FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018

SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

MOOT PROPOSITION

M/S. SENGHAL & SENGHAL V. SIDD MALHAR

1. Sidd Malhar, a sixteen-year prodigy, citizen of Indiana was the recipient of the
“Sensational Voice of the Nation” award. He was an astounding singer, extremely
talented not only in Rap, Rock, Hip-Hop and Jazz but also in Classical and Folk. He
wanted to develop his musical career by releasing fusion albums combining different
genres and by engaging himself on world music tours. So, he wanted a multi-purpose,
ultra-modern architectural marvel where he could have his recording studio, theatre - for
live musical performances and a roof top pool for hosting parties. He misrepresented
himself as a major and put the task out to tender.

2. M/s. Senghal & Senghal was a leading building constructor and infrastructure provider.
They offered to do the entire work for Rs.10,00,000/-. Both the parties knew that this was
an unrealistically low-price contract and the amount will be paid in installments in order
of the completion of different phases of the assigned work.

3. Sidd accepted their offer and entered into a contract for construction of the multi-purpose
building and for providing all amenities therein. According to the contract, the ground
floor was for parking, the first floor was for the music theatre, the second floor was for
the recording studio and the last floor for the roof top pool.

4. M/s. Senghal & Senghal completed the construction of the ground floor and first floor
and ran out of money and materials for further construction. They informed Sidd that
they could not complete the construction unless further capital was made available to
them.

1
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

5. Sidd had arranged a poolside party to which he had invited top music directors, producers
and other renowned individuals in the music industry whom he believed would fund for
his dream music albums and music tours. So he was desperate to have the construction of
the roof top pool completed as stipulated. He had requested for the continuance of the
construction work and further requested to spend the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/-
on the work out of their own funds and assured them that the money would be paid to
them as soon as his album is released.

6. The roof top pool was completedand the party was a success. Sidd entered into a contract
with Veenaghaana Producers who agreed to fund for the fusion albums and world tours.
Sidd told Ms. Asha Senghal, the Manager of M/s. Senghal & Senghal “Madam, you have
saved my career. Don’t worry about Rs.7,00,000/-.” Having this as a promise, M/s.
Senghal & Senghal started a new project. However, Sidd’s new fusion music album was
a disastrous flop. Social media enthusiasts and meme pages massively trolled him for his
raucous and bizarre fusion music. He then found himself unable to pay the amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- to M/s. Senghal & Senghal.

7. Ms. Asha Senghal compelled Sidd to render a music performance in her daughter’s
birthday party. Apart from relatives and friends she had also invited rich people, in order
to secure contracts regarding building, construction etc. and in return she agreed to
release Sidd from paying the debts of Rs.7,00,000/-. Sidd agreed on this point and was
ready for the music performance in the party. He also wanted to get back his lost
reputation and start his career afresh. However before the party, he suffered from a severe
sore throat due to over-repetition of rehearsals. Then he did not perform in Ms.Asha’s
party on the advice of his doctor.

8. On Sidd’s eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on grounds of humanity, decided to alter
the contract. Sidd acknowledged the debt taken from M/s. Senghal & Senghal for
rendering past services and further both agreed on the same point that Sidd would pay the
debt through easy monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.20,000/- per month till the
repayment of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.

2
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

9. Sidd, later on, felt that the work done by M/s. Senghal & Senghal was not performed as
he had specified. He further pointed out that the material used for constructing was sub-
standard and not satisfactory. He estimated that this would have costed them
Rs.3,00,000/- only. He claimed that he had paid the money already.

10. Sidd then decided to dispose off his property, without paying a single dime to M/s.
Senghal & Senghal. When all this foul play came to their knowledge, they tried to
restrain him by putting enormous pressure in order to recover their money amounting to a
total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- which they spent on the construction and amenities. Even after
such prolonged period and altered mode of payment, M/s. Senghal & Senghal could not
recover the debt from Sidd. As a last resort, they sent him a legal notice, stating that the
money shall be repaid within 15 days. However, Sidd did not send any correspondence or
reply to the said notice.

11. In this context, M/s. Senghal & Senghal finally decided to seek remedy from the Court of
Law in this regard. The suit was the filed by M/s. Senghal & Senghal before the Civil
Court of Sardam, in the State of Indiana on the ground that they had constructed the
building as per the terms of the contract and had taken all the diligent steps to recover the
loan made available to Sidd Malhar for Rs.7,00,000/- but now he refused to pay the said
amount and alleged fraud against him. They also prayed for injunction restraining Sidd
from selling the property until the suit was disposed off.

12. The Civil Court of Sardam heard the matter and held that a minor’s contract is void ab
inito and thus set Sidd free from all his liabilities towards M/s. Senghal & Senghal by
upholding the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. The plea of
restitution raised by the Plaintiff was rejected and injunction was not granted.

13. M/s. Senghal & Senghal preferred an appeal before the High Court of Sardam. The High
Court granted injunction and decided to hear the case on merits. The following are the
issues framed for consideration:

3
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

i. Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Senghal and Senghal and Mr. Sidd
Malhar?
ii. Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?
iii. Whether the Civil Court of Sardam was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?

Note:

 Any other relevant issue that the mooters find appropriate can be raised, subject to a
maximum of four issues in total.
 The principles of supply of ‘necessaries’, frustration of contract, estoppel, ratification and
novation may be relied upon.
 Laws of Indiana are pari materia to laws in India.
 Common Law judgments and other foreign judgments hold high persuasive value in
Indiana.
 The characters and places appearing in this problem are fictional and used purely for
academic purpose only. They do not signify any person, living or dead – resemblance to
any is purely coincidental.
 The fresher’s moot proposition is drafted by Ms. Rishika Mehta, 5th Year B.Com B.L
(Hons.) and Aishwarya Lakshmi V.M., 4th Year B.B.A., LL.B (Hons.) School of
Excellence in Law. Participants shall strictly refrain themselves from contacting the
drafters at any cost.

4
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

COMPETITION RULES

1. TITLE

These Rules may be called the “Fresher’s Moot Court Competition Rules, 2018.” The Oral
Rounds of the Competition shall be held from 09.10.2018 to 11.10.2018.

2. GENERAL RULES

2.1 The language of the Competition shall be English.

2.2 The Schedule of the Competition may be revised from time to time. All changes will be
published on the MCA Website and Facebook Page.

2.3 Freshers who do not take part in the Competition shall not participate in moots and allied
competitions for the remainder of the Academic Year.

2.4 The Memorial Score and Oral Score shall be added to determine the Ranking/Result.

3. REGISTRATION

3.1 Registered participants can verify their Participant Codes & Registration Details in the
link which will be updated on the MCA Website.

3.2 Participants are strongly advised not to cancel registration or withdraw from the Competition
once registered.

4. MEMORIAL SUBMISSION

4.1 Participants shall prepare the Memorial only for the side allotted to them, i.e., either for the
Plantiff or for the Respondent, depending on whether they were allotted ‘P’ or ‘R’ respectively.

4.2 Participants shall submit THREE Hard Copies of the Memorial at the MCA Hall (2 nd Floor
of the U.G. Block), no later than 17:00 hours on the Deadline specified in the Schedule. For this
purpose, separate provisions will be made in the MCA Hall for participants of each course to
submit their Memorials.

5
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

4.3 Delay in submission of the Hard Copies shall invite a penalty of one mark for each day of
delayed submission. No submissions shall be accepted beyond the Deadline specified in the
Schedule.

4.6 CONTENT & FORMAT OF THE MEMORIALS:

4.6.1 The Memorials shall contain the following parts:-

i. Cover Page
ii. Table of Contents
iii. Index of Authorities
iv. Statement of Jurisdiction
v. Statement of Facts
vi. Statement of Issues
vii. Summary of Arguments
viii. Arguments Advanced
ix. Prayer
(A List of Abbreviations is optional).

4.6.2 The Cover Page of the Memorial must include the Cause Title, the Court adjudicating the
dispute, and the Party for which the Memorial has been prepared. The Participant Code must
be indicated on the top-right corner.

4.6.3 The format of all parts of the Memorial, except the Cover Page & Footnotes shall be the
following:

Font: Times New Roman, 12-point

Line Spacing: 1.5

Margins: Equal with at least 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides

4.6.4 The format of the Footnotes shall be the following:

Font: Times New Roman, 10-point

6
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

Line Spacing: 1.0

Any citation method may be followed for the Footnotes, provided that they are consistent and
give adequate information to identify the source. A few Citation Samples are attached in
Annexure-I to these Rules.

4.6.5 The Memorial (including all parts mentioned in Rule 4.6.1) shall not exceed 30 pages.

4.6.6 Anonymity: Only the Participant Code shall be indicated on the Memorial. Once
participants are allotted Participant Codes, their names, year of study or other personal
information shall not be mentioned on the Memorials. Failure to comply with this rule entails
disqualification.

4.6.7 The Memorials shall be printed on A4 sized white paper (double side). The Cover Page of
the Memorials shall be printed on:

Petitioner/Appellant Blue A4 Paper

Respondent Red A4 Paper

4.6.8 The Memorials shall be staple-bound or soft-bound. Spiral bound memorials will not be
accepted.

4.7 EVALUATION OF THE MEMORIAL:

4.7.1 The Memorials will be evaluated by a separate panel of judges who will not Judge the Oral
Rounds.

4.7.2 The following shall be the judging criteria:

 Knowledge of law & Depth of research 20

 Use of authority/precedents 20
 Incorporation of facts into the arguments 10
 Interpretation of applicable law 10
 Clarity of thought and organization of arguments 15
 Style of Presentation 10

7
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

 Originality 10
 Relief sought 5

TOTAL 100

5. ORAL SUBMISSION

5.1 Only one participant/speaker shall argue before the Bench at any point of time.

5.2 Subject to the discretion of the Judges, each participant shall argue for 10 minutes.

5.3 Every additional minute taken by the participant beyond the allotted time shall invite a
penalty of one mark which shall be deducted from the total oral score of the participant.

5.4 The use of electronic gadgets including smart watches is strictly prohibited.

5.5 The dress code shall be college uniform. (Tie is mandatory for male candidates).

5.6 SCORING CRITERIA

The following shall be the scoring criteria for the oral round:

 Knowledge of Law 20
 Knowledge of Facts 20
 Use of authority/precedents 15
 Ability to answer questions 10
 Application and Interpretation of Law 10
 Style of Presentation 10
 Courtroom Conduct 10
 Relief sought 5

TOTAL 100

6. COMMUNICATIONS & QUERIES

6.1 In the first instance, participants may contact their mentors regarding any queries.

8
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

6.2 Alternatively, they may also e-mail the MCA at freshers.mca.soel@gmail.com

6.3 Website: https://mcasoel.wordpress.com/

Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Moot-Court-Association-School-of-Excellence-in-

Law-201136933274208/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

9
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

DATE AND DAY EVENT

11.09.2018, Tuesday Fresher’s Moot Court Orientation, Demo Moot.
11.09.2018, Tuesday Opening of Registration.
18.09.2018, Tuesday Closing of Registration.
20.09.2018, Thursday Allotment of Sides,
Intimation of Team Codes,
Allocation of Mentors.
08.10.2018, Wednesday (17:00 hrs) Deadline for Submission of Hard Copy of
Memorials.
09.10.2018, Thursday
10.10.2018, Friday Oral Rounds
11.10.2018, Saturday
20.10.2018, Thursday Declaration of Results.

10
 FRESHER’S MOOT, 2018
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

ANNEXURE – I

CITATION SAMPLES

Statute:

s. 8 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951.

Art. 102 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Law:

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCC (1) 395.

Veernath v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1957 AP 1034.

Commentary/Book:

Arvind P. Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. II (2nd ed. reprint 2010).

Journal Article:

Charles A. Reich, The New Property, 73 YALE L.J. 733, 737-38 (1964).

Arora, Himanshu. ‘Legal Position of Minor and Minor’s Agreement.’ International Journal of
Management and Commerce Innovations. Vol. 2, Issue 2, October 2014 - March 2015.pp: 481-
486.

Newspaper Article:

Ari L. Goldman, O'Connor Warns Politicians Risk Excommunication over Abortion, N.Y.
TIMES, June 15, 1990.

11