NMCC-16

11th National Moot Court Competition School of Law Christ University

Before The Supreme Court of Melhua

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Under Article 131 Constitution of Melhua, 1949

State of Chalukya………….………………………………………………Petitioner

Vs.

Union of Melhua & Others…………………………………….…..……Respondent

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

1
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations.......................................................................................................…...04

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………...
………………….06

Summary of fact…………………………………………………………………………….08

Statement of Jurisdictions………………………………………….………………………11

Issued
Raised………………………………………………………………………………...12

Summary of Arguments……………………….………………………………….………..13

Arguments Advanced……….……………………………………………………………...15

Statement of Jurisdiction

The appellant humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Melhua the memorial on
behalf of Petitioner in appeals filed appellants under Article 131 of Constitution of Melhua,
1949.

The present memorial on behalf of appellant sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

Issues Raised

1.

Whether the Orders dated 15.05.2020 and 19.07.2020 are Constitutionally valid?

2.

Is Article 279 A of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Constitutionally valid and

whether the recommendations of the GST Council are binding on the Central
Government?

3.

2
Whether the decision of the Union Government requiring states to borrow under its
own name be quashed? and Should the Hon’ble Supreme Court direct the Centre to be
the principal borrower for payment of GST Compensation.

4.
Whether the insertion of two paragraphs in the Governor’s speech, its contents and the
resolution passed by the Legislature of Chalukya are Constitutionally valid.

Prayers

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Respondent most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Melhua to adjudge and declare that:

1.The Orders dated 15.05.2020 and 19.07.2020 are Constitutionally valid.

2. Article 279 A of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Constitutionally valid and the
recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Central Government.

3. The decision of the Union Government requiring states to borrow under its own
name be quashedand Should the Hon’ble Supreme Court direct the Centre to be the
principal borrower for payment of GST Compensation.

4. The insertion of two paragraphs in the Governor’s speech, its contents and the
resolution passed by the Legislature of Chalukya are Constitutionally invalid.

Grant any other order in favour of Respondent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court may
deem fit in the eyes of equity, justice, and good conscience.

3
All of which respectfully submitted

Sd/-