and other criminal
offences. They entered a Film Production Agreement on May 25th, 2022 in Sunaga. The
purpose of this contract is for the Company to make a movie based on Bate’s life to clear his
image. The agreement included a confidentiality clause regulating the instances from his life
to be showcased in the film.
SITUATION THEREAFTER
On July 16th, 2023, Dailyseea, a reputed news channel, interviewed Ziya, an employee of the
Company, as part of the promotional events for the movie. During the interview, Ziya claimed
that the videos Bate posted on Hustlers Academy were misogynistic and explicitly stated that
he was involved in human trafficking.
CAUSE OF ACTION
The statements made by Ziya instigated a ‘Cancel Bate’ movement, which cost him his
reputation and followers. This drove Bate to file a lawsuit against the Company for the breach
of the Confidentiality Clause in the contract. Bate also claimed that the statements made by
Ziya regarding his alleged involvement in human trafficking were defamatory. He seeks
compensation for all the losses he incurred.
CLAIMS
Frankenstein Production House Pvt. Ltd claims that Ziya's statements were not defamatory
and that the confidentiality clause cannot be enforced as the videos posted in the Academy
were already accessible to the general public. Additionally, the Company also stated that they
cannot be held liable for the interviews given by their employees.
PETITION
Patrick Bate filed a suit before the hon’ble Civil Court of Sunaga.
The Court has clubbed both suits, and the preliminary hearing will occur on October 1st,
2023.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. WHETHER THIS SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL

COURT OF SUNAGA? AND, IF THE COMPANY IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR
THE ACTIONS OF ZIYA?

TO BATE?

DEFAMATORY IN NATURE?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THIS SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL

The Petitioner humbly submits that the Hon’ble Civil Court of Sunaga has the necessary
authority to hear and decide the case according to sec. 19 and sec.20 (c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. It is further submitted that the company is vicariously liable for the actions
of Ziya as she is an employee of the company, and her actions were done within the course of
employment.

TO BATE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Civil Court of Sunaga that the confidentiality
clause can be enforced by Bate as there was a breach of confidentiality since contents
governed by the confidentiality clause were disclosed to the general public through the
interview given by Ziya. The company is liable to pay compensation to Bate as per Clause 69
of the Film Production Agreement and sec.73 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Civil Court of Sunaga that the statements made by
Ziya during the interview amount to defamation. Defamatory statements were made, they
referred to the Petitioner, and were published. Hence, it satisfies all the essentials of
defamation given under Civil Law.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THIS SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL

1.1. Whether this suit is maintainable before The Hon’ble Civil Court Of Sunaga?
It is humbly submitted that the present Civil Court of Sunaga has the requisite jurisdiction to
adjudicate the present suit under sec. 19 as well as sec.20 (c) of CPC. Sec.19 of CPC says,
“Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the
wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant
resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either
of the said Courts.”
Sec. 20 Clause of CPC says, “Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be
instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.
According to the above sections, the petitioner has the option to institute the suit either at the
court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the cause of action has taken place or in the
court within whose local limits of the jurisdiction the respondent resides, or in this case,
carries on its business.
In M/s.Sreepathi Hosiery Mills (P) Ltd., Calcutta v. M/s.Chitra Knitting Co, the Madras HC
held as follows: "Whenever a suit for compensation for the wrong done to a person or to
movable property is filed, the option is with the plaintiff to either institute the cause based on
such cause of action at the place where the defendant resides or works for gain or at the place
where the wrong was committed. There is no way out of this limitation as to jurisdiction
envisaged in S.19, C.P.C.” It reaffirms that a lawsuit seeking compensation for wrongs
committed against a person should be filed either where the wrong was committed or where
the perpetrator lives or works.
In the case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr, the
Delhi High Court decided the question of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The division bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that "under
clauses (a) to (c) of section 20 CPC, a plaintiff has a choice of forum and cannot be forced to
go to the defendant's place of business or home and can file a suit where the cause of action
arises." From this case, it can be inferred that the petitioner has every right to file the suit in
the court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen, irrespective
of the fact that the respondent carries on their business within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of another court.
The Cause of action and the wrong done in this case are the defamatory statements made by
Ziya and the breach of contract, which took place during the duration of the interview.
In the case of Globe Transport Corporation vs Triveni Engineering Works and Anr, the
contract for the transport of goods was entered in Jaipur, where the appellant ran his business.
The contract said that every suit arising should be under the jurisdiction of the court in Jaipur.
The goods being delivered to Allahabad had been damaged, and the respondent had filed a
suit in the Court of Civil Judge Allahabad, who ruled in favour of them. The appellant now
claims that the court of Allahabad didn't have jurisdiction. The SC ruled in favour of the
respondent since no part of the cause of action had arisen in Jaipur.
Since the interview was broadcasted on a news channel with millions of viewers across
Elysia, and the contents of the interview came to the knowledge of the petitioner in his
hometown of Sunaga, it can be inferred that the cause of action has taken place in Sunaga.
The following cases substantiate this argument:
M/S Frank Finn Management vs. Mr. Subhash Motwani & Anr (2008): defendant's office
is located in Mumbai and they had published a magazine making defamatory statements
regarding an institute located in Delhi. The institute in question filed a suit against the
defendants in Delhi. The defendants argued that the article was published in Mumbai; they
were residents of Mumbai and were carrying on business in Mumbai; thus, the suit could
have been instituted in Mumbai only. According to the plaintiff, the article in the magazine
was seen by him in Delhi; therefore, the cause of action had also arisen in Delhi. It was held
that by uploading the magazine online, the magazine cannot be said for circulation within
Mumbai and is concluded to be having circulation all over India. It cannot be said that the
wrong was not done to the plaintiff in Delhi. Thus, courts in Delhi would have jurisdiction to
entertain the suit. The judgment in Raghavan vs. Kalanithi Maran reaffirms the same.
1.2. Whether the company is vicariously liable for the actions of Ziya
The concept of vicarious liability is explained in the following case:
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Shatwell: Lord Pears, in this case, explained the
concept of vicarious liability very clearly. He said, "The doctrine of vicarious liability has
originated not from an express reason rules of law but from the general rule of social
convenience and justice. When his master employs his servant (impliedly for his own benefit)
and is capable of meeting the loss suffered by a person from the acts of his servants, then he
is liable against the whole of the world for the torts committed by his servants." The
judgment in the case of Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of T.N
reaffirmed the same.
Thus, vicarious liability arises in the following cases:
1. Liability by ratification
2. Liability arising out of a special relationship.
The petitioner will focus on the second case, i.e., liability arising out of a special relationship.
‘Special relationships,’ in this context, relate to the relationship between Master and Servant,
Principal and Agent, and Firm and its Partners. The relationship of principal and agent is
similar to that of master and servant. So, any rule that applies to a master-servant relationship
applies to a principal-agent relationship as well.
For holding a master liable for the torts of his servant, the following two conditions must be
proved:
a) There must be a relationship of master and servant between the defendant and the person
committing the torts.
b) Tortious acts must have been committed by the servant in the course of his employment.
1.2.1. Whether there exists a special principal-agent relationship between the Company
and Ziya
As Ziya is an employee of the company, it can be ascertained that there does exist a special
principal-agent relationship between the Company and Ziya according to sec.182 of the
Indian Contract Act 1872.
Sec.182 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines ‘Agent’ and ‘Principal.’ According to this
section, “An “agent” is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another
in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so
represented, is called the “principal.”
The Supreme Court in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra laid
down that the existence of the right in the master to supervise and control the execution of the
work done by the servant is a prima facie test, that the nature of control might vary from
business to business and is by its nature incapable of any precise definition, that is it not
necessary that the employer should be proved to have exercised control over the work of the
employee and that there are many contracts in which the master could not control the manner
in which the work was done. In the present case, Ziya, being an employee of the Company,
was representing the company in the interview. Hence, it can be said that the Company and
Ziya share a principal-agent relationship regardless of whether the Company had control over
the manner in which Ziya approached the interview or not.
1.2.2. Whether the act was done within the course of employment
The term 'Course of Employment’ was interpreted by the famous jurist Salmond as an act if it
is either:
i. A wrongful act authorized by the master or

ii. A wrongful and unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the master.
The second type of act will be taken into consideration for this case. Ziya appeared for the
interview representing the Company for the promotional purposes of the movie based on
Bate’s life. It can be observed that this was an authorized act as Ziya is an agent of the
company, and she has done the act for the benefit of the Company. The mode of doing the
authorized act may be unauthorized as no rational Principal will permit the Agent to utilize a
wrongful mode to do an authorized act.
In the case of Barwick v English Joint Stock Bank, the court held that though the master has
not authorized the tortuous act as he has put the servant in his place to perform the class of
acts, he must be accountable for how the servant has conducted himself in doing the business
which it was the act of his master to place him in.
A similar judgment was held in the case of Anita Bhandari & Ors. v. Union of India. In this
case, the husband of the petitioner went to a bank, and while entering it, the cash box of the
bank was also being carried inside, and as a result, the security guard, in haste, shot him and
caused his death. The petitioner had claimed that the bank was vicariously liable in the case
because the security guard had done such an act in the course of employment, but the bank
had contended that it had not authorized the guard to shoot. The Court held the bank liable as
the act of giving him a gun amounted to authorizing him to shoot when he deemed it
necessary, and while the guard had acted overzealously in his duties, it was still done in the
course of employment.
In the same way, the act of placing Ziya in a position to attend the promotional interview
amounted to authorizing her to use any mode she deemed necessary to promote the movie.
In Bayley v Manchester S&L Railway, a porter of a railway company, while working,

mistakenly believed that the plaintiff was in the wrong carriage even though he was in the
right one. The porter thus pulled the plaintiff, as a result of which the plaintiff sustained
injuries. Here, the Court held the railway company vicariously liable for the act of the porter
because it was done in the course of his employment, and this act would have been proper if
the plaintiff was indeed in the wrong carriage.
In Lloyd v. Grace Smith and Co., the managing clerk of Smith and Co., on behalf of the
company, attended to their client and fraudulently made her sign the documents to transfer
her property to him. This act of the managing clerk was considered a wrongful act in the
course of his employment, and the company was held vicariously liable. Whether the act
profited the company or not did not matter. In the present case as well, it does not matter
whether the act done by Ziya was beneficial to the company or not. The company is bound to
be held liable as Ziya acted within the course of employment.
2. WHETHER THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE CAN BE ENFORCED BY

BATE? AND WHETHER THE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY
COMPENSATION TO BATE?
2.1. Whether the confidentiality clause can be enforced by Bate?
In order for the confidentiality clause to be enforced, first, it must be established that a breach
of confidentiality as per the Film Production agreement has taken place.
In the case of Bishamber Nath Agarwal v. Kishan Chand, it was held by the Allahabad High
Court that when a contract contains specific guidelines, actions must be taken accordingly,
and the obligations must be fulfilled accordingly.
Clauses 65, 66, 68 & 70 of the Film Production Agreement made between the Company and
Patrick Bate address the matter of breach of confidentiality.
According to Clause 65 of the Film Production Agreement, “Confidential information

constitutes any information not pertaining to instances from Patrick Bate's childhood,
relationship with his family, educational qualifications, career in sports, the ongoing trial for
the offense of human trafficking, along with his philanthropy and contribution towards the
conservation of the environment and sustainability.”
This clause explains the scope of what can be classified as confidential information. As per
this Clause, any information regarding Patrick Bate that is not included in the following
comes under the ambit of confidential information:
 His childhood
 Relationship with his family
 Educational Qualifications
 Career in sports
 Ongoing trial for the offense of human trafficking
 His philanthropy and contribution towards the conservation of the environment and
sustainability.
The statements made by Ziya regarding the videos uploaded by Bate in Hustlers Academy do
not come under any of the above-mentioned matters and hence, constitute confidential
information.
Clause 66 of the Film Production Agreement says,

"The Company shall not, without the prior written consent of Patrick Bate, disclose, publish,
or otherwise reveal, utilize, or exploit any Confidential Information to any person or entity
other than to such of its employees, officers, directors, contractors, agents and professional
advisors, as applicable, and in such event only to the extent necessary for the Purpose of the
movie."
It is said that "The Company shall not, without the prior written consent of Patrick
Bate." The Company did not obtain Patrick Bate's permission to reveal or utilize the
confidential material during Ziya's interview. Moreover, the act of Ziya disclosing the
confidential information to a public audience via the interview, which was broadcasted
throughout the country of Elysia amounts to a breach of Confidentiality as per the above
clause.
Clause 68 of the Film Production Agreement states that, “The Company shall hold and
maintain all Confidential Information of Patrick Bate in trust and confidence for Patrick
Bate and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to protect the Confidential Information
from any harm, tampering, unauthorized access, sabotage, access, exploitation,
manipulation, modification, interference, misuse, misappropriation, copying or disclosure.
The Company has failed to maintain the confidential information of Patrick Bate in trust and
confidence. Through the actions of Ziya, the confidential information was misused and
disclosed to a large audience.
Clause 70 states that “Neither this Agreement nor the disclosure of any Confidential
Information to the Company shall be construed as granting to the Company any rights in, to,
or in respect of the Confidential Information.”
This Clause emphasizes that the Company has no right whatsoever to disclose any
confidential information of Bate without prior approval from him.
As the Company has failed to adhere to the above clauses, it can be concluded that a breach
of confidentiality has taken place.
The Kerala High Court, in State of Kerala v. K. Bhaskaran, observed that “The defendant is
liable only for natural and proximate consequences of a breach or those consequences which
were in the parties' contemplation at the time of contract... the party guilty of breach of
contract is liable only for reasonably foreseeable losses - those that a normally prudent
person, standing in his place possessing his information when contracting, would have had
reason to foresee as probable consequences of future breach." Patrick Bate is a public figure
and a social media influencer with millions of followers all over the country. Any comment
about such a prominent figure in the public sphere would draw the attention and criticism of a
great number of people. The confidential information revealed to the public by Ziya is of
such a nature that it can be foreseen by a prudent person to entail negative consequences to
Bate.
2.2. Whether the company is liable to pay compensation to Bate
Yes, the Company is liable to pay compensation to Bate as it aligns with Section 73 of The
Indian Contract Act 1972. Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act 1972 says,
“When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to
receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage
caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach,
or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach
of it.”
The section discusses how "the party who suffers from such breach is entitled to
receive" who is Bate "from the party who has broken the contract" the Frankenstein
Production House Pvt. Ltd. "compensation for any loss or damage caused to him." Bate is
entitled to compensation from the Company because he lost followers by the hour after Ziya
was on 'Dailyseea' for the interview. Within a month, he had lost 4 million followers on
FlexTube. These were the damages suffered by Bate.
Moreover, Clause 69 of the Film Production Agreement clearly states thatT “In the event of
non-adherence to this clause, the Company shall be liable to pay compensation to Patrick
Bate.” The Company did not adhere to the clauses given in the Film Production agreement,
and a breach of confidentiality has taken place.
Due to the above reasons, the company is liable to pay compensation to Bate.
The following case laws substantiate this:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maula Bux v. Union of India, held that the court is
competent to award reasonable compensation in a case of breach even if no actual damage is
proved to have been suffered in consequence of the breach of contract.
In the case of M/s. Herbicides (India) Ltd. v. M/s. Shashank Pesticides P. Ltd, the court held
that "... even if it does not prove the actual loss/damage suffered by it, is entitled to
reasonable damages unless it is proved that no loss or damage was caused on account of
breach of the contract" The losses and damage suffered by Bate on account of breach of
contract has already been proved.
The Supreme Court in M.N. Gangappa v. Atmakur Nagabhushanam Shetty & Co. and Anr
has observed that in the absence of a strict procedure for calculation of damages arising out of
breach of contract, damages would be calculated based on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The petitioner humbly requests the hon’ble Civil Court of Sunaga to instruct the
defendants to render the appropriate amount of damages to Patrick Bate for the loss that was
suffered by him.
3. WHETHER THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ZIYA IN THE INTERVIEW ARE

The plaintiff’s counsel would like to quote the statements made by Ziya in the interview.
In the interview, when speaking about the movie, Ziya said,
"We all know how much of a gentleman Bate is, but I do not understand for the life of me why
he would think that posting such misogynistic videos on Hustlers Academy is a good idea,
especially at a time when everyone knows that his reputation has taken a hit ever since we
found out that he was engaged in human trafficking. Every single person I have spoken to,
including my family, keeps asking me why we agreed to make a movie on this guy, the real
reason is, for all his flaws, Bate, deep down, is a good guy at heart, who is just being
misunderstood by the public”.
The petitioner submits the following parts of the above statement to be defamatory in nature:
1. “..why he would think that posting such misogynistic videos on Hustlers Academy…”
Here, Ziya is accusing the videos Bate posted on Hustlers Academy to be
‘misogynistic’ in nature.
2. “…ever since we found out that he was engaged in human trafficking”. Although
Bate is involved in an ongoing trail for his alleged involvement in human trafficking,
there has been no verdict for the same. Ziya, through this statement, is blatantly
accusing the plaintiff of being engaged in human trafficking.
The above statements made my Ziya amount to defamation as it satisfies all the essentials of
defamation under tort law as given below:
1. The statement must be defamatory.

A statement is defamatory if it tends to injure the reputation of a person to whom it
refers. In the present case, the reputation of Mr. Patrick Bate was injured, which can
be inferred from the following excerpt from the proposition, “Following the
interview, there were heated discussions and debates among the masses, which
ultimately led to a 'Cancel Bate' movement across Elysia. As a result of which, Bate
lost followers by the hour, and within a month, he was down to 16 million followers
on FlexTube.”
In the case of Youssoupoff v. MGM Pictures Ltd, The plaintiff (herself a Princess)
complained that she could be identified with the character Princess Natasha in the film
‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’. On the basis that the film suggested that, by reason of her
identification with ‘Princess Natasha’, she had been seduced by Rasputin. The defendant
contended that if the film indicated any relations between Rasputin and ‘Natasha’ it indicated
a rape of Natasha and not a seduction. The judgement held that in a cinema film, not only the
photographic part of it is considered to be defamatory, but also the speech which
synchronizes with it. Slesser LJ said that defamation could include words which cause a
person to be shunned or avoided: ‘not only is the matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff
into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by reason of some moral discredit on [the plaintiff’s] part,
but also if it tends to make the plaintiff be shunned and avoided and that without any moral
discredit on [the plaintiff’s] part.
Ziya’s description of the videos Bate posted on Hustlers Academy as being misogynistic in
nature and accusing him of being involved in human trafficking are something a reasonable
man can ascertain is likely to bring Bate into hatred and contempt and cause him to be
shunned and avoided.
In the case of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, a commission of inquiry was

instituted to inquire into the assassination of Late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The
defendant who appeared as a witness made wild allegations in his written submission against
plaintiff's Senior Counsel that he had been receiving money from 'LTTE'. The plaintiff sued
the defendant for defamation. The court held that the offending statement was quite
unconnected and irrelevant to the inquiry. It was ex facie defamatory. It was a clear case of
exceeding limits of qualified limits and showing actual malice. Defendant refused to
apologize and withdrew the offending statement. Damages, therefore was awarded in favour
of the plaintiff.
In the present case, the sole purpose of conducting the interview was to promote the movie
based on Bate’s life. The offending statements were irrelevant to this purpose and exceeded
the limits of qualified limits.
Moreover, the Ziya’s statement regarding Bate’s engagement in human trafficking is a false
statement.
In Joynt V. Cycle Trade Publishing Company, Kennedy J. declared, “The comment must not
misstate facts, because a comment cannot be fair which is built upon facts which are not truly
stated, and, further, it must not convey imputations of an evil sort, except so far as the facts,
truly stated warrant the imputation”.
The same view is reflected in Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath Dinaji Bhiwapurkar where the
defendant who was the editor of a local Marathi Weekly published a series of articles
mentioning that the plaintiff, who was a BDO, issued false certificates, accepted a bribe,
adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a 'Mischief Monger'. In an action
for defamation, the defendant pleaded the defense of Justification. The defense was discarded
as the truth of the facts mentioned could not be proved.
Ziya’s words impute that the plaintiff is guilty of engaging in human trafficking. In the case
of Webb v Beavan, the bench held that words imputing that the plaintiff has been guilty of
criminal offence will support an action for defamation, without special damage; and it is not
necessary to allege in the statement of claim that they impute an indictable offence.
2. The statement must refer to the plaintiff.

It is necessary in every action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement
referred to the plaintiff. In the present case, Ziya clearly referred to the plaintiff in the
interview. The interview itself was about a movie based on Bate’s life and Bate’s
name has been mentioned multiple times during the interview.
In the landmark case of Jones v. Hulton, a defamatory article was published about one
Artemis Jones while describing a motor festival. A barrister named Artemis Jones alleged that
this was defamatory to him as right-thinking individuals, as well as his friends, believed that
the article referred to him even though it was contended by the defendant that the same was
an imaginary name used for the purpose of this article. House of Lords upheld the decision
that the same is defamation, even if there was no knowledge or intention on the part of the
accused.
In T.V.Ramasubha Iyer Vs. A.M.A.Mohideen, the defendant published a statement without

any intention to defame the plaintiff. It was related to a particular person carrying on the
business of Agarbattis to Ceylon who had been arrested for the offense of smuggling. The
plaintiff was also a person carrying on similar business and since his reputation was damaged,
the court awarded him damages.
3. Statement must be published.

Publication of defamatory statements is essential. If there is no publication, there is no
injury to reputation, and no action will arise. The term publication, in general, means
making a thing publicly known. Here, it means the act of making known to any
person or persons other than the plaintiff himself.
In Y.A. Dikshit V. Radhakrishna Pratap Singh, the court held that no action for defamation
can be maintained unless there was a publication of the defamatory words to someone other
than the person defamed.
Since the statements made by Ziya in the interview were broadcasted on a nationwide news
channel in Elysia, it can be affirmed that the publication of the statement has taken place.
PRAYER
Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the Civil Court of Sunaga has the necessary jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate
the present suit and that the Company is vicariously liable for the acts of Ziya
2. That the confidentiality clause can be enforced by Bate and that the Company is liable
to pay compensation to Bate
3. That the statements made by Ziya in the interview are defamatory in nature.
Pass any order that it seems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience. And
for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall remain duty-bound forever.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Memorial - Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial - Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Memorial - Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: ZL - 27

Republic of ELYSIA, 1st OCTOBER 2023

Frankenstein Production House Pvt. Ltd. …. RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

[MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................

II. WHETHER THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE CAN BE ENFORCED BY

III. WHETHER THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ZIYA IN THE INTERVIEW ARE

S No. CASE NAME

AIR 1735, 1977 SCR (3) 372

S No. BOOK NAME

S No. NAME OF THE STATUE

S No. LEGAL DATABASES

SECTION 19 of THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908.

I. WHETHER THIS SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL

II. WHETHER THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE CAN BE ENFORCED BY

III. WHETHER THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ZIYA IN THE INTERVIEW ARE

1. WHETHER THIS SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL

II. WHETHER THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE CAN BE ENFORCED BY

III. WHETHER THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ZIYA IN THE INTERVIEW ARE

1. WHETHER THIS SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.

The following cases substantiate this argument:

The concept of vicarious liability is explained in the following case:

Thus, vicarious liability arises in the following cases:

i. A wrongful act authorized by the master or

In Bayley v Manchester S&L Railway, a porter of a railway company, while working,

2. WHETHER THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE CAN BE ENFORCED BY

2.1. Whether the confidentiality clause can be enforced by Bate?

According to Clause 65 of the Film Production Agreement, “Confidential information

Clause 66 of the Film Production Agreement says,

2.2. Whether the company is liable to pay compensation to Bate

The following case laws substantiate this:

3. WHETHER THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ZIYA IN THE INTERVIEW ARE

In the interview, when speaking about the movie, Ziya said,

1. The statement must be defamatory.

In the case of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, a commission of inquiry was

2. The statement must refer to the plaintiff.

In T.V.Ramasubha Iyer Vs. A.M.A.Mohideen, the defendant published a statement without

3. Statement must be published.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

You might also like