ILS Law College, Pune

Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013

Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

Problems for the Preliminary Rounds

Table of Contents
Contract law...................................................................................................... 2
Medha v. JustFalafs India Inc. ....................................................................... 2

Intellectual Property.......................................................................................... 3
Rahul Publishers Inc. v Modi Jadeja .............................................................. 3

Criminal Law .................................................................................................... 5

Ridhima Gupta v. State of Delhi .................................................................... 5

Constitutional Law............................................................................................ 7
Miss Farzana v. Peoples Republic of Hinia .................................................... 7
 ILS Law College, Pune
Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013
Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

Contract law
Medha v. JustFalafs India Inc.
1. Medha Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “Medha”) is a franchisee who owns a “JustFalafs”,a fast
food restaurant in Mumbai, which primarily sells an Arabian inspired sandwich called Falafels. Her
franchise agreement with JustFalafs India Inc., after several negotiations, provides in part:
“JustFalafs India, Inc. will not license a JustFalafs franchise within 3 miles of
Medha’srestaurant.”
2. Two years later, the JustFalafs brand has established itself as a popular eatery especially for
youngsters and as a result Medha’s JustFalafs restaurant is doing very well. JustFalafs India, Inc.
wants to expand its market in the vicinity and announces that it has awarded a franchise to
DilnaazPercis (hereinafter referred to as “Dilnaaz”) to build a JustFalafs restaurant down the road
from Medha’s restaurant.
3. Dilnaaz’s restaurant is 2.5 miles ‘as the crow flies’ (that is, in a direct line) from Medha’s restaurant.
However, if one were to drive through the kaccharasta route from Medha’s restaurant to Dilnaaz’s
site, it is approximately 3.1 miles.
4. Medha, upset with this development, writes to JustFalafs vehemently insisting that the franchise
agreement means 3 miles in a direct radius from her restaurant.
5. JustFalafs India, Inc. in response to the letter maintains its stand by saying that “3 miles” means 3
miles by road.
6. Further, JustFalafs India, Inc. has a copy of a franchise brochure that it sent to Medha a few weeks
before they entered into the franchise agreement. The brochure states:
7. “Every franchise is protected by our ‘3 mile guarantee.’ A customer would have to drive at least three
miles away from your restaurant before they can find another JustFalafs.”
8. Medha also has a letter that JustFalafs India, Inc. sent her just a week before she signed her franchise
agreement. The letter states, in part:
9. “If you sign a franchise agreement with us, we will give you a right of first refusal on any new
franchises within 10 miles of your store.”
10. JustFalafs has awarded the franchise to Dilnaaz without first giving Medha any opportunity to acquire
it.
11. Medha has instituted a lawsuit to enjoin JustFalafs India, Inc. from granting the franchise to Dilnaaz
and to get a declaratory judgment that she has a 10 mile right of first refusal on future franchises.
Argue from both sides.
This problem is an adaptation of a work by Prof. Paul S. Milich, and it has been modified by Malek-ul-Ashtar Shipchandler V
BSL. LLB for the purposes of the internal moot court selection rounds of the college.

Relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act

27. Agreement in restraint of trade, void
Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of
any kind, is to that extent void.
Exception 1: Saving of agreement not to carry on business of which good will is sold – One who sells the
goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within
specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries
on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the court reasonable, regard being had to
the nature of the business.
---
 ILS Law College, Pune
Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013
Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

Intellectual Property
Rahul Publishers Inc. v Modi Jadeja
1. Rahul Publishers Inc. is a world renowned publisher of expensive educational textbooks, which are
purchased by some of the best universities all over the world. Rahul Publishers Inc. also gives books
to distributors in India, at a much cheaper price than its American Counterpart. The quality in the
books is the same, except for very few spelling changes and illustrations. In other words, the Indian
books can be used by American students for educational purposes without compromising on the
quality of education.
2. Modi Jadeja, an Indian citizen, seizing this opportunity, legally purchases these books in India and
exports these books to the United States of America. He then sells them at a cheaper price in
America, while still making a reasonable profit. Rahul Publishers Inc comes to know of the same
through their agent in America, after their sales dip by 3%. However, Rahul Publishers Inc unable to
take action against Modi Jadeja in America, following the United States Supreme Court Judgment in
a case known as Kirtsaeng v John Wiley and Sons Inc., files a suit for temporary injunction and
infringement of copyright against Modi Jadeja in the Madras High Court. Rahul Publishers Inc also
claims more than 10 lakh rupees worth of damages from Modi Jadeja, for loss of sales caused by
copyright violation.
3. Modi Jadeja raises the defense of the First-sale doctrine and states that the doctrine is implicitly
recognized by Section 14 of the copyright Act, and that due to political considerations, the same was
left out of the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010. The First-sale doctrine basically says once a
copyright owner makes a sale, he loses his exclusive right to lease, re-sell, or lend. The new copyright
owner cannot however reproduce the same. Further, Modi Jadeja states that due to the latest decision
of the US Supreme Court, which has been relied upon by the courts in India on previous occasions,
Indian courts need to take a closer look at the First-sale doctrine and set right the previously much
criticized decisions on the issue.
4. The Madras High Court grants temporary injunction, and nominal damages of Rs. 50,000 stating that
the First-sale doctrine can only be implemented if the same has been expressly mentioned in the
Copyright Act, or in previous decisions of the Indian Courts, and that relying on a latest US judgment
would be averse to public policy.
5. Modi Jadeja has appealed the decision to the Indian Supreme Court. Argue for the appellant or
respondent.
This imaginary problem has been formulated for this competition by Harshavardhan Ganesan IV BSL LLB.

Relevant provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957

2.Interpretation:-
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
( m ) "infringing copy" means, ---
( i ) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in
the form of a cinematograph film;
14. Meaning of copyright.-
For the purposes of this Act, "copyright" means the exclusive rightsubject to the provisions of this Act, to
do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof,
namely:-
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme, -
 ILS Law College, Pune
Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013
Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic
means;
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work;
(v) to make any translation of the work;
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to
the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);
51. When copyright infringed.
Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed-
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of
Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition
imposed by a competent authority under this Act-
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright,
or
(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such
communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had
no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of
copyright; or
(b) when any person-
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of
the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work
Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for the private
and domestic use of the importer.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an "infringing copy".
53.Importation of infringing copies:-
(1) The Registrar of Copyrights, on application by the owner of the copyright in any work or by his duty
authorised agent and on payment of the prescribed fee, may, after making such inquiry as he deems fit,
order that copies made out of India of the work which if made in India would infringe copyright shall not
be imported.
(2) Subject to any rules made under this Act, the Registrar of Copyrights or any person authorised by him
in this behalf may enter any ship, dock or premises where any such copies as are referred to in sub-
section (1) may be found and may examine such copies.
(3) All copies to which any order made under sub-section (1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of
which the import has been prohibited or restricted under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and all
the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly:
Provided that such copies confiscated under the provisions of the said Act shall not vest in the
Government but shall be delivered to the owner of the copyright in the work.
Or
Piercing the corporate veil with regards to enforcement of judgment against subsidiary company
Or
Trademark Bullying
Or
John Doe Order, banning all websites.
---
 ILS Law College, Pune
Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013
Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

Criminal Law
Ridhima Gupta v. State of Delhi
1. Armaan Mallik and Ridhima Gupta are students of CBIT Engineering College, Delhi. They are
pursuing their II year. Armaan is a very boisterous person and a known prankster. He once set off fire
crackers in the class when the lecturer was teaching. Ridhima, on the other hand, is an introvert and
was known to have temper issues. Armaan always used to tease Ridhima, who was obese, and would
refer to her as a “moti bhains”. He spread rumours about Ridhima saying that she is a drug addict. On
one occasion, she lost her temper and slapped Armaan too. From then on, she made the fact that she
hated him known explicitly.
2. On 5th November 2012, at around 5:45 pm, Armaan texted Ridhima from her friend and classmate’s
phone asking her to come to the college auditorium immediately to talk about something very
important. Ridhima rushed to the auditorium and on reaching, she found it empty. As soon as she
entered, at around 6:00 pm, Armaan turned off all the lights, cut off the power supply and locked the
auditorium from outside. Ridhima panicked and started banging at the doors. She cried for help and
ran around looking for an exit. She remained in that state for about half an hour. At around 6:30 pm,
on hearing someone at the door, she hid behind it, holding a wooden stick she found in the
auditorium. As soon as Armaan entered, she administered a blow on his head from behind with that
stick. Soon after Armaan collapsed, she dropped the stick, ran out and locked the door from outside.
The CCTV footage obtained from the camera positioned outside the auditorium, towards the entrance,
clearly captured Ridhima entering, Armaan entering and thereafter Ridhima leaving. The wooden rod
used was recovered from the garbage bin nearby. Ridhima’s friends stated that on finding her
nervous, they questioned her persistently about what was wrong. However, they said, she refused to
answer, took a tranquilizer and went to sleep.
3. On 6th November, at around 8:00 pm, Armaan Mallik was found lying in a pool of blood in the
auditorium by a group of students. According to the post mortem report, he gradually bled to his
death due to the wound at the back of his head. Ridhima Gupta has been arrested and an FIR filed
against her. She is sought to be prosecuted for the murder of Armaan Mallik.
4. The matter is scheduled for hearing in the Sessions Court, Delhi. Argue on behalf of- (1) State of
Delhi; (2) Ridhima Gupta.

This imaginary problem has been formulated by Sravya Paturi IV B.S.L LLB for this competition.

Relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

Section 299. - Culpable homicide
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention
of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Section 300. - Murder
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
 ILS Law College, Pune
Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013
Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must,
in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes
the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by
mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:—
First.—That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse
for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a
public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.
Explanation
Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to
murder is a question of fact.
---
 ILS Law College, Pune
Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013
Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

Constitutional Law
Miss Farzana v. Peoples Republic of Hinia
1. Miss Farzana Khan is a very famous film actress. She resides in ‘Sinia’, which is a Theocratic
[Muslim] state and located at the western border of Peoples Republic of Hinia, which is a
secular country. Farzana happened to came to Hinia in connection with the shooting of a film.
She was residing in a five star hotel. On a fateful midnight of 5th December 2004, at about 1
a.m. she encountered a mishap .She walked out of her room to have a cup of coffee in the
coffee shop of the Hotel. There she met 3-4 policemen who were in uniform and started chatting
with them.
2. After finishing the coffee, they walked out of the shop and went to the parking area because
Farzana wanted to smoke a cigarette. As she was smoking, she continued her conversation with
the policemen. They suggested to go for a drive to a nearby sea beach, which is a very popular
spot. Initially she hesitated but ultimately she got into the car. While they were driving the
policemen kept Farzana engaged in conversation.
3. However, after some time, she became suspicious about the direction and started resisting
the policemen. Upon this, two policemen grabbed her and tied her mouth with the chunari
and threatened her with dire consequences in case she made any noise.
4. Even as she was resisting they drove for another ten to fifteen minutes and the vehicle stopped
at an isolated place. Thereafter, the policemen took off her clothes and raped her one by one.
Then they put some of the clothes back on her body, tied her hands to a tree with a rope and went
away.
5. After some time, Farzana became aware of whole thing and in a state of hysteria started yelling
for help. Her scream awakened people residing nearby and they ultimately untied her. Next
day, the whole episode became big news. An investigation was initiated on filing of the FIR by
her against the police officers.
6. Upon the medical examination of Miss Farzana, it was confirmed that she was gang raped. On the
basis of her description of the rapists, police prepared the sketches of the culprits and the same
were televised on all the popular news channels of Hinia. After a rigorous manhunt for 72 hours,
police ultimately were able to nab the culprits.
7. Upon the identification parade, Farzana identified them. During the investigation, it also
became clear that, the culprits were posted on duty in the hotel for providing security to the
VIPs and had finished their duty hours around 15 minutes prior to meeting Miss Farzana in the
coffee shop of the hotel. Soon, Government of Hinia, constituted a special court, which tried
these policemen and having found them guilty of gang rape, sentenced them for life
imprisonment. Their appeals to High Court and Supreme Court were also dismissed.
8. Farzana has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution of Hinia for recovering damages
for legal injuries caused to her, by arguing inter alia that her brutal gang rape by policemen has
resulted in the gross violation of her rights to life, dignity, bodily integrity and modesty. She
contends that the said rights are guaranteed to her by Article 21 of Constitution of Hinia
read with relevant provisions of Convention on Elimination of All forms of
Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW}, even if she is a foreigner. She also contends that
Government of Hinia has to be held vicariously liable under Constitutional law and Tort law
in the light of Articles 32 and 300 of Constitution of Hinia for having failed in its duty to
provide secured and safe life to foreigners like her. She t her e for e wants to claim monetary
 ILS Law College, Pune
Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013
Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

compensation of Rs 100 crores as exemplary damages towards legal injuries caused to her
owing to violations of her basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. She also places
reliance on relevant Law Commission reports to buttress her claim.
9. On the other hand, Government of Hinia by way of counter inter alia contends that writ
petition under article 32 of Constitution of Hinia is not maintainable for recovering monetary
compensation. It further contends that offences were committed by the policemen in their
private capacity and for the same State cannot be held vicariously liable. It is also argued in the
light of relevant provision of Hinian Evidence Act that a judgment rendered by criminal court
cannot be relied upon as a conclusive proof of either violations of fundamental rights under
Constitution of Hinia or civil wrong under Tort laws so as to claim monetary compensation.
Government further contends that, it has already brought to justice the culprits and the same is
adequate redressal to the violations of her rights. It also contends that, it has expressly
entered reservations to relevant provisions of International convention on civil and
political rights [ICCPR] with regard to remedy of compensation for violation of Civil and
Political Rights.
10. The matter is listed for hearing, Argue on behalf of petitioner/ State.
Instructions-
1. Constitution and other laws of Hinia are analogous to that of Constitution and Laws of
India.
2. Reservations entered into by India are to be assumed to be the reservations by Hinia to
ICCPR.
3. Reports of Law commissions of Hinia are analogous to that of Law Commission reports of
India.
This imaginary problem was formulated by Dr. Sanjay Jain, Assistant Professor, ILS Law College, Pune.

Relevant Provisions

Constitution of India -

Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
by law

Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament
may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution
Article 300. Suits and proceedings
(1) The Governor of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union and the Government of a State
may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by
 ILS Law College, Pune
Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition 2013
Preliminary Round: 27 July 2013

Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this
Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of
India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued
if this Constitution had not been enacted
(2) If at the commencement of this Constitution
(a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India
shall be deemed to be substituted for the Dominion in those proceedings; and
(b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or an Indian State is a party, the
corresponding State shall be deemed to be substituted for the Province or the Indian State in those
proceedings.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 375. Rape
A man is said to commit" rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with
a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:-
First.- Against her will.
Secondly.- Without her consent.
Thirdly.- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom
she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is
given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully
married.
Fifthly.- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or
unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she
gives consent.
Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Explanation.- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of
rape.
Exception.- Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age,
is not rape.
Section 376B. Intercourse by public servant with woman in his custody
Whoever, being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and induces or seduces, any
woman, who is in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to
him, to have sexual intercourse with him, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Text of ICCPR is available at: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-
999-I-14668-English.pdf
Text of CEDAW is available at:
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm
---