TC-11

FACULTY OF LAW, JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, INTRA MOOT COURT

COMPETITION – 2018

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASNARD

HPC Ltd., & Amy Santiago …………APPELANT

VERSUS

Steve Rovers ……….RESPONDENT

Most Respectfully Submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………...

2) THE LIST OF ABBREVATIONS…………………………………………

3) THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………..

4) THE STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………...

5) THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………

6) THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………….

7) THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………….

 Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under

Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

. Whether the contract dated 14 th

August 2017 voidable at the
option of Mr. Tony Snark?

 Whether the Right to Livelihood of Ms. Amy Santiago has

been violated under art. 21 due to the death of her husband
alleged to be caused by Lobanza Capsule?
 Whether Mr. Steve Rovers, being the supplier and service
provider of LPT machines, is liable to compensate Amy
Santiago for the death of her husband, and Mr. Tony Stark
for breach of the contract?
8) THE PRAYER…………………………………………………………………..
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR All India Reporter,

H.C High Court

GOVT. Government

HON'BLE Honorable,

SC Supreme Court

ORS Others

SCC Supreme Court Cases

& And

SEC. Section

U.O.I Union Of India

SCD Supreme Court Decision

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

ART. Article

VS Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

 State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal (1952) S.C.R.28 ;

 Calcutta gas co. v. State of WB , A.1962 S.C. 1044.

 Himmatlal v. State of M.P., (1964 ) S.C.R.

 Swayambar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1972 Raj 69;

 Guajarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotel AIR 1983 SC 848;

 Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union AIR 1997 SC 645

 Harbanslal Sahina vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,(2003) 2 SCC 107

 Aditanar Educational Institution v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (297 I.T.R.

376)

 Kharak Singh vs. State of UP AIR 1963 SC 129

 Suniel Bartra vs. Delhi Administration 1978 AIR 1675

 Menaka Ganghi vs. Union of India 1978 AIR 597

 Francis Coralie vs. Union territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746

 Olgatellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corp. 1986 AIR 1980

 Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame 1996 AIR 786

 MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy victims association, (2011)14 SCC

 Kasturilal lal ralia ram jain v. State of UP ,AIR 1965 SC 1039

 Alcock v. Smith (1892)1 ch 238

 Tarry v. Aston (1876)1 QBD 314

 Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Purshottam V. Murjani and others (2014)16

SCC 14
  Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib 1981 SCC(1)722

 Newby v. Colts Patent firearms Co. (1872)LR 7QB 293

 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India , 1988 MPLJ 540

BOOKS REFERRED

(1). Durga Das Basu., Shorter Constitution of India, Ed. 10th (1989)

(2) M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional law, Ed. 6th (2012), Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,

Nagpur.

(3). V.N.Shukla, Constitution of India, Ed.11th, (2008), Eastern Book Company.

STATUTORY COMPILATION

(1) The constitution of india,1950

WEBSITES REFERENCE

 www.indiakanoon.org

 www.indlawinfo.org

 www.legalserviceIndia.com

 www.legalsutra.org

 www.lexisnexisacademic.com

 www.macmillandictionary.com

 www.manupatra.com

 www.scconline.com

 www.scdecision.in

 www.supremeCourtcases.com
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner approached before the honorable high court judicature of Delhi by a Writ

Petition under Article 2261 of the Constitution of Astur for violation of Fundamental Right

under article 212 of the Constitution of Astur.

1
Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any
of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
2
Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.
THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Tony Snark owned a company named Healing Hand Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

(HPC), controlled and managed in Democratic State of ‘Asnard’ (DSA). HPC enjoys

absolute monopoly with regard to the production of a capsule named as ‘Lobanza’.

Lobanza capsules reduce addiction for narcotic substances and strongly not

recommended while consuming substances such as drugs and tobacco, intake of which

may cause death.

HPC Ltd. has invested heavily in advertisement policy. Mr. Steve Rovers and Mr. Tony

Stark were childhood friends. After hundreds of experiments and failures, Steve

succeeded in designing his own Machine “Labzo-pharma Tech (LPT), which could

help pharmaceutical industry in increasing the production of medicines at a

comparatively cheaper rate. The market value of LPT shot up to $10M. HPC Ltd. was

yet to come up with the logo of its capsule for advertisement. HPC Ltd. Purchased the

aforesaid machine on 4th June 2017, which proved to be a boon for them.

On 14th August 2017, HPC Ltd. entered into an agreement with Mr. Steve for purchase

of 3 more machines. Mr. Steve informed that he would ensure the delivery in 5 days

after carefully assembling and repairing them but eventually delivers it in 9 days. On 1 st

September 2017, an article was published in the journal of Asnardian Institute of

Technology about the infirmities of this Machine.

Mr. Pablo, husband of Amy Santiago was prone to drugs and smoking. He saw an

advertisement of Lobanza capsule having a blurry image of it. They use to live in a

separate house along with their 8-yr. old daughter. Even after consuming the capsule he

couldn’t refrain from smoking. Steve failed to disclose the patent defect of his machine
to HPC Ltd. On 22nd October all machines malfunctioned. Mr. Pablo died after 8 days of

consumption of the capsule leaving his wife completely helpless.

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

FOLLOWING ARE THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT:

ON MAINTAINABILITY

i. ISSUE-1: Whether the present case is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Asnard?

ON MERITS

i. ISSUE-2: Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872?

ii. ISSUE-3: Whether the contract dated 14th August 2017 voidable at the option of Mr.

Tony Snark?

iii. ISSUE-4: Whether the Right to Livelihood of Ms. Amy Santiago has been violated

under Article 21 due to the death of her husband alleged to be caused by Lobanza

Capsule?

iv. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers, being the supplier and service provider of LPT Machines,

is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of her husband, and Mr. Tony

Snark for breach of contract?

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

THE PRESENT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF ASNARD

Firstly, the petitioner has approached the high court under article 226 of The

Constitution of Astur, with the contention of violation of his fundamental right.

Article 300(1) of The Constitution of Astur gives the right to a person to file a

case against the State.3

Secondly, alternative remedy is no bar to file the petition, if the petition is

denied; it will defeat the provision of article 226. Moreover the lower civil court

has a pecuniary jurisdiction of less than what the petitioner has demanded?;

therefore a civil suit in lower court would not have been admissible.

Fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian

Contract Act, 1872

The right to life and personal liberty as mentioned in part III of the constitution of Astur also

includes within its ambit the right to livelihood, right to shelter which the petitioner claims to

have been violated.

3
Laws of Union of Astur are pari materia to the laws of Union of India.
The contract dated 14th August 2017 voidable at the option of Mr. Tony

Snark

Firstly, Bob Constructions was an employer of Govt. of NCT, Delhi and therefore is liable

for all the damages caused thereby.

Secondly, there was a breach of statutory duty on part of Bob Constructions.

Thirdly, Bob Constructions is within the definition of State given in Section 12 of The

Constitution of Astur.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ON MAINTAINABILITY

[ISSUE 1] THE WRIT PETITION FILED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

DELHI

It is humbly submitted, that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner in the High

Court of Judicature at Delhi is maintainable under Article 226 of the

Constitution of Astur. It is contended that the jurisdiction of HC under Article 226

can always be invoked when a question of violation of fundamental right and legal

rights arises.

General principles relating to Art. 226. 1 Art. 226 empowers the High Court to issue

writs , directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,

quo warranto and certiorari- (A) for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred

by part III of the constitution , and (B) for any other purposes . Under the first part,

a writ may be issued under the article only after a decision that aggrieved party has

a fundamental right that has been infringed. Similarly, under the second part, it may

be issued only after a finding that the aggrieved party has a legal right which

entitles him to any of the aforesaid writs and that such right has been infringed. 4

A High Court is as much bound as the Supreme Court to enforce the Fundamental

Right guaranteed by the constitution 5’6

4
State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal (1952) S.C.R.28; Calcutta gas co. v. State of WB, A.1962 S.C.
1044.
5
Himmatlal v. State of M.P., (1964) S.C.R. 1122.
6
Devilal v. S.T.O, A. 1965 S.C 1150; Daryao v. State of U.P, A .1961 S.C 1457 (para 15).
 The petitioner is the “aggrieved person” residing within the jurisdiction. Whenever there

is infringement of Fundamental rights no question of delay arises for consideration.

Article 226 describes that the aggrieved person may enforce the Fundamental right by

filing a writ petition before the High Court. So in the light of above facts the court

may issue the writ of Mandamus. The writ of mandamus is a common law writ to

compel the performance of any and all official duty directed to a person, authority;

corporation charged with performance of the duty refuses or fails to perform it. It is a

high prerogative writ of most extensive remedial nature. Mandamus takes shape of a

command to an inferior court, governmental or semi-governmental body to do

something or abstain from doing something, which is in nature of a public duty.

1.1. THE PETITIONER HAS A LOCUS STANDI

It is humbly submitted that the High Court of judicature at Delhi is the most

appropriate forum as Firstly ,the Petitioners have the locus standi to file the petition.

The law with respect to locus standi has considerably advanced7. Whenever there is a

public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public

authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law any member of the public

acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of

such wrong or public injury

Article 226 does not specify the person who can approach the court under it but as this

article provides a public law remedy similar to Art. 32, similar provisions of locus
7
 standi apply to it as to art 32. Ordinarily a person whose legal rights or other legally

protected interest are adversely affected should approach the court for relief8.

The liberalized principles of locus standi are applicable to art 226 with respect to

enforcement of fundamental rights9.

The said writ petition should be maintainable because the fundamental rights of the
10
constitutional remedies guaranteed under part III where by any citizen can

approach any competent H.C for enforcement of its fundamental right. Since the high

court of judicature at Delhi is a competent authority with the definition of art 226. It

is humbly submitted before the High Court of Judicature at Delhi that there has

been violation of fundamental right that is right to life and personal liberty guaranteed

under art 21, part III of the constitution of Astur. The above said right of the

petitioner has been violated by the respondent, as a result we are compelled to

approach this Hon’ble court.

Similarly, assuming but not admitting that there has been no violation of fundamental rights,

it is still maintainable as Article 226 may be invoked for any ‘other purpose’ as well 11. The

orders passed by the Court need not be restricted to the writs as the sole remedy; but may

include any other such directions as the High Court may deem fit12.

1.2 ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS NOT A BAR TO ART 226

Held that rule of exclusive of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is

a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of

8
State of Orissa v ram Chandra dev AIR 1964 SC 685.
9
Bandhua mukti morcha v union of india AIR 1984 SC 802.
10
Constitution of Astur.
11
Dr. Das, Durga, “Constitutional Law of India”, 8th Edn. 2008.
12
Swayambar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1972 Raj 69; Guajarat State Financial Corporation v.
Lotus Hotel AIR 1983 SC 848; Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union AIR 1997
SC 645 .
 availability of the alternative remedy, the high court may still exercise its writ

jurisdiction in at least three contingencies; (i) where the writ petition seeks

enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of

principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly

without jurisdiction or the vires of an act and is challenged13.

Arguendo, even if alternate remedies are available, it does not eliminate the option of filing a

PIL, as the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be granted in spite of the

availability of alternate remedy under a statute14

The present case attracts the applicability of the first contingency. The sole bread earner

of the petitioner’s family has died due to the negligence on part of the govt. of NCT,

Delhi and also his mother has lost her mental balance and received so much mental

shock that she became bed ridden and ultimately it resulted into violation of his

Fundamental right i.e., right to life and personal liberty15 .

Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it 16 viz.

the H.C of judicature at Delhi in the instant case. Since no specific provision of any

act deal with the above said issue therefore it is humbly submitted that the High

Court of Delhi is the most appropriate forum for this issue.

[ISSUE 2] Petitioner’s Right to Life and Personal Liberty as Enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of Astur Has Been Violated.

“Life” as mentioned in Article 21 of the constitution of Astur is not merely the physical

act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence of continued drudgery

13
Harbanslal Sahina vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,(2003) 2 SCC 107.
14
Aditanar Educational Institution v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (297 I.T.R. 376).
15
Art.21 of Constitution of Astur.
16
SECTION 15, CPC 1908.
 through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to live with human

dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, etc. It also includes those aspects of life

which would make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. The bare

necessities, minimum and basic requirement that is essential and unavoidable for a

person is the core of the concept of right to life.

According to Bhagwati J. art 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme

importance in a democratic society.”

The right has been held to be the heart of the constitution, the most organic and

progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation in our laws. Article

21 of the constitution of Astur provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his life

or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

In case of Kharak Singh vs. State of UP17, the Supreme Court quoted and held that “by

the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence,

the inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by

which life is enjoyed.

In Suniel Bartra vs. Delhi Administration18, the Supreme Court reiterated with the

approval of the above observation and held that the “Right to Life includes the right

to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in prime

condition. Which would even include the right to protection of a person, tradition,

culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It includes the Right to

Live in peace, to sleep in peace, the right to repose and health and right to live with

human dignity.19

17
AIR (1963) SC 129.
18
AIR (1978) 1675, 1980 SCR (2) 557
19
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1978 AIR 597.
Elaborating the same view, the court in Francis Coralie vs. Union territory of Delhi20

observed that “the Right to Live includes the right to live with human dignity and

all that goes along with it, viz. The bare necessities of if such as adequate nutrition,

clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing

oneself in diverse form, freely moving about, mixing and mingling with fellow

human beings and must include the right to basic necessities of life and also the

right to carry on function and activities as constitutes the bare minimum expression

of human self.

The supreme court in Olgatellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corp.21, popularly known as the

“pavement dwellers case”, a five judge bench of the court now implied that “ Right

to Livelihood “ is borne out of the “ Right to Life”, as no person can live without

the means of living, i.e. the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not

treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of

depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him by the means of

livelihood to the point of abrogation.

In Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame 22, the court held that “ the right to

life would take within its sweep the right to food, right to clothing, the right to

decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference

between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view.

For the animal it is bare protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a

suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect- physical,

mental and intellectual. The constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of

every child that would be possible only if the child lives in a proper home. It is not

20
AIR (1981)746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
21
AIR (1986)1980, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
22
 (1990) 1 SCC 520.
 necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable

house but a reasonable home for people can be a reasonable accommodation.

The two aspects of right to life are (a) Deprivation of life of a person (b) Deprivation

of quality of life. The contention of petitioner’s counsel is that Mr. Stark is deprived of

his right to life and Ron is deprived of his quality of life.

Before depriving a person of his right to life the following conditions are requires to be

fulfilled;

(a) There must be a valid law

(b) Law must provide procedure

(c) Procedure must be just fair and reasonable

(d) Law must satisfy requirements of article 14 & 17 i.e., must be reasonable.

In the present matter Mr. Stark was deprived of his life and the petitioner is deprived of

his quality of life and also his means of livelihood, without any law, without any

Procedure. That being itself a clear violation of right to life and personal liberty of the

petitioner as mentioned in the constitution of Astur.

[ISSUE-III]- THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI IS VICARIOUSLY

LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO THE PETITIONER

State’s liability in the constitution as mentioned in Article 300(1) The Government 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 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.

It is humbly submitted that not only the constitutional courts have to , in suitable cases ,

uphold claims arising out of loss of life or liberty arising on account of violation of

statutory duties of public authorities , in private law remedies , just and fair claim of

citizens against public bodies have to be upheld and compensation awarded in tort .

Whether the activity of public body is hazardous, highest degree of care is expected

and breach of such duty is actionable. 23

3.1 The liability of the Government of NCT, Delhi acting as an employer

Under the common law public body is charged with the duty of public roads and

bridges in repair and construction, and liable to an indictment for breach of such

duty, were nevertheless liable to an action for damages at the suit of a person who

had suffered injury from the failure to keep the road and bridge in proper repair.

Arguendo ‘Bob Constructions’ were to be construed as independent contractors the

state cannot avoid its liability by pleading the same because in Tarry v. Aston24 the

court held that the liability of the employer arises for dangers caused on or near the

highway . This rule is an exception to the concept of independent contractor where

the employer is absolved from the tortious liability.

When someone employs an independent contractor to do the work on his behalf he is

not in the ordinary way responsible for any tort committed by the contractor in the

course of execution of the work except in cases where, 1) It involves operation on

highways which may cause danger to persons using it 25. 2) The employer is under

some statutory duty which he cannot delegate.

23
MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy victims association, (2011)14 SCC, Kasturilal lal ralia ram jain v. State of UP,
AIR 1965 SC 1039.
24
(1876)1 QBD 314.
25
Alcock v. Smith (1892)1 ch 238.
Since the contract of building the over-bridge was given by Government of NCT, Delhi

to Bob constructions which is a multinational company the Government is

vicariously liable even though it did not exercise supervision and control as to how

the over- Bridge was to be built? The building of the over-bridge involved operation

on State Highway by the contractor. The Government, in addition to the liability of

the contractor is vicariously liable as it is covered under the exception laid down in

Alcock v. Smith26. Mere appointment of a contractor does not absolve the

Government of its liability to supervise building activities. The government was not

only discharging its statutory duty but was also acting as a service provider through

the contractor. The government has a duty of care as building of an over-bridge is

inherently dangerous and there is clear foreseeability. The government therefore had

a statutory duty of care, protection and supervision of the over-bridge being built

which it failed to exercise and these statutory duties cannot be delegated even in the

cases of independent contractor.

3.2 Liability of the government for the Breach of Statutory duty.

In the present contention the government is statute bound to administer the building of

over-bridge and should inquire that no danger is caused to the passer by, even

though it was delegated to a multinational company which is a private entity. In

Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Purshottam V. Murjani and others 27 , related

set of facts were in question where a lake was under the control and management of

Vadodara Municipal Corporation which had been plying boats for joy rides for the

general public. The contract for plying the boat was given to a private contractor.

Due to the negligence of the officials of the contractor, an overcrowded boat

26
Ibid.
27
(2014)16 SCC 14.
 capsized resulting in the death of 20 persons. The corporation was held vicariously

liable as the activity in question was covered by statutory duty of the corporation.

It was opined-“Mere appointment of a contractor did not absolve the corporation of its

liability to supervise the boating activities particularly when there were expressed

stipulations in the contract. The Corporation was not only discharging its statutory

duties but was also acting as service provider through its agent. The corporation

had a duty of care when activity of plying boat is inherently dangerous and there is

clear foreseeability of such an occurrence unless precautions are taken.”

It is respectfully submitted that Bob constructions was acting as an agent of the

Government by performing statutory functions on behalf of the Government. The

said contractor did not exercised proper care and performed the duties delegated to

him by the Government negligently. The Government also was negligent on its part

by not properly supervising the building of over-bridge and exercising care and

protection in relation to the passersby. Therefore in the light of Vadodara Municipal

Corporation case, the Government of NCT, Delhi is vicariously liable.

3.3 Company as State under Article 12 of the Constitution of Astur

The word “State” used in Article 12 refers to federating units, Astur itself being a state

consisting of these units. The term “State” is defined variously in some of the other

articles of the constitution as the context of the particular Part of the Constitution in

which its use is required.28

Authority means a public administrative agency or corporation having quasi-

governmental powers and authorized to administer public enterprise. The apex court

in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib29 has laid down guidelines for identifying a body as

an agency of state. The test was as follows-

28
Ranidipa Ghosh, Company as a state under Article 12 of Constitution of India.
29
1981 SCC (1)722.
 1) Whether the entire share capital is held by the government.

2) Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status conferred by the state.

3) Whether the functions of the corporation are governmental functions or

functions closely related thereto which are basically the responsibilities of the

Welfare State.

4) If a department of the government has been transferred to the corporation.

5) The volume of financial assistance received from the state.

6) The quantum of state control.

7) Whether any statutory duties are imposed upon the corporation.

8) The character of the corporation may change with respect to its different

functions.

This elucidates the point that Bob constructions was a State under Article 12 of the

Constitution of Astur as the function of corporation is governmental in nature as it

pertains to building of an over-bridge which may be construed as statutory duty

imposed upon it . It is obvious that the corporation is subject to volume of financial

assistance by the Government of NCT Delhi in lieu of the construction of over-

Bridge. There is also a good amount of state control over the corporation. The

development and maintenance of infrastructure including bridges, roads, flyovers

etc. is the responsibility of Public Works Department of Government of NCT, Delhi

and that responsibility was delegated to a Multinational Corporation that amounts to

transfer of a department to a Corporation. The plaintiff humbly submits that in the

light of above facts it can be concluded that Bob Constructions is a State and hence

the Government of NCT Delhi is liable for the negligence that resulted in the fatal

accident.
The fact that the contractor is a foreign corporation will not absolve the Government of

NCT Delhi of vicarious liability as a foreign corporation (i.e. a corporation created

by the law of any foreign country) may sue and be sued for a tort, like any other

corporation.30 A multinational corporation having subsidiaries in different countries

and owing controlling shares in subsidiaries may be held liable for a tort committed

by a subsidiary company by piercing the veil of incorporation on the reason that

parent company constitutes the directing mind and will of the subsidiary company .

It is on this basis that Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), a multinational registered

in USA, was held liable by SETH, J., of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for the

Bhopal gas disaster which resulted from leakage of poisonous gas from plant owned

by Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL), which is subsidiary of UCC. 31

The petitioner counsel in the light of above arguments pleads before the Hon’ble High

court of Judicature at Delhi that they hold the defendant vicariously liable for the

negligence on their part by omitting the duty to take reasonable care and exercise

supervision over the corporation that lead to the falling of over-bridge and

ultimately the death of Mr. Stark. The Government of NCT Delhi stands vicariously

liable for the said acts and according to principle of “respondent superior” the state

may incur the cost of the damages.

30
Newby v. Colts Patent firearms Co. (1872) LR 7QB 293.
31
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1988 MPLJ 540.
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts established, issues raised, pleadings advanced, and
authorities cited, it is most humbly submitted before this Honorable Court that it
may be pleased to:

1. The writ petition of Mandamus is admissible in the High Court of Judicature at

Delhi.

2. Petitioners right to life and personal liberty is violated.

3. The Govt. of NCT Delhi is vicariously liable to pay damages to the petitioner

And pass any order that it deems fit in the interest of justice.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

Sd/-

(…………………..)

Counsel for the Plaintiff