MCS - SLS, NOIDA 2019

MOOT COURT SOCIETY | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University)

8th ASCENT Moot Court Competition, 2019

CLARIFICATIONS to Moot Proposition

1. Verbatim of section 5 of the Bombay Excise Act.

Answer 1: Not provided.

2. The year in which Bombay Excise Act was enacted.

Answer 2: 1957

3. Definition of alcohol, denatured alcohol as per Bombay Excise Act.

Answer 3: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient
information to answer this query.

4. The meaning of the sentence “Crashandburn Ltd took over the vacuum left
by Flyhigh Ltd. In Mumbai”. Did they set up and started the business of
importing and selling premium foreign liquor?
Answer 4: Such interpretation as admissible by generally accepted
rules of grammar, without assuming anything not expressly
provided, may be taken of the sentence.

5. Verbatim of section 5 of the Bombay Excise (Amendment Act), 1988.

Answer 5: Not provided.

6. Exemption clause under the Bombay Excise Act.

Answer 6: Not provided.

7. Can Supreme Court Judgments passed post 1989 on related issues be

deemed to be passed in 1989?
Answer 7: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient
information to answer this query.

ASCENT: Clarifications to Moot Proposition Page 1 of 7

MCS - SLS, NOIDA 2019

8. Contract clause between both the parties which says that Flyhigh Ltd. was
liable to pay to Crashandburn Ltd any import duty if levied.

Answer 8: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

9. As given in the moot problem that the case is scheduled to be heard on 24th
October, 1989, therefore, whether precedents (case laws) before the said
date shall only be applicable in the given scenario?

Answer 9: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

10. Whether more than one party can be added as a petitioner in the given
case?

Answer 10: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

11. One of my doubt is that as submissions are need to be made on October

1989, so whether laws after 1989 is applicable and have retrospective effect?

Answer 11: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

12. And as flyhigh limited is filling the case therefore petitioner will be flyhigh or
anyother?

Answer 12: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

13. And I need clarification on the point where it is written that there is no
permit imposed on flyhigh limited in bombay.

Answer 13: No clarification necessary.

14. Since it is mentioned that Supreme Court has listed the matter to hear on
24th Oct, 1989, therefore I have the following queries –

a. Whether laws/legislation post 1989 will only be used as a part of the

memorial?

ASCENT: Clarifications to Moot Proposition Page 2 of 7

MCS - SLS, NOIDA 2019

Answer 14.a: No clarification necessary. The proposition has

sufficient information to answer this query.

b. If international laws and legislations post 1989 of original court can be

used as a part of the memorial?

Answer 14.b: No clarification necessary. The proposition has

sufficient information to answer this query.

c. Whether international law can be made applicable?

Answer 14.c: No clarification necessary.

15. Did the modification in excise law applicable in Bombay happen after Flyhigh
Limited had relocated itself to Uttar Pradesh? Also, was Flyhigh Limited
permitted under the law that existed before the modification to conduct the
business and import in Bombay before shifting to U.P.?

Answer 15: Yes, the modification happened after Flyhigh Limited

relocated to Uttar Pradesh. No further clarification is necessary.

16. Sixth line of 2nd Paragraph says that “Rigorous Prohibition was also enforced
in respect of possession and consumption of alcohol.” Was this prohibition
imposed only in respect of the alcohol that was manufactured in Bombay?
Because, the rule of obtaining permit already existed in case of importing
alcohol of any kind. Therefore, I assume that there should not be prohibition
in respect of alcohol that was legally imported.

Answer 16: Prohibition was enforced by way of mandating

requirement of permits for possession and consumption for alcohol
as well. No further clarification is necessary.

17. When the import fee on denatured alcohol was already reduced to one–tenth
of the fee applicable on import of other kind of alcohols, why was
Crashandburn Limited granted exemption from paying the fee on the grounds
as mentioned in the compromis?

Answer 17: The reasons are not relevant for the present proceedings.

18. How reliable is the „expose‟ that revealed of a tragic incident (mentioned in
Para 4 of compromise) and where did the tragic incident take place?

ASCENT: Clarifications to Moot Proposition Page 3 of 7

MCS - SLS, NOIDA 2019

Answer 18: As reliable as exposés usually are. The incident occurred

in Bombay.

19. Because, Crashandburn Limited after taking over the vacuum created by
Flyhigh Limited, imported denatured alcohol only from Flyhigh Limited and
there is also an existing contract between the two regarding the payment of
import fee, we would be grateful if we are provided with some more
information on if there is a possibility of Crashandburn Limited being
subsidiary of Flyhigh Limited.

Answer 19: They are wholly unrelated entities.

20. As there is no mention of share holders, so can we take the presumption

that rights of share holders are also violated?

Answer 20: Such presumptions as are permissible or recognised in

law or by way of precedents, may be taken on this issue.

21. Can we take the presumption about loss and profits that company might
have incurred?

Answer 21: Not relevant, no clarification necessary.

22. We are supposed to cite case laws and books only before 1989 as the matter
is for final hearing on 24 October 1989?

Answer 22: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

23. Can presumption be made regarding services rendered by state with respect
to regulation of alcohol?

Answer 23: No.

24. Does challenging the Section 5 of Excise Act also includes challenging the
control order?

Answer 24: No clarification necessary.

25. What is the Cause Title of the given case?

Answer 25: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

ASCENT: Clarifications to Moot Proposition Page 4 of 7

MCS - SLS, NOIDA 2019

26. Should Crashandburn Limited be also included as a Petitioner in the scenario

since their rights are also infringed?

Answer 26: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

27. Since Locus Standi and Competency is being challenged, whether the parties
ought to challenge the Maintainability?

Answer 27: Already clarified by way of an addendum.

28. Do Case laws along with the laws, books and articles need to be referred
before 24 Oct 1989?

Answer 28: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query. However, participants will not be
bound to obtain editions of book relevant for the moot, and will be
permitted to use such editions as are available in the library of SLSN,
as a concession.

29. In note vi, is the import duty same as import fee? If not, then in the present
case will the import duty be applicable to inter state transaction.

Answer 29: The term “import duty” appearing in note vi may be read
as “import fee”.

30. Is the denatured alcohol sold by the name of Crash and burn in Bombay?

Answer 30: No clarification necessary. Not relevant for the present

dispute.

31. Can we consider the objective of the excise act while writing the
contentions?

Answer 31: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

32. The place where income was getting finally generated.

Answer 32: Not relevant for the present dispute, no clarification

necessary.

33. The edition of the blue book to be used.

ASCENT: Clarifications to Moot Proposition Page 5 of 7

MCS - SLS, NOIDA 2019

Answer 33: Already mentioned in Rule VII(d)(vii) of the Rules and

Regulations of the 8th ASCENT Moot Court competition, 2019 at page
8.

34. Is it allowed to use cases prior to 1988?

Answer 34: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

35. Where did the tragic incident where 15 people went blind take place?

Answer 35: The incident occurred in Bombay.

36. Is Flyhigh Limited a public limited or private limited company?

Answer 36: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

37. As per para 1, what was the nature of the relationship between Flyhigh
Limited and Crashandburn Limited?

Answer 37: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

38. Was Crashandburn a subsidiary of FlyhighLimited, or a sister concern of

Flyhigh Limited, or was it a regular client of Flyhigh Limited?

Answer 38: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

39. By what way did the excise department reduce the fee payable for
denatured alcohol?

Answer 39: The fees are prescribed by Rules and other subordinate
legislation.

40. (In continuation to 39.) Was it by way of an amendment to Section 5?

Answer 40: No.

41. In which year did Flyhigh Limited and Crashandburn start their business?

Answer 41: No clarification necessary. Not relevant to the present

dispute.

ASCENT: Clarifications to Moot Proposition Page 6 of 7

MCS - SLS, NOIDA 2019

42. Why did Flyhigh Limited relocate to Uttar Pradesh?

Answer 42: Not provided.

43. What is the nature of the contract of supply between Flyhigh Limited and
Crashandburn Limited?

Answer 43: Not provided.

44. What was the express reason given by the authorities for refusing the
exemption on the import of 95% of the alcohol?

Answer 44: Not provided; not relevant to the present dispute.

45. Is there a particular reason for prohibition to all form of alcohol in Bombay
for manufacturing, consumption and possession of alcohol?

Answer 45: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

46. Is there any other supply chain factory apart from Crashandburn in
Bombay?

Answer 46: No clarification necessary. The proposition has sufficient

information to answer this query.

47. The problem is based in India, with one legislation existing (IDRA) while the
other is a fictional one. Are all other laws parimateria to India's?

Answer 47: Laws of India are applicable, except to the extent

indicated otherwise in the proposition.

48. The proposition states that the 2016 amendment is said to have been made
at the time of the hearing. Are we to assume that other previous
amendments (prior to 2016) have also been made?

Answer 48: Only the amendment specified is to be taken as passed

and brought into force in 1987.

49. Para 4 of the moot proposition on page 2 refers to a tragic incident but not
the place where it occurred. The legislative assembly mentioned in the same
para was of which state?

Answer 49: The incident occurred in Bombay. The legislative

assembly mentioned corresponds to where the incident occurred.
---

ASCENT: Clarifications to Moot Proposition Page 7 of 7