Dr Arvind Kumar.

Shukla

CASE COMPETITION- MBA II sem 2020

Legal Issues in Business - MBA 205

Notes: 1.Group of students are instructed to present the allotted cases only. Max Marks 20

2. all the students are required to analysis the cases through PPT.

3. Maximum time limit for presentation of each group is 15 minutes.

4. Students may present their cases by zoom or Microsoft team.

Sl Cases-Summary Names of Students
No.
1 PARLIAMENT ATTACK CASE - IT Act 2000 1. Ashutosh
Summary of the case 2. Vishaka
Several terrorists had attacked the Parliament House on 13th December, 3. Amandeep
2001. Digital evidence layed an important role during their prosecution. The
4. Mohsin
accused had argued that computers and digital evidence can easily be
tampered and hence should not be relied upon. The Court dismissed these
arguments. It said that challenges to the accuracy of computer evidence on
the ground of misuse of system or operating failure or interpolation, should
be established by the challenger. Mere theoretical and generic doubts
cannot be cast on the evidence

2 Ashbury Rail way Carri ag e & Iron Co. versus Riche,- 1 Tanisha
Co mp an y Act 1956(Doctrin e o f Ultra Vires) 2 Yash
This case held much importance prior to the  Companies Law,
2006  came into force. With the introduction of  Section 17  of the 3 Sugandhi
new amended act, the crux of this case has been rendered moot. 4 Sweeti
However, prior to the enforcement of the amended act, for the
companies incorporated under the Companies Act 195 6, it was a
mandatory requirement to have a Memorandum of Association
(hereinafter referred as ‘MOA’) wherein the purpose/object for the
formation of the company was clearly stated. The company was not
allowed to indulge in any unlawful activity or any other activity
beyond the scope of the object clause in the MOA. However, prior
to this case, there was little or no jurisprudence on the issue as to
how to deal with a company that was doing a lawful task, but the
task was out of the scope of the object clause stated in the MOA.
For the first time the House of Lords in the case of    Ashbury Rly
Carriage and Iron Co Ltd v Riche, (1875) LR 7 HL 653 laid down
the jurisprudence for the same
in the object clause of its MOA had stated that the object of the
incorporation of the company was ‘to make or sell, or lend, or hire,
railway carriages and waggons, and all kinds of railway plants,
fittings, machinery and rolling stock; to carry on the business of the
mechanical engineers and the general contractors; to purchase
and sell, as merchants, timber, coal, metals, or other materials;
and to buy and sell any such materials on commission, or as
agents.’ The directors of the company entered into a contract with
Riches, wherein a railway line was to be constructed in Belgium,
and the contract was for the financing of the construction. The
Clause 4 of the object clause specifically mentioned that beyond
the scope of the above-mentioned clause, there was a need of a
special resolution to indulge in any activity which was beyond the
scope of this clause of the object clause in the MOA. However, the
 company superseded this requirement and agreed to give Riches
the loan and financing they needed to build the railway line. The
contract which was thus entered into by the company was ratified
by all the members of the company. However, later on, the
company reneged on their side of the deal repudiating the contract
that was entered into by the company and Riches. Riches sued the
company for the breach of the contract and claimed damages.

3 Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose- Indian Contract Act 1872 1 Mayuri
In this case, a minor (dharmodas) mortgaged his house for Rs. 20,000 and
received Rs. 10,500 from the mortgage. Subsequently, the mortgagor sued 2 Kanchan
for setting aside the mortgage on the ground of his minority at the time of
execution of mortgage deed. The privy council held that according to
Section 11, a minor is incompetent to contract and therefore, minor’s
3 Surbhi
agreement was absolutely void, not merely voidable. Hence, mortgage was
cancelled. Moreover, the morgagee’s request for refund of Rs. 10,500 was 4 Manisha
also turned down on the ground that minor’s agreement was void from the
beginning and therefore, mortgagee has not right of restitution
4 Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri dutt Offer must be communicated- 1.Vidhi
in this case, Gauri Dutt sent his servant, Lalman to search his missing 2.Harsh
nephew. After L had left in search of the boy, G issued hand bills 3.Mansi
announcing a reward of Rs. 5000 to anyone who might find out the boy. L 4.Chandani
who was ignorant of such reward, he claimed the reward. Held, L was not
entitled for reaward since he was ignorant of it i.e proposal. Analysis the
case in terms of the provisions of the Indian contract 1872.

5 Chinnaya vs. Ramaya 1.Brijnandan

A, an old lady, by a deed of gift, granted certain property to her daughter 2.Nikhil
®.The terms of the deed stipulated that R will pay an annuity of Rs. 653 to 3.Priyanshu
A’s sister ©. On the same day, R entered into an agreement with C to pay 4.Anjali
her the sum directed by A. the stipulated sum was however not paid and C
sued to recover it. R contended that no consideration was moved by C to
him. Madras high court held, the consideration furnished by C’s sister was
enough to enforce the agreement between C and R.
Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of the Indian
contract 1872.

6 Rose and Frank Co vs. J R Compton 1.Rupesh

It is a glaring example of a business deal in which the parties did not intend 2.Imran
to create legal relations. As per the facts of the case, an agreement was 3.Munazir
drawn between the American and English firms. The agreement mentioned 4.Zain
that “this agreement is not entered into as a formal legal agreement and
shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction of law courts.” The agreement was
5.Smriti
terminated by one of the parties and other party brought an action for breach
of contract. Held, the agreement was not a binding contract as there was no
intention to create legal relations. Analysis the case in terms of the
provisions of the Indian ontract 1872.
7 Kedar Nath vs. Gorie Mohamed 1.Gaurav
In order to construct a town hall at howrah, the commissioner of Howrah 2.Ritu
Municipality started to obtain necessary fund by public subscription. A also 3.Divya
promised to subscribed Rs. 1000 to fund by signing his name in the 4.Aman Sunal
subscription book for the purpose. On the faith of the promised
subscriptions, the secretary of the town hall construction committee
5.Vipul
engaged a contractor for construction of town hall and thus, incurred liability.
A refused to pay his subscription. Held, engaging a contractor and starting
the construction work on the faith of the promise to subscribe was sufficient
consideration. Hence, A was liable to pay the amount to the extent of the
liability incurred by the promise. Analysis the case in terms of the
provisions of the Indian contract 1872.
8 Damodar Murlidhar vs. Secretary of State of India 1.Tanya
The government repaired a certain tank, which had irrigated lands belonging 2.Shreya
to the government itself and zamindars. The government did not undertake 3.Shubham
the repairs gratuitously for the zamindars. Zamindars enjoyed the benefit of 4.Aman Agarwal
the repaired tank. Held, zamindars were liable to contribute to the cost of
repairs. . Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of the
Indian contract 1872
9 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd vs. Selfridge & Co 1.Raghav
The doctrine of privity of contract can be best illustrated by an English case 2.Aditi
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd vs Selfridge & Co. As per the facts of the 3.Ratanpriya
case, Dunlop & Co sold some tyre to one dew & co with an agreement that 4.Shivangi
these tyres will not be sold below the list price. Dew & Co in turn sold some
of the tyres to selfridge & co with an agreement that they will observe
5.Vandana
conditions as to the Price and They also promised that they will pay to the
Dunlop & Co a sum of Rs. 500 for every tyre sold below the list price.
Selfridge sold some tyres below the list price and the Dunlop & Co brought
an action to recover the damages for the same. Held that Dunlop & Co
cannot bring an action against Selfridge because there was not contract
between the two. Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of
the Indian contract 1872..

10 Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - Indian Contract Act 1872 1.Deepesh
A General offer may be accepted by any person from among the public who 2.Krityanshu
has the knowledge of it. The performance of conditions of offer will amount 3.Ananya
to acceptance.The case of Carllil vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. is an 4.Vivek
illustration of a contract arising out of a general offer. As per the facts of the
case, the company issued an advertisement in a newspaper about its
product, “the smoke ball” a preventive medicine against influenza. In the
advertisement, the company offered to pay a sum of $ 1,000 as
compensation to anyone who contacted influenza or a cold after having
used the smoke ball according to the printed directions. The advertisement
also contained that a sum of $ 1,000 had been deposited with the Alliance
bank to show the sincerity of the company. A lady, Mrs. Carllil relying on the
advertisement purchased and used the smoke balls as per directions but still
contacted influenza. She sued the company to claim the compensation of $
1,000. Held, it was a general offer and Mrs. Carllil had accepted it by her
act, by performing the conditions for acceptance. She was therefore entitled
to get the claim.

11 Anita v/s XPDMI Institute - RTI Act 2005 1.Abhinay

Anita has enrolled for the P.G. Diploma in management offered by XPDMI 2.Shilpi
Institute affiliated to a University, which receives funds from the University 3.Varisha
Grants Commission. The final examination for the students in their second 4.Zoya
year is conducted by the University, even though the mid-term exams are
the responsibility of the Institute - which is a privately funded entity. The
institute has to submit all relevant records about the mid-term examinations
to the University. Anita wants to know about the norms laid down for
evaluating the answer sheets of one of her mid-term examination papers
and submits an RTI application to the Principal. The Management tells her
that the Institute is a private entity and is not bound by RTI Act, 2005.
A friend suggests that she should apply to the PIO of the University and that
there is a chance that she might get the relevant information. The friend also
suggests that she should first find out if the information she is looking for is
disclosed proactively by the University.

12 History of the case: IT Act Act 2000 1.Vanshika

Avnish Bajaj is the CEO of Baazee.com, a customer-to-customer website,
which facilitates the online sale of property. Baazee.com receives
2.Shreyash
 commission from such sales and also generates revenue from 3.Yukti
avertisements carried on its web pages. An obscene MMS clipping was
listed for sale on Baazee.com on 27th  November, 2004 in the name of "DPS
Girl having fun". Some copies of the clipping were sold through Baazee.com
4.Vidhi
and the seller received the money for the sale. Avnish Bajaj was arrested
under section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and his bail
application was rejected by the trial court. He then approached the Delhi
High Court for bail.
Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of IT Act 2000.

13 State of Tamil Nadu Vs Suhas Katti- IT Act 2000 1.Aayush

The Case of Suhas Katti is notable for the fact that the conviction was 2.Pankaj
achieved successfully within a relatively quick time of 7 months from the
filing of the FIR. Considering that similar cases have been pending in other 3.Deeksha
states for a much longer time, the efficient
handling of the case which happened to be the first case of the Chennai 4.Meenakshi
Cyber Crime Cell going to trial deserves a special mention.
The case related to posting of obscene, defamatory and annoying message 5.Gunjan
about a divorcee woman in the yahoo message group. E-Mails were also
forwarded to the victim for information by the accused through a false e-
mail account opened by him in the name of the victim. The posting of the
message resulted in annoying phone calls to the lady in the belief that she
was soliciting.
Based on a complaint made by the victim in February 2004, the Police
traced the accused to Mumbai and arrested him within the next few days.
The accused was a known family friend of the victim and was reportedly
interested in marrying her. She however married another person. This
marriage later ended in divorce and the accused started contacting her once
again. On her reluctance to marry him, the accused took up the harassment
through the
Internet.
On 24-3-2004 Charge Sheet was filed u/s 67 of IT Act 2000, 469 and 509
IPC before The Hon’ble Addl. CMM Egmore by citing 18 witnesses and 34
documents and material objects.
On the prosecution side 12 witnesses. were examined and entire documents
were marked as Exhibits. The Defence argued that the offending mails
would have been given either by ex-husband of the complainant or the
complainant her self to implicate the accused as accused alleged to have
turned down the request of the complainant to marry her. Further the
Defence counsel argued that some of the documentary evidence was not
sustainable under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the
court relied upon the expert witnesses and other evidence produced before
it, including the witnesses of the Cyber Cafe owners and came to the
conclusion that the crime was conclusively proved. Ld. Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, delivered the judgement on 5-11-04 as
follows:
“ The accused is found guilty of offences under section 469, 509 IPC
and 67 of IT Act 2000 and the accused is convicted and is sentenced for
the offence to undergo RI for 2 years under 469 IPC and to pay fine of
Rs.500/-and for the offence u/s 509 IPC
sentenced to undergo 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- and for the offence u/s 67 of IT Act 2000 to undergo RI for 2
 years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- All entences to run concurrently.”
The accused paid fine amount and he was lodged at Central Prison,
Chennai. This is considered as the first case convicted under section 67 of
Information Technology Act 2000
in India.
Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of IT Act 2000.

14 Royal British Bank v. Turquand- Company act 1956( Doctrine of 1.Ajay

Indoor Management)
2.Sumit

Turquand, a company, had a clause in its constitution that 3.AkashSaxena

allowed the company to borrow money once it had been
4.Maneesha
approved and passed by resolution (decision) of the
shareholders at a general meeting. Turquand entered into a
loan with the Royal British Bank and two of the co-directors
signed and attached the company seal to the loan agreement.
Loan had not been approved by the shareholders.
Company defaulted on their payments and the bank sought
restitution. Company refused to repay claiming that the
directors had no right to enter into such an arrangement
It was held that – the Turquand was entitled to assume that
the resolution was passed. The Company was therefore
bound by the rule

Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of Indian

companies Act 1956

15 Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated- Company Act 1956 1.Arshpreet

(Doctrine of Constrictive notice)
2.Shubham Maurice
The plaintiff was the transferee of a share certificate issued 3.Humera
under the seal of the defendant company. The certificate was
issued by the company’s secretary, who had affixed the seal 4.Shubhi
of the company and forged the signatures of two directors.

The plaintiff contended that whether the signatures were

genuine or forged was a part of internal management and,
therefore, the company should be estopped from denying
genuineness of document. But it was held that the rule has
never been extended to cover such a complete forgery.

Lord Loreburn said: It is quite true that persons dealing with

limited liability companies are not bound to inquire into their
indoor management and will not be affected by irregularities of
which they have no notice. But this doctrine, which is well
established, applies to irregularities which otherwise might
 affect a genuine transaction. It cannot apply to a forgery.

16 Indian Partnership Act 1932 1.Sanskar

Mr. M, Mr. N and Mr. P were partner in a firm, which was
dealing with refrigerators. on 1st October, 2018, Mr. P retired 2.Devyanshi
from partner his partnership but failed to give public notice of
his retirement. 3.Naman
After his retirement, Mr. M, Mr. N and Mr. P visited a trade fair
and enquired about same refrigerator with latest techniques. 4.Akansha
Mr. X, who was exhibiting his refrigerators with the new
techniques was impressed with the interactions of Mr. P and
request for the visiting card of the firm. The visiting card also
included the name of Mr. P as a partner even though he had
already retired M.r P supplied some refrigerator to the firm and
could not recover his dues from the firm Now, Mr. X wants to
recover the dues not only from the firm but also from Mr. P.
analysis the case in terms of the provisions of the Indian
Partnership act 1932.
17 Consumer Protection Act, 1986-NON-SPEAKING ORDER CAN BE SET 1.Farheen
ASIDE S.D.O. Telephone Vs. Rama Shankar Pandey
(1997) 2.Kanika
In this case the District Forum, Handoi, allowed the complaint
and directed that the telephone bills of the complainant be 3.Isha
revised on the basis of average consumption and awarded Rs.
200/- compensation to the complainant. No reasons were given 4.Aditi
for such order. The State Commission held that the order of the
District Forum should be a speaking one. It should give,
however briefly, the essential facts and material, considered by
it as well as the reasons for the conclusion. Else the order
becomes arbitrary in the eyes of law. The order of the District
Forum was set aside and the case was sent back to the District
forum for re-consideration in accordance with law after notice
to the parties. Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of
the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
18 Consumer Protection Act, 1986- EVIDENCE THROUGH AFFIDAVITS IS 1.Ujjawal
LEGAL & SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE)
2.Dr. Pavan
Union of India Vs. Ramswaroop Chandil (1998)
3.Sneha
In this case the complainant? Respondent had a circular
ticket in his possession during journey which was locked in his 4.Udita
box. He was not allowed to break open the lock and produce
the ticket and was forced to pay excess charge for four
persons. The District Forum awarded compensation in his
favour for refund of fare and excess charge and for
inconvenience, humiliation and Advocates fee, etc. In appeal
by the Railway Authorities it was pleased that the complainant
had not produced any witness to support his claim.
Dismissing the appeal it was held that he had narrated his
case in the affidavit and the same was not rebutted by the
Opposite party. It was held that the evidence by affidavit was
legal and sufficient to support the complainant’s case.
 Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of the consumer
Protection Act 1986.

19 Case on Company Act 1956 (Doctrine of ultra vires) 1.Jasjeet

Ravi Private limited has borrowed Rs 5 crores from Mudra
Finance Ltd. 2.Nistha
This Debt is Ultra vires to the company
a) Examine, whether the company is liable to pay this debt ? 3.Tanya Gupta
b) State the remedy if any available to Mudra Finance Ltd ?
4.Sana

20 Case on Sales of Goods Act 1930 1.Swapnil

Mr. D sold some goods to Mr. E for Rs 5,00,000 on 15 days
credit. Mr. D delivered the goods. 2.Shivam
On due date Mr. E refused to pay for it. 3.Shikhar
State the position and rights of Mr. D as per the sale of Goods
act 1930 4.Vikas

21 Case on Indian Contract Act 1872 1.Rahul

X,Y and Z are partners in a n firm. They jointly promised to
pay Rs 3,00,000 to D 2.Gurpreet
Y become insolvent and his private assets are sufficient to pay
1/5 of his share of debts. 3.Shubhamgupta
X is compelled to pay the whole amount to D
Analysis the case in terms of the provisions of Indian Contract 4.Parvez
Act 1872, decide the extent to which X can recover the
amount from Z.
22 Chikkim Ammiraju vs. Reshama 1.Razzak

In this case a person threatened his wife and son that he 2.Naseem
would suicide if she doesn’t transfer her property in his
brother’s favour. The wife and son executed the release of the 3.Akash Agarwal
deed under the threat .
analysis the case on the provision of Indian Act 1872 and examine the 4.Zeeshan
followings

1. whether the threat of suicide amounted to a valid contract or voidable.

justify.