D-2

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY

DE NOVO INTRA MOOT COMPETITION, 2019

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE COURT OF DELHI

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

IN THE PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN

SUIT NO. ____/2019

COMPANY Z PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

DEEP DEFENDANT

DRAWN AND FILED BY

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENTS

Memorial for Defendant -0-

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …5

STATEMENT OF FACTS …6

ISSUES RAISED …7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS
NOT MAINTAINABLE …9
2. THAT THE PLAINTIFF ENTERED INTO A VOID
CONTRACT WITH THE DEFENDANT,
DEFENDANT BEING A MINOR. …11
3. THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO A
SUM OF DAMAGES. …14

PRAYER …16

Memorial for Defendant -1-

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

& And

AA Adjudicating Authority

AIHC All Indian High Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Anr. Another

Cal Calcutta High Court

DB Division Bench

Del Delhi High Court

H.C. High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. that is

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ltd Limited

SC Supreme Court of India

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

v. Versus

Memorial for Defendant -2-

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

A. PRIMARY SOURCES

Constitution of India, 1950

STATUTES REFERRED
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Indian Majority Act, 1975

Case laws referred.

JUDGEMENTS

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, (1908) 30 Cal 539 (PC).

State of Gujarat v. Savitri Devi, (1996) 1 SCC 558.

Harimohan v. Dulu Miya, AIR (1935) Cal 198.

Vaikuntarama Pillai v. Athimoolam Chettair, AIR (1914) Mad 641 (2).

Chandra Kant Gupta V. Krishna Manohar Bhatwara : (2004) 4 RLW 2632

Dharmeshwar Kalita v. Union of India (1955) AIR ass 86.

Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of U.P (2003) All LJ 330

R. Leslie limited v. Sheill [1914] 3 K.B. 607

Memorial for Defendant -3-

B. SECONDARY SOURCES

BOOKS REFERRED

12 AVTAR SINGH, Contract & Specific Relief, 153 (2017).

13 D.F. MULLA, The Code of Civil Procedure (Abridged) 136 (P.M Bakshi, Butterworths
India, New Delhi,2000).

Memorial for Defendant -4-

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

The provision under which the Plaintiff has approached the Hon’ble Court and to which the
Defendant humbly submits is read herein under as:

Section 20. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

"Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises”

“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of
the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not
reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or

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

The Defendant contends the same.

Memorial for Defendant -5-

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1. Mr. Deep is a 17-year-old boy, who is a prodigy in the field of computer science and is
also inquisitive.
2. While surfing the internet he stumbles across an advertisement for freelance app
development for a Company Z.
3. Showing his interest in the prospect he contacted the company whereupon he has a
telephonic conversation with Ms. Rachna.
4. Ms. Rachna educated him that for taking up this opportunity he will have to qualify a
phone interview which will be conducted by the vice-president of the company.
5. On the 15th of April, 2019 an interview took place between Mr. Deep and the vice-
president of the company and during the interview he was able to impress the vice-
president of the company with his wisdom and ideas and successfully gets the contract.
6. As a policy of the company this interview and all further correspondence with Mr. Deep
was recorded. The company also had a policy a to not to enter into a contract with a
minor.
7. The contract was sent by the way of post which was duly endorsed by him on the 16th
of May, 2019 and was received by the company. Also, Mr. Deep is informed by the
company that he has to submit the prototype of the app by 31st August, 2019. He also
received an advance of Rs. 50,000/-
8. Deep celebrated his age of majority on the 23rd of July, 2019 which in turn implies that
he wasn’t a major while entering into the contract. Upon realizing that he would not be
able to submit the prototype on the recognized date he seeks an extension of T+14 days
on 30th of August, 2019
9. He promises to handover the prototype by 15th September. Plus, he requests for a further
amount of Rs.10,000/-
10. The Company Z had already initiated the processing work for the app and had also
spent a handsome amount of money in the promotional activities.

11. On the 14th of September, 2019 Company Z files, a suit for damages and recovery of
Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) in the court of Delhi accusing Mr. Deep of breach
of contract.

Memorial for Defendant -6-

 ISSUES RAISED

…………………………………………………………………………………………

I.
THAT THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

II.
THAT THE PLAINTIFF ENTERED INTO A VOID CONTRACT WITH THE
DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT BEING A MINOR.

III.
THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO A SUM OF DAMAGES

Memorial for Defendant -7-

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
…………………………………………………………………………………………

I.
THAT THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
That the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable under Sec. 20 of The Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 as the enforcement of the contract was done in City X and the
suit if filed in The District Court of Delhi.

II.
THAT THE PLAINTIFF ENTERED INTO A VOID CONTRACT WITH THE
DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT BEING A MINOR.
That the Plaintiff had entered into a contract with Defendant when he was a minor. He
attained majority on 23rd of July, 2019 but the company entered into the contract with
Defendant before this date, therefore the contract is void under Sec. 11 of The Indian
Contract Act, 1872.

III.
THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO A SUM OF DAMAGES.
That since there was no contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff according to
Sec. 10 and Sec. 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Also, the suit is not maintainable
under Sec. 20 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not
entitled to the sum of recovery and damages as claimed by them.

Memorial for Defendant -8-

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

1. THAT THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted that the present suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable under the
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble District Court, Delhi and should be dismissed at the very outset.

According to Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, "Other suits to be instituted where
defendants reside or cause of action arises"1

“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of
the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not
reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or

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

Explanation-

“A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or,
in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at
such place.”2

1
Sec. 20 of code of civil procedure, 1908.
2
13 D.F. MULLA, The Code of Civil Procedure (Abridged) 136 (P.M Bakshi, Butterworths India, New
Delhi,2000).

Memorial for Defendant -9-

As per the statement of facts, it is clear that the residence of the Defendant and the cause of
action of the agreement arising are both in the same City X. Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908, makes it clear that a suit for the breach of contract is supposed to be filed
where the defendant resides or temporarily resides during the course of action of the project or
where the cause of action of the project arises. The Plaintiff has filed the suit in the jurisdiction
of District court, Delhi where Defendant doesn’t reside as the statement of facts is silent on
that matter and in turn informs us that he resides in the City X.

According to a significant case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, State of Gujarat v. Savitri Devi3,
the deceased Lal Singh (Son of the defendant) served as a constable in the State of Gujrat and
resided there ordinarily, but his mother filed the suit for compensation in the State of Haryana.
It was mentioned that the none of the courts of Haryana had any territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the suit for the payment of pension by the State of Gujarat.

In light of the above arguments it is clear that the suit filed by the Plaintiff in the Hon’ble
District court, Delhi is null and void since it does not lie within its jurisdiction.

3
State of Gujarat v. Savitri Devi (1996) 1 SCC 558.

Memorial for Defendant - 10 -

2. THAT THE PLAINTIFF ENTERED INTO A VOID CONTRACT WITH THE
DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT BEING A MINOR.

It is humbly submitted that the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is void ab
initio, due to Defendant being a minor.

The Defendant while entering into this void agreement was a minor and hence was incompetent
to contract according to Sec. 11 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 only parties competent to
contract can enter into a valid contract.

Sec. 10 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 says that-

“All agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void”

The competency of contract has been completely defied in the given contract. The contract is
invalid as the Defendant was incompetent to contract. All the essentials in Sec. 10 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 are necessary to contract; therefore, the given contract is void.

Competency is defined under Sec. 11 of The Indian Contract Act,1872 which says that

“Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to
which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any
law to which he is subject”.

Thus, the section declares the following persons to be incompetent to contract-

a) Minors,
b) Person of unsound mind, and
c) Person disqualified by law to which they are subject4.

Thus, the above Sec. clarifies that the Defendant while entering into the contract was a minor5
and therefore was incompetent to it hence turning the contract as void ab initio.

4
12 AVTAR SINGH, Contract & Specific Relief, 153 (2017).
5
Supra 4

Memorial for Defendant - 11 -

As per the facts, the Defendant signed the contract on the 16th of May, 2019 and had attained
majority6 on 23rd of July, 2019 which proves that at the time of enforcement Defendant was a
minor.

In the case, Ram Ashish Chaudhary v.State of U.P7, of Hon’ble Allahabad H.C, it was held that
Any contract can be entered into only by a contracting party who is major and no contract can
be entered into by a minor. A contract entered into by a minor is a void contract in terms of
Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The age of majority of a person is to be determined “according to the law to which he is

subject”.8

Referring to a judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan H.C, in Chandra Kant Gupta v. Krishna
Manohar Bhatwara9 , it was contended that the Plaintiff was a minor at the time of the filing
of the suit, hence the contract was void as he was not competent according to Sec. 11.

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose10 is a landmark case that covers the ambit of minor’s
agreement. In India, an agreement or a contract with a minor is void ab initio.
This case has basically provided us with the knowledge that, since minors are legally
incompetent to give their assent so they deserve to be provided with the protection in their
dealings with the other major persons. After this case, any sort of contact or agreement with
the minor was void from beginning. Such contracts are "void ab initio".
In this case, the Privy Council declared the law that any contact by minor or any minor's
agreement is "absolutely void".

Further judgements provided over this case were as follows: -

 According to the verdict of Trial Court, such mortgage deed or contract that was
commenced between the plaintiff and the defendant was void as it was accomplished by
the person who was an infant at the time of execution of mortgage.

6
Age of majority is defined under Sec. 3 of The Indian Majority Act, 1975
7
Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of U.P (2003) All LJ 330
8
The Sec. defines inherent competence to be a party to a contract, and not competence for being an agent or
representative, etc. Dharmeshwar Kalita v. Union of India (1955) AIR ass 86.
9
Chandra Kant Gupta V. Krishna Manohar Bhatwara : (2004) 4 RLW 2632 : (2004) 3 RLLR 444 : (2004) 3
WLC 612.
10
Mohori bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1908) 30 Cal 539 (PC)

Memorial for Defendant - 12 -

 When Brahmo Dutta was not satisfied with the verdict of Trial Court he filled an appeal in
the Calcutta High Court.
 According to the decision of Calcutta High Court, they agreed with the verdict that was
given by Trial Court and it dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta.
 Then he later went to Privy Council for the appeal and later the Privy Council also
dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta and held that there cannot be any sought of contract
between a minor and a major person.
 The final decision that was passed by the Council were:
1. Any sought of contract with a minor or infant is void/ void ab-initio (void from
beginning).
2. Since minor was incompetent to make such mortgage hence the contact such made or
commenced shall also be void and id not valid in the eyes of law.
3. The minor i.e., Dharmodas Gosh cannot be forced to give back the amount of money that
was advanced to him, because he was not bound by the promise that was executed in a
contract.

Similarly, as observed in the case, Harimohan v. Dulu Miya11, the appeal was made by the
Plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money on a mortgage bound. The substantial defence of the
defendant was that he was a minor at the time of the loan and as such Plaintiff was not entitled
to any relief. The courts have found that the defendant executed the mortgage bound and
borrowed the money. It has been further found by the courts below that defendant 1 was minor
at the time when the bound was executed and the money was advanced. The courts have also
found that there had been no fraudulent misrepresentation of the part of defendant 1 about his
age at the time when he executed the bound on these findings the courts have dismissed the
suit.

Same happens in the case, Vaikuntarama Pillai v. Athimoolam Chettair12, where it was held
that a contract into by a minor is void according to the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Taking the above arguments into consideration regarding this issue, it can be concluded that
the agreement signed by both the parties is void ab initio and never existed since the Plaintiff
at the signing of the contract was a minor and wasn’t competent to act upon it.

11
Harimohan v. Dulu Miya AIR (1935) Cal 198
12
Vaikuntarama Pillai v. Athimoolam Chettair AIR (1914) Mad 641 (2)

Memorial for Defendant - 13 -

3. THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO A SUM OF DAMAGES.

From the arguments of the previous issues brought up by the counsel of the defendant, it can
be concluded that: -

 The suit is not maintainable as it does not lie under the jurisdiction of the District
court, Delhi by view of Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

 Sec. 10 and Sec. 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 make it clear that the Defendant,
by reason of infancy, is incompetent to contract and thus, cannot enter into a contract
within the ambit of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, making the
contract void ab initio, and thus cannot be enforced by either party.

Since, the above issues clearly indicate that the suit is not maintainable and the contract is void
ab initio clearly indicating that there was never a contract in existence between the parties, the
issue for claiming damages and recovery by the Plaintiff is simply nullified.

By referring to the matrix of facts, the Plaintiff had two major policies: -

1. Recording the phone call interview and all the further correspondences with the
Defendant.

2. Not entering into any contract with minors.

According to the facts, the Plaintiff only followed its policy no. 1 and not policy no. 2. The
only logical explanation that arises is that the Plaintiff had some personal gain by not following
the policy no. 2 since the facts indicate that the company was in dire need of the app and also
had an ulterior motive. The Defendant was just a prodigy in the field of computer science and
in usual situations, these sorts of projects are supervised by a specific department of the
company like a social media department and not by the Vice-President or the top-level
management of the company. Consequently, the Defendant, upon realizing that he won’t be
able to submit the project on time on 30th August 2019, asked for an extension of time up to

Memorial for Defendant - 14 -

15th September 2019. This clearly shows that he was still diligently working over the project
but the Plaintiff refused to provide more time.

However, the Plaintiff still provided time as it can be inferred that they waited two weeks to
file the suit i.e. 14th September 2019. Moreover, this was just one day before the prescribed
deadline for the extension for the submission of the prototype by the Defendant13 which is
devoid of any reason or logic. If the Plaintiffs waited for two weeks post the original deadline
before filing the suit, they were very well capable of waiting a day more for the Defendant was
going to hand over the prototype on the next day i.e. 15th September 2019. The only logical
conclusion to this series of events is that the Plaintiff had a mala fide intention.

In a case, R. Leslie limited v. Sheill14, of London HC, a minor succeeded in deceiving some
money lenders by telling them a lie about his age and so got them to lend 400 pounds on the
faith of his being an adult.

It was held that, if an infant obtains property or goods by misrepresenting his age, he can be
compelled to restore it so long as the same is traceable in his possession. This is known
as equitable doctrine of restitution. However, in present case, since the money was spent by
the defendant, there was neither any possibility of tracing it nor any possibility of restoring the
thing got by fraud, for if the court will ask defendant to pay the equivalent sum as that of loan
received, it would amount to enforcing a void contract. Restitution stops when repayment
begins and equity does not enforce against minor any contractual obligation.

Their attempt to recover the amount of principal and interest as damages for fraud failed. A
minor is generally liable in tort, but he cannot be liable for what was in truth a breach of
contract.

Also, in the present scenario there was no misrepresentation by the Defendant as he was
extensively working over the project throughout the course of time and had no dishonest
intention towards the Plaintiff or his resources. Moreover, the Plaintiff filed the suit for Breach
of contract and not Misrepresentation and Fraud.

13
Supra 4
14
R. Leslie limited v. Sheill [1914] 3 K.B. 607

Memorial for Defendant - 15 -

In light of the above conclusions, it is pleaded that the demand for damages and recovery of a
lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakh rupees only) by the Plaintiff is unrighteous and
totally out of the line.

Memorial for Defendant - 16 -

 PRAYER

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court, to be graciously pleased to:

I. Declare that the suit is not maintainable under Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1985.
II. Declare that the Plaintiff entered into a void contract with the Defendant,
Defendant being a minor.
III. Declare that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the sum of damages claimed.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the light of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience. And for this kindness, the Defendant, as duty bound as ever,
shall humbly pray.

S d/-

(Counsel for Defendant)

Memorial for Defendant - 17 -