CODE: R-53

Before

THE HON’BLE COURT OF SUPREME COURT

Civil Appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of Stoned floor, 1950

Civil Appeal No. 19/2021

MR PHILANDERANAND PIGLET, DEKKEY AND STATE OF STONE FLOOR

…APPELLANT

MOHNOSH BOYALE

…RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

2021
 -Table of Contents-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents………………………………………………………I-II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………..II-III

INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………….IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................V-VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………..……VI-IX

QUESTIONS PRESENTED……………………………………………………………….X

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………XI

PLEADING AND AUTHORITY………………………………………………………12-17

1.SEDITION NOT PROVED………………………………………………………………12-14

1.1 THE attempt to incite feeling against government was not met………………….12

1.1.1 Exercise of free

speech………………………………………………………….13

1.1.1.1 Disapprobation and not disaffection……………………………………...13

1.1.1.1.1. CAUSE OF VIOLENCE…………………………………………….13

1.1.1.1.1.1 There needs to be a public disorder or at least a reasonable

likelihood of public
disorder……………………………………………………………………………………….13

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.' Imminent lawless action’ test………………………………………14

1.2. DEFAMATION NOT PROVED ……………………………………………………………..................14-15

1.2.1. Imputation of truth……………………………………………………………14

1.2.2. Publication …………………………………………………………………14

1.2. 3.Opinion in good faith………………………………………………………15

1.2.4. Did not harm the reputation…………………………………………….15

1.3.NON COPETENT CLAUSE IS VOID AB INITIO……………………15-17

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (i) -
 -Table of Contents-

1.3.1. Violation of fundamental rights………………………………….15

1.3.2. Violation of section 27 of Indian contract act,1872……………16

1.3.3. Against public policy…………………………………16

1.3.4. Not reasonable………………………………………16

1.3.5 Time limit………………………………………….16

1.3.6. Distance………………………………………….17

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………….18

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (ii) -
 -List of Abbreviations-

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EXPANSION ABBREVIATIONS

STONED FLOOR SF

Vice chairman VC

Fragrance Cheetos FC

YEARS YRS.

Emperial Realities ER

Union territory UT

Chairah Pinacolada CP

Philanderanand Piglet PP

Mohonosh Boyale Mohonosh

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (iii) -
 -Index of Authorities-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

ONLINE MATERIAL

NEWS 18………………………………………………………………………….12

INDIAN KANOON……………………………………………………………12,14,15

iPleader…………………………………………………………………………….16

LAWINSIDER……………………………………………………………………...17

LEXOLOGY………………………………………………………………………...17

LAWS

1.INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872………………………………………………….17

2.SEDITION………………………………………………………………………….12

3.DEFAMATION…………………………………………………………………….14

4.ARTCLE 19(1)g…………………………………………………………………….15

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

THE HINDUSTAN TIMES………………………………………………………………13

THE PRINT……………………………………………………………………………….13

LAW JOURNAL

LAW SERVICE COMMISION OF SOTH AUSTRALIA……………………… …15,16,17

CASES

1.Debi Soren & Ors. v. The State (1954 CriLJ 758)………………………………………13

2. Balwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) SCR 411………………………………………….15

3.Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

……………………………………………………………………….15

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (iv) -
 -Index of Authorities-

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (v) -
 -Statement of Jurisdiction-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in the matter of the Civil
Appeal filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, under the Article 133 of the
Constitution of India.

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (vi) -
 -Statement of Facts-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Dikkey was one of the Big Five,5 multinational corporation, of the developing state Stoned
floor. These multinational corporation has seen its growth post 2001 liberalisation and
privatisation of economy and had captured 90% of the total private market having arms
manufacturing and development industry set across 20 states in the country. Dikkey has its
office across 5 states in the country. Dikkey with its global headquarters in China is one of
the leading companies for arms manufacturing and development around the world and had set
up the office in 2002.SF had opened up its economy in 2001 as stated above did not have
adequate skilled labour force. Therefore, Dikkey had conducted training session for all its
employees to familiarise them with the products and the technology behind them.

II

Mohonosh Boyale was one of the earliest employees of the company and had begun his
career as member of quality control department ensuring that the arms developed by the
company was of the highest value and of the highest quality. Mohonosh worked tirelessly for
the company in the control department as a machine showed that he was so dedicated to his
work and how enthusiastic was he with his work without any position of inflicting his own
opinion or perspective in the company nor did he put up any demand nor he messed up any
person in his work place enduring the tenure of the work. He was also privy to many secrets
of the products, but even after knowing all this secrets he never ever tried to betray the
company which gave the means to live and lead life this shows his respect for the work and
the eagerness to put the company at the acme of success. Mohon ash’s ethic and
professionalism helped him to get promoted to a higher rank in the company and he was
promoted to the post of vice president of the quality control department. Mohonosh has a
good oratory skill thus this skill set of him was taken note of by the higher officials of the
department and soon within 2 yrs. of his work as VC he was promoted to the post of the
president of sales department in the year of 2018.This shows how luminous and charismatic
personality was Mohonosh moreover we have come to know about the fact that the through
his oratory skill he has tried in the company to make people aware of the present situation of
the society that led us to the point that he was not only a responsible worker but also a
responsible citizen of the SF.

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (vii) -
 -Statement of Facts-

III

SF has 28 states and 8 UT it is a country with a diverse cultural and population. The state of
Sanostan was the last state that had been added to the republic of SF in 1952 after various
controversies. While it was added to the republic of the SF in 1952 but there existed
controversies post its addition and thus it has to frequently deploy army in furtherance of its
laws and maintained security in the state. There has been frequent call for the independence
of the state of Sanostan. Most of the time the neighbouring state Nolsar had claimed
sovereignty over the state of Sanostan whereas SF has said that it holds sovereignty over the
area. This has resulted in even war between the two sides. In the year 2019 the schomu party
which was a majoritarian conservative party in power led by Mr Bullyu was re-elected to
power in the government by an overwhelming majority. While before coming to power it was
promised by the party that it would be re integrating the state to the rest of the SF. And as per
the word after getting elected they on 17th April 2021 along with heavily armed troop and by
putting off internet connection overnight captured the state of Sanostan. The government
revoked its statehood and divide the state into 3 UT under the admin control of the
government in the central. The revocation was welcomed as well as condemned by many.
Many in the society had shown their discomfort for the same because this action by the
government was carried out at the cost of many violations stretching from the violation of
human rights to that of harassment and many more. This act of the government showed the
tyrannical reign of the government.

IV

Amid the controversy regarding Sanostan the people of SF were gearing to celebrate the 69th
Independence Day. In the same light Dikkey also planed of an event titled outlawed a
ceremony organised with the entire audience underway, it was visited by many starting from
Army tan to major media platform, and they as well invited the mayor of the town CP among
many other prominent personalities. Meanwhile Mohonosh was also not in the correct state of
mind as he was very much disheartened seeing the cruelty of the government over the people
in Sanostan so he informed about his discomfort about the celebration to the HR, FC, but he
did not pay heed and gave a template rejection for the same. This disheartened him even
more and as a result of this he drunk slightly. As usual he took the stage and distorted the
entire flag much to the shock and dismay of the audience and drew the Sanostan flag over the

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (viii) -
 -Statement of Facts-

national flag and continued by rendering his resignation in front of everyone. He was then
escorted out of the building by security. The resignation of Mohonosh was a shock to the
arms industry and thus every company tried to engage him to their service.

Meantime Mr. Philander Anand Piglet was an immigrant and came from a distant land of
Trissooor. Trissooor was located in a remote corner of SF where people communicated in a
different language and the remote location caused a lack of melanin in its residents. Due to
his hard-to-pronounce name, he was often called by various nicknames stemming from
distorted versions of his name. Mr. Philander Anand Piglet had accidentally mailed the entire
firm, an e-mail that was meant for Mohonosh and recollected the time Mohonosh and Mr.
Philander Anand Piglet spent together. Mr. philander Anand Piglet wished him best for future
endeavours. Upon reading the mail, Mohonosh, who was still miffed with the firm and the
behaviour of the employees, wrote “No hard feelings bro but why you a fascist, pig?” and
replied to all. The email thread soon became a hot topic for gossip in the company. Mr.
philander Anand Piglet was deeply hurt by the mail as he felt that Mohonosh did not
reciprocate the same fondness for their friendship. Mr. philander Anand Piglet was so
disturbed by the incident that he did not leave his bed for 3 days. On the fourth day, Mr.
philander Anand Piglet decided to take matters into his own hands and filed a defamation suit
against Mohonosh.

VI

The speech by Mohonosh in OUTLAWEED had become the talk of the town with every
News channel. Popular News anchor Ms. Mahila Chhrabrani called Mohonosh an anti-
national publicly. On the other hand, various prominent personalities including the leaders of
the Country-made pistol Association, Bablu & Teavari, and social media influencers such as
Comrade Menon agreed with the views expressed by 8 Mohonosh and expressed their
support for him. Taking note of the controversy around his speech, a sedition case is filed
against Mohonosh by the Central Government.

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (ix) -
 -Statement of Facts-

VII

Meanwhile Mohonosh wanted to get away with it and decide to join a new company. As he
was about to send the acceptance to ER, Mohonosh was informed by the legal team of
Dikkey’s that he was barred from joining the company due to the non-compete clause in his
contract which prohibits him from joining the company for another 8 months from the date of
his resignation. Mohonosh decided to challenge the validity of the clause against Section 27
of the SF Contract Act.

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (x) -
 -Questions Presented-

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

a. Whether Mohonosh committed the crime of sedition during OUTLAWEED?

b. Whether Mohonosh is liable for civil defamation against Mr. Philander Anand
Piglet?

c. Whether the non-compete clause in the Contract between Mohonosh and Dikkey’s is
void and/or unenforceable as per Section 27?

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (xi) -
 -pleading and authorities-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The speech carried out by Mohonosh during outlawed was not seditious and its
under the exception of the section 124(A).

Section 124A defines the term Sedition which says that—Whoever, by words, either
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or
attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection
towards,  the Government established by law in , shall be punished with [imprisonment
for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. The speech by Mohonosh at
outlawed was not an attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to
excite disaffection towards,  the Government; it was just a comment expressing
disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government. Thus this
cannot be called a seditious statement.

II. The email send by Mohonosh in a reply to the email of Mr Piglet was not a
defamatory statement as its basic conditions are not met

Mere hasty expression spoken in anger or vulgar abuse to which no

hearer would attribute any set purpose to injure the character would not
be actionable (Parvathi v. Mannar).The email does not caused any injury
to the reputation and the statement meted out by Mohosh stating Mr
piglet as pig was a privileged right which they both own to each other.
The statement that was referred to not published as well. So no case of
defamation arises.

III. Non competent clause is un enforceable as it was carried out between to unequal
parties who do not have consensus ad idem
The restriction imposed by the employer is not reasonable and harsh on the
employees as it does not allow the employee to exercise his free choice of
profession and it as well amounts to the restrain in trade, profession thereby
rendering it to be void.

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (xii) -
 -pleading and authorities -

PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES

1.THE SPEECH CARRIED OUT BY MOHONOSH DURING OUTLAWED WAS NOT SEDITIOUS

AND IT’S UNDER THE EXCEPTION OF THE SECTION 124(A).

The speech carried out by Mohonosh was not seditious because the conditions required to
prove sedition is not met. The basic requirements for proving sedition are 1.1. It should
attempt to incite the feeling of the people and it should spread hatred against the
government.

1.1.THE attempt to incite feeling against government was not met

The statement put forward by Mohonosh was nothing but his disapprobation towards
government without an attempt to incite the feeling of the people as a result of this can be
termed as an exception to the rule of sedition. The apex court in Kedar Nath case clarified
that section 124A could not be used to stifle free speech, and could only be invoked if it could
be proven that the seditious speech in question led to the incitement to violence or would
1
result in public disorder.

1.1.1. Exercise of free speech

The new amendment was made to section 124(A) which states that right to
free speech mentioned in Article 19(2) states that it could be curtailed if there
is a danger to the security of the state. The speech substantiated by
Mohonosh is neither a violative of fundamental rights nor it fall under the
exception to the article 19(2).

1
PRESS RELEASE, NEWS18,15TH JULY 2021, AVAILABLE AT
https://www.news18.com/news/india/explained-what-is-sedition-law-and-why-the-supreme-court-called-it-
colonial

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (13) -
 -pleading and authorities -

It was just spontaneous overflow if emotion. He just pointed out certain the facts and
asked the people not to delve on it and asked people not to enjoy at a violation of the
rights of people.

He just expressed his view and his discomfort to the work of government which
cannot be claimed to be of seditious nature.2

1.1.1.1. Disapprobation and not disaffection

. In the case of Debi Soren & Ors. v. The State  (1954 CriLJ 758), in which the
accused, an Adivasi leader, was booked for an inflammatory speech against
the government. In its judgment, a division bench of the Patna High Court
made a clear distinction between disapprobation and disaffection and held
that only disaffection leads to public disorder. Thus, this point validates that
mere disapprobation is not seditious.3

1.1.1.1.1. CAUSE OF VIOLENCE

The statement meted out by Mohonosh should be the cause of violence. As this is a
prerequisite to substantiate sedition. But in this case, it can be seen that it did not
invite violence. Thus, one of the most important prerequisites fails.4

1.1.1.1.1.1. There needs to be a public disorder or at least a reasonable

likelihood of public disorder

It was stressed in Balwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) SCR 411
“pernicious tendency” was to be ascertained by looking at the consequences of the

2
BHADRA SINHA  ,’Criticism of govt not sedition’, THE PRINT,5TH JUNE 2021
3
Debi Soren & Ors. v. The State  (1954 CriLJ 758)
4
 UTKARSH ANAND, The sedition story: Complicated history of Sec 124A, HINDUSTAN TIMES, (NEW
DELHI),19TH JULY 2021

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (14) -
 -pleading and authorities -

impugned speech. If we see the Mohonosh speech we can find that his words hardly
could affect public order or reasonably cause a likelihood of public disorder.5

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  ‘Imminent lawless action’ test

 As per this test, all speech is valid unless it incites imminent lawless action
in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) case. Mohonosh speech does not
clear this case so it is not seditious statement. 6

1.2. Mohonosh is not liable for civil defamation against Mr. Philander Anand Piglet as its
condition did not met
7
There is certain prerequisite which are required to prove the offence of civil
Defamation. The conditions are as follows
 A published statement
 The statement must cause injury
 The statement must be false
 The statement is not privileged

1.2.1. Imputation of truth

Mr Mohonosh has just replied to the email which his friend Mr piglet has sent
emphasising the fact that he should follow the path of fascism in order to avoid
termination or a face loss. To which he called MR piglet by his short name pig as a matter
of privilege which both of them shares and called him a fascist as he was advocating
fascism. Thus, we can say that it was a mere imputation of truth.8

1.2.2. Publication

The email which talked about has been not published as the conversation was not
confidential from the very first time as we can see that Mr piglet as well forwarded to all

5
Balwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) SCR 411
6
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
7
LAW SERVICE COMMISION OF SOTH AUSTRALIA, WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au
8
LAW SERVICE COMMISION OF SOTH AUSTRALIA, WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (15) -
 -pleading and authorities -

in reply to which he did the same without changing its recipient, thus mere replying to the
said address from which the mail came cannot be called as sheer publication. 9

1.2.3. Opinion in a good faith

The email sent in reply by Mohonosh was done in miffed state but in good faith believing
the privilege they share among themselves. The act of calling Mr piglet by awkward
names is not news in the mail itself we can find the evidence that earlier as well
Mohonosh called him bald pink headed thus it shows that they share such a friendly
relation which could be called as disrespect. Thus, this shows that he meted out the
statement in the good faith believing the relation he used to share with this friend. 10

1.2.4. Did not harm the reputation

The statement of Mohonosh did not harm the reputation of Mr piglet as there was no
evidence of harm that could be seen in the case. It was Mr piglet himself who became
stressed and as result he locked him up for 3 days which did not amount to harm of
reputation or loss suffered due to such statement thus it could be said that this condition is
as well not met.11

1.3. Non competent clause

1.3.1. It is a violation of fundamental rights

In the constitution of our country, it is been mentioned that

All citizens shall have the right under 19(1)(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. The contract that has been signed between Mohonosh
and Dikkey company was thereby can be called a violation of fundamental rights. The
agreement was a restraint of practise of profession and business. 12
1.3.2. Violation of Section 27 of Indian contract act of 1872 13
 Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act states that all agreements in restraint of any
profession, trade or business are void. It renders the contract void ab initio. When we
9
LAW SERVICE COMMISION OF SOTH AUSTRALIA, WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au
10
LAW SERVICE COMMISION OF SOTH AUSTRALIA, WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au
11
Kanupriyash,CIVIL DEFAMATION IN INDIA, JUNE 21,2017 AVAILABLE AT
https://blog.ipleaders.in/civil-defamation-law

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (16) -
 -pleading and authorities -

see the Indian legal scenario about the non-compete clause, it is prohibited under the
Law of Contracts.14

1.3.3. Non competent clause is against public policy

Any agreement tending to injure the public interest or public welfare is against the public
policy. Further it can include as to – whatever tends to injustice of operation, restraint of
liberty, commerce and natural or legal rights, whatever tends to the obstruction of
injustice or violation of statutes and whatever is against good morals can be said to be
against Public Policy. Thus, we can say that the employment agreement with Mohonosh
is against public policy.15

1.3.4. Not reasonable

The term “Reasonable”16 is concerned, simply in general understanding it means-

“according to reason”. Whatever a reasonable man would do using common sense and
knowledge, under the given circumstances, will account as reasonable. Therefore, the
test of reasonability depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, the
contract between Mohonosh and the Dikkey company is unreasonable. 17

1.3.5. Time limit

The time limit which has been talked about in the contract is of 8 months which is
unreasonable and excessive time limit. Thus, this limits the choice of my client and as
well it prevents him to from using his calibre of quality for gaining promotion thereby
hinging his all-round development.18

1.3.6. Distance

12
SINGH & ASSOCIATES, non-compete clause in the Indian law of contracts - an insight, November 30,

2012 AVAILABLE AT https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.

13
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872
14
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872
15
EXCEPTION TO NON-COMPETENT CLAUSES https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/exceptions-to-non-
compete
16
Singh & Associates, NON-COMPETE clause in the Indian law of contracts - an INSIGHT, NOVEMBER 30,
2012 AVAILABLE AT https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.
17
Singh & Associates, NON-COMPETE clause in the Indian law of contracts - an INSIGHT, NOVEMBER 30,
2012 AVAILABLE AT https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.
18
Singh & Associates, NON-COMPETE clause in the Indian law of contracts - an INSIGHT, NOVEMBER 30,
2012 AVAILABLE AT https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (17) -
 -pleading and authorities -

Suitable restrictions on employee prohibiting them to practice same profession within a

stipulated distance, the stipulation being reasonable. But in this case the prohibition is
not reasonable because we can see that Dikkey had industries in the five major cities,
whereas their other two competitor too have industry thus bounding Mohonosh not to
work in the five major cities with the maximum opportunity is like depriving a person
basic amenity of life.19

Singh & Associates, NON-COMPETE clause in the Indian law of contracts - an INSIGHT, NOVEMBER 30,
19

2012 AVAILABLE AT https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (18) -
 -pleading and authorities -

PRAYER

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent humbly submits that

the Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that

1. Mohonosh has not committed the crime of sedition during OUTLAWEED as the conditioned
required to prove the charge of sedition is not met.
2. Mohonosh is not liable for civil defamation against Mr. Philander Anand Piglet as conditions
for accusing someone for civil defamation is not met.
3. The non-compete clause in the Contract between Mohonosh and Dikkey’s is void and/or
unenforceable as per Section 27

`Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/-

Respectfully submitted on September 28,2021.

--------------------------
On behalf of the RESPONDENT,
ANURAG MONDAL

MEMORIAL for THE RESPONDENT

- (19) -