INTRA- MOOT PROPOSITION GROUP 1

1. Mr. Swarn Kumar is an influential businessman from Delhi with a company of Rs. 30

crores dealing in ice cubes. He enjoys gambling, socializing, and is notorious for

womanizing. On a trip to Goa with his friends, Mr. Aditya Sahni, an esteemed lawyer

from Delhi, also accompanied him.

2. On 3/10/2016, Mr. Kumar was playing poker at the Casino Royale, an offshore casino in

Goa. After losing approximately Rs. 3 crores, he was desperate for more money as he

believed he would have a winning hand. He signed a contract with Mr. Akhil Singhal

(money lender of the casino) and the money lender lent him Rs. 5 crores. The contract

contained a clause that he would pay him double the loan amount (Rs. 10 crores) at the

table and in default, he would sign over his majority shares in his company as surety. It is

to be noted that this was a pre-written form of agreement.

3. Subsequently, Mr. Kumar lost all the money at the table and was unable to return double

the loan amount and as a consequence lost his majority shares of the company at 2.a.m on

4/10/2016. Thereafter, in a desperate attempt he called Mr Aditya, who then contacted Mr

Singhal to take double the loan but not to take majority shares of the company. Mr

Singhal refused the offer. Mr Singhal had acquired a lot of properties and companies this

way.

4. Immediately after acquiring majority shares of the company by Mr. Singhal, he signed a

contract with a Delhi based company named A & M Pvt. Ltd. for selling majority shares

of the company.
 5. The video from the Casino shows that Mr Kumar had consumed eight alcohol beverages

(8 x 30 ml) prior to signing the contract.

6. Mr Sahni on behalf of Mr Kumar has filed a civil suit before Delhi Commercial Court at

Tis Hazari to prevent Mr Singhal from taking over the company and the following issues

are framed by the Court:

a) Whether the Delhi Commercial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter or

not?

b) Whether the essentials of a valid contract are fulfilled or not?

c) Whether the wagering contract entered between the parties are enforceable or

not?

d) Whether the injunction should be granted against Mr. Singhal from selling

majority of the shares of the company in the present case or not?

7. The case is pending in the Delhi Commercial Court at Tis Hazari.

8. Argue both sides.

Note:

1. The participants are allowed to raise additional issues.