B.A. LL.B.

(IInd SEMESTER) 2020-2021

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELHI

AT DELHI

MEMORIAL DRAWN AND SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE

PLAINTIFF

IN THE MATTER OF:

Orange Electronics ………………………………………………..……Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Abhinav Mishra ……..……………………….…..….……..……Defendant

1
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ 3

LIST OF SOURCES ........................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................. 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................. 7

ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................. 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS........................................................................ 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................... 12

PRAYER ............................................................................................................ 23

2
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SNO. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

1. ICA INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

HC HIGH COURT
2.

3 SC SUPREME COURT

4 J. JUSTICE

5 Pg. PAGE

6 No. NUMBER

7 AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

8 Sec. SECTION

9 VS. VERSUS

10 BOM. BOMBAY

11 Cal. CALCUTTA

12 All ALLAHABAD

13 & AND

3
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 LIST OF SOURCES

STATUTES: -

1) The Indian Contract Act, 1872

CASES: -

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION VS FEDEX SECURITIES LTD. & ORS

HAKAM SINGH V. GAMMON (INDIA) LTD

JAGON RAM MARWARI V. MAHADEO PRASAD SAHU

NAWAB SADIQ ALI KHAN V. JAI KISHORI

PETER VS FLEMING

CLYDE CYCLE CO VS HARGREAVES

CHAPPLE VS. COPPER

KUNWARLAL V. SURAJMAL

KHAN GUL V. LAKHA SINGH

MOHUN BIBI V. SARAL CHAND MITTER

VARGHESE V. IYPE KURIAKOSE AND ORS.

NIVARTI GOVIND INGALE AND ORS V. REVANAGOUDA BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL

KHAN GUL V. LAKHA SINGH

LESLIE V. SHEIL

4
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 BOOKS: -

• Avtar Singh, Law of Contracts and Specific Relief Act, Eastern Book Co., 2013

• MULLA The Indian Contract Act by SIR DINSHAW FARDUNJI MULLA, Lexis Nexis
(15th Edition)

• 13th Report of Law Commission of India

WEBSITES: -

(1) http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Offer-and-acceptance-contract.php visited on 29th February,

2020

(2) https://www.lawnotes.in/Acceptance Indian Contract Act, 1872 visited on 29th February,

2020

(3) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1985255/ visited on 10th March, 2020

(4) www.manupatra.com visited on 10th March, 2020

(5) https://www.lawyersnjurists.com visited on 14th March, 2020

(6) https://definitions.uslegal.com visited on 14th March, 2020

5
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble District Court of Delhi exercises jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the present
suit because the parties reside in Delhi. Hence, the court will get territorial jurisdiction for
this case.

6
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Abhinav Mishra is a 17 years and 5 months boy (as on 01.01.2009)

who lives in Delhi. He is genius in the field of computer science and has a
keen interest in learning and creating new things.
2. One day, while surfing the internet, he finds an advertisement for a
freelance app developer for company named Orange Electronics.
Interested in the post Abhinav contacts the company where upon he talks
to Ms. Shweta. She informs him that for this, he has to qualify an interview
which will be conducted by the Vice president of the company at the
headquarters of the company in Lucknow. During the interview which held
on 12.02.2009 Abhinav is able to impress the Vice President of the
company which his knowledge and ideas and successfully gets the contract.
3. The company on 15.02.2009 sends the contract by post for his signature.
He signed the contract post it back to the company on 21.02.2009 which
was duly received by the company.
4. Abhinav is also informed by the company that he has to develop the app
within five months otherwise, the company will not able to launch the app
on scheduled time and will suffer losses. In furtherance to the contract the
company also hand over a device and Rs. 1,00,000 to Abhinav in order to
develop the app asked by the company.
5. Realizing that he will not be able to develop the app before the decided
date, he seeks extension three months on 15.07.2009 and promises to
submit the same on 22.10.2009. He also asked for a further amount of
Rs.50,000 in order to complete the project on time.
6. But by then the company started further processing work for the app and
had also spend a lot on the related promotional activities.
7. Already facing measure losses the company is not in position to give any
extension of time to Abhinav.
8. The company gave a notice to Abhinav to return the device which was
gave to him to develop the app and pay compensation for the losses
suffered by the company which was denied by him.
9. On 12.12.2009 the company filed a civil suit for damages and recovery of
the device and the money given against Abhinav in the court of Lucknow,
accusing Abhinav of breach of contract.

7
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

Whether the Lucknow Court has jurisdiction?

ISSUE II

Whether there is valid contract between Abhinav and Orange Electronics?

ISSUE III

Whether there is breach of contract and Abhinav is liable to pay damages and
return the device?

8
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 – Whether the Lucknow Court has jurisdiction?

Since the company has Headquarters in Lucknow So, Lucknow court has jurisdiction. As per
Section 20 of CPC

Suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises - Subject to the
limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time
of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain.

The Act gives the discretion to the plaintiff to file a suit for compensation for wrongs to person
or movables, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and
the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff
in either of the said Courts.

ISSUE 2- Whether there is valid contract between Abhinav and Orange

Electronics?
As per Section 11 of Indian Contract Act the contract with minor is void ab initio but in some
cases the contract with the minor deems to be valid.

According to section 68, ICA the necessaries supplied to minor “should be suited to his
condition in life”. It does not mean bare necessities of life, but means such things as may be
necessary to maintain a person according to his life. In the present case Abhinav, genius in the
field of computer science and had a keen interest in learning and creating new things which
was necessity for his future.

9
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 When the minor contracts on false representation as to his majority. In the present case Ms.
Abhinav, genius in the field of computer science and has a keen interest in learning and
creating new things By misrepresenting that he is a major, he gave an interview to Vice
president of the company at the headquarters of the company in Lucknow on 12.02.2009 and
successfully gets the contract. The company told that he has to develop the app within five
months and the company also hand over a device and Rs. 1,00,000 to Abhinav in order to
develop the app asked by the company

Liability of Minor under Specific Relief Act, 1963 According to Section-41 of Specific
Relief Act:

“On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the Court may require the party to
whom such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other which justice may
require.” Minority is a shield and it should not be used as a sword in case of contract with
a minor.

ISSUE 3- Whether there is breach of contract and Abhinav is liable to pay damages
and return the device?
Breach Of Contract: A breach of contract occurs when the agreement is not kept, because one
party to the contract does not fulfill their obligation according to its terms.

The defendant is liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff under section 73 of Indian
Contract Act, 1872.

When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive,
from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to
him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the
parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
In the above case Abhinav was informed by the company that he has to develop the app within
five months otherwise, the company will not able to launch the app on scheduled time and will

10
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
suffer losses and for that company also hand over a device and Rs. 1,00,000 to Abhinav in
order to develop the app asked by the company. Realizing that he will not be able to develop
the app before the decided date, he seeks extension three months on 15.07.2009 and promises
to submit the same on 22.10.2009. He also asked for a further amount of Rs.50,000 in order to
complete the project on time. Already facing measure losses, the plaintiff not in position to
give any extension of time to Abhinav. The company gave a notice to Abhinav to return the
device which was gave to him to develop the app and pay compensation for the losses suffered
by the company which was denied by him.

11
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

It is humbly submitted that contract between Orange Electronics (Plaintiff) and Mr. Abhinav
(Defendant) has Lucknow Jurisdiction.

According to Section 20 CPC 1which reads as under:-

Suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises - Subject to the
limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of
the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not
reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation - A corporation shall be deemed
to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action
arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

In case of FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION VS FEDEX SECURITIES LTD. &

ORS 2 The plaintiff company claims to be the world's largest express transportation company

1
Unimers India Limited vs The Ifci Limited & Ors. of Delhi High Court

2
Delhi High Court . on 11 April, 2017

12
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
popularly known as FEDEX, it providing transportation, e-commerce and business services
under the trademark - name FEDEX worldwide, having forayed into the Indian market in 1984,
statedly in the wake of acquisition of Gelco Express International ("Gelco") and through its
global service participant- licensee Blue Dart for express delivery of packages in this country,
prior to entering into the Indian market independently in 1997 by its regional (or branch) office,
also carrying on business in Delhi, it being its principal hub. The right of plaintiff to exclusively
use the trade mark/name FEDEX is inter alia infracted by such advertisements/activities in
Delhi, and therefore, this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.

The Act gives the discretion to the plaintiff to file a suit for compensation for wrongs to person
or movables, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and
the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff
in either of the said Courts3.

Examples: Mr. A, residing in Delhi, publishes on his website in Calcutta statements defamatory
of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

In case of HAKAM SINGH V. GAMMON (INDIA) LTD 4 the contractual validity of choice
of forum clauses was discussed. In that case, the Petitioner approached the Court of the
Subordinate Judge at Varanasi for an order referring the parties to the arbitration. The contract
between the parties had a stipulation that the Courts of Mumbai alone will have jurisdiction.
The trial court concluded that the entire cause of action had arisen at Varanasi and the parties
could not by agreement confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Bombay, which they did not
otherwise possess. While dealing with this case, the Supreme Court stated that when two courts
had the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute, a choice of one by agreement, would not amount to
restraint of legal proceedings, or violate public policy, under Sections 28 and 23 of the Contract
Act respectively. However, the parties could not, by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court

3
Section-19 of CPC,1808
4
1971 SCR (3) 314

13
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
that would otherwise not have jurisdiction in law to adjudicate the dispute in question. This
position has been affirmed in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court.

14
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 ISSUE 2

It is humbly submitted that contract between Orange Electronics (Plaintiff) and Mr. Abhinav
(Defendant) is a valid contract.

The essentials of a valid contract are defined under sec 10 of the ICA, 1872:

“All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void”.

As per Section-11 of ICA the minor is not competent to contract. But in some cases, the contract
with the minor deems to be valid.

CLAIM FOR NECESSARIES SUPPLIED TO PERSON INCAPABLE OF

CONTRACTING, OR ON HIS ACCOUNT.

According to Section 68, ICA:

“If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or any one whom he is legally bound to
support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the
person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such
incapable person.”

It does not mean bare necessities of life, but means such things as may be necessary to maintain
a person according to his life. Luxurious articles of utility are in some case allowed. What are
necessaries may depend upon the status of a person, and also his requirements at the time of
actual delivery of the goods.

In JAGON RAM MARWARI V. MAHADEO PRASAD SAHU5 Justice Mookerjee and

Justice Carnduff stated that:

5
(1909) ILR 36 CAL 768

15
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 “The term necessaries include everything necessary to maintain an incompetent person in the
state, station, or degree of life in which he is, and what is necessary is a relative fact to
determine with reference to the fortune and circumstances of a particular infant. There is no
definition of the term ‘necessaries’ in the Indian Contract Act, 1872.”
In case of PETER VS FLEMING6, it was held that the court held that a luxurious item of
utility such as gold watch may be a necessary. This broad definition of necessaries was clearly
not adopted for the benefits of the minor, but to give protection to suppliers who gave credit to
young man from wealthy families.
In case of CLYDE CYCLE CO VS HARGREAVES7, It has been held that a racing cycle is
necessary for an infant apprentice. Similarly, in CHAPPLE VS. COPPER8, it was held that
an infant widow is bound by a contract for the burial of her husband as the contract is for
necessity.

In KUNWARLAL V. SURAJMAL9, it has been held that the house given to the minor on
rent for living and continuing his studies is deemed to be supplied of necessaries suited to the
minor’s condition in life, and the rent for the house can be recovered.

In the present case Abhinav, genius in the field of computer science and had a keen interest in
learning and creating new things which was necessity for his future.

MISREPRESENTION OF AGE:

When a minor misrepresents at the time of contract that he has attained the age of majority,
the question which arises in such a case is, does the law of estoppel apply against minor or not.
According to Section-115 of Indian Evidence Act, which lays down the law of estoppel is as
under:

“When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his

6
329 Mo. 870 (Mo.1932).
7
(1898) 78 L.T.296.
8
(1844)13 M. & W. 252.
9
A.I.R. 1963 M.P. 58.

16
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or
his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

According to the rule contained in section-115, Indian Evidence Act, if you make a statement
today which mislead another person, you are not allowed to deny the statement tomorrow
when the question of your liability arises.

In case of NAWAB SADIQ ALI KHAN V. JAI KISHORI10, it was held by Privy Council
in Bombay HC that if a minor makes a contract by fraudulently expressing his age more than
actual then he cannot be stopped as per the rules of estoppels that he was minor at the time of
contract.

In the present case Ms. Abhinav, genius in the field of computer science and has a keen
interest in learning and creating new things By misrepresenting that he is a major, he gave an
interview to Vice president of the company at the headquarters of the company in Lucknow
on 12.02.2009 and successfully gets the contract. The company told that he has to develop
the app within five months and the company also hand over a device and Rs. 1,00,000 to
Abhinav in order to develop the app asked by the company.

According to the 13th report of Law Commission of India Section 65 covers a case of
minor, who makes false representation that he was a major and such a minor should be asked
to pay compensation. They recommended that an explanation should be added in section 65
to give effect to their opinion. If a minor commenced a transaction during minority and
continuously takes it up and carries it on after emerging from disability of minority, the
person will be bound for the whole transaction11. There is another authority to the effect that
if services are rendered during minority and are continued in post minority period as well, a
promise made by the person in the state of majority to compensate for the services in the two
states, is enforceable against him for the services inclusive of those rendered during minority
also12.

10
(1928) 30 Bom. 561.
11
Nihal Chand v. Jan Mohammad Khan , A.I.R. 1937 Sind 310
12
Sindha v. Abrahim , I.L.R. 20 Bom. 755.

17
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 Liability of Minor under Specific Relief Act, 1963

According to Section-41 of Specific Relief Act:

“On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the Court may require the party to whom
such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other which justice may require.”

In the case of KHAN GUL V. LAKHA SINGH13, the Lahore high court ordered a minor to
refund Rs.17500/- which he had taken in advance for the sale of land. When he refused to
complete the contract, the court was of the opinion that still the Specific Relief Act should
apply whether the minor was the plaintiff or the defendant.

When the minor is defendant in a case and he resists the enforcement of the suit on the ground
that he is incompetent to contract, the court may ask him to restore such benefits to the other
party, to the extent his estate has been benefited thereby.

Minority is a shield and it should not be used as a sword in case of contract with a minor.
There still are many lacunas in section 65 of ICA and Section of 115 Law Evidence Act in
the law which the minors may take undue advantage of minority and the majors are the ones
who have to bear the brunt, without any fault of them.

The equity principles which are incorporated in quasi contract that no one would be enriched
him/her including minor at the cost of others. Minor wants equity must do equity.

13
A.I.R. 1928 Lahore 609

18
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 ISSUE 3

The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submit before this
Hon’ble court that there was a breach of contract by the Defendant as the Defendant didn’t
fulfils his obligations of party on performance of the contract and the defendant is liable for
restoring all the benefits which he gained from the contract with the plaintiff as per the
provisions of sec.37 & sec.40 of the ICA’1872 which are stated below.

Section 37 of the India Contract Act 1872 states that-

“The parties to a contract must either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises,
unless such performance in dispensed with or excused under the provision of this Act, or of
any other law. Promises bind the representative of the promisor in case of the death of such
promisors before performance, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract.”

Section 40 of the India Contract Act 1872 states that-

“Person by whom promises is to be performed If it appears from the nature of the case that
it was the intention of the parties to any contract that any promise contain in it should be
performed by the promisor himself, such promise must be performed by the promisor. In other
cases, the promisor or his representative may employ a competent person to perform it.”

Breach Of Contract: A breach of contract occurs when the agreement is not kept, because one
party to the contract does not fulfill their obligation according to its terms.

A breach can occur if a party fails to perform within the time frame specified in the contract,
does not perform in accordance with the terms of the agreement, or fails to perform whatsoever.

If one party fails to perform while the other party fulfills her duties under the contract, the
performing party is entitled to legal remedies for breach of contract.

19
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
The defendant is liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff under section 73 of Indian
Contract Act, 1872 :-

Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been
broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has
broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which
naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when
they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.

Explanation - In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means
which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract
must be taken into account.

In the above case Abhinav was informed by the company that he has to develop the app within
five months otherwise, the company will not able to launch the app on scheduled time and will
suffer losses and for that company also hand over a device and Rs. 1,00,000 to Abhinav in
order to develop the app asked by the company. Realizing that he will not be able to develop
the app before the decided date, he seeks extension three months on 15.07.2009 and promises
to submit the same on 22.10.2009. He also asked for a further amount of Rs.50,000 in order to
complete the project on time. Already facing measure losses, the plaintiff not in position to
give any extension of time to Abhinav. The company gave a notice to Abhinav to return the
device which was gave to him to develop the app and pay compensation for the losses suffered
by the company which was denied by him.

The doctrine of restitution was propounded in the leading case of LESLIE V. SHEIL7 Under
this case there of restoration of the benefit from the minor to the other party where the minor
falsely represented the age. Another principle stated in the former case is that the benefit will
only be restored if it is traceable. It was held that when a minor obtains an advantage by falsely
stating himself to be of full age, equity required him to restore his ill-gotten gains or to release
to party deceived from obligations or acts in law induced by the fraud, but scrupulously stopped
short of enforcing against him a contractual obligation entered into while he was an infant, even
by means of a fraud.

20
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
In KHAN GUL V. LAKHA SINGH 14 Shadi Lal, C.J stated that-
1. “Whether a minor, who by falsely representing himself to be a major, has induced person
to enter into a contract, is estopped from pleading minority to avoid the contract.
2. “ Whether a party, who, when a minor, has entered into a contract by means of a false
representation as to his age, whether he be defendant or plaintiff, in a subsequent litigation,
refuse to perform the contract and at the same time retain the benefit he may have derived
therefrom.”

Then according to Sec 33(2) of the Special Relief Act 1963-

(2) Where a defendant successfully resists any suit on the ground—
“ That the agreement sought to be enforced against him in the suit is void by reason of his
not having been competent to contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of
1872), the court may, if the defendant has received any benefit under the agreement from the
other party, require him to restore, so far as may be, such benefit to that party, to the extent to
which he or his estate has benefited thereby.”

In the case of NIVARTI GOVIND INGALE AND ORS V. REVANAGOUDA

BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL15, Radhabai, mother of the appellants was the owner of 4 acres
38 gunthas of land in Pascayapur Village of Karnataka. According to her, she, with a view to
dig a well in the same land, had obtained a loan in the year 1961 from the father of the
respondent, a sum of ₹1,000. Since she was not in a position to complete the digging of the
well, she approached again for a sum of ₹2,000 to complete the well. The respondent’s father
who was a constable had advanced the money on the condition that she would execute the
sale deed in favour of his minor son i.e., the respondent.
Accordingly, she executed the sale deed with an agreement of re-conveyance which was

14
Lahore high court, 1928
15
AIR 1959 Mysore 188

21
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 executed on August 31, 1961. She stated that she has paid from time to time a sum of ₹7,000
and had asked the respondent to execute the re-conveyance but the respondent did not execute
the deed of re-conveyance; consequently, she filed the suit for specific performance.
The decree of the trial Judge is accordingly restored and that of the High Court and the
Additional Civil Judge stand set aside. The remedy of recovery of the purchased money from
the respondent may be sought in an appropriate action.
In the case of VARGHESE V. IYPE KURIAKOSE AND ORS.11 the plaintiff filed a suit
to cancel a sale deed signed by him during the minority, the lower court cancelled the suit and
issue no restoration but the High Court overruled the Lower Court’s judgment and held that
the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the property but have to restore the benefits he
received from the defendants.

In the case of MOHUN BIBI V. SARAL CHAND MITTER12 Jenkins, J's. line of reasoning
was approved by the Court of appeal consisting of Maclean, C.J. and Macpherson and
Trevelyan, JJ. and in upholding Jenkins, J's. judgment Maclean, C.J. made the following
observations:

“There is not, so far as I can discover, any distinction between the law in India and the law in
England upon this subject. In my judgment, there is a current of cases decided in the Courts
of Equity in England, dating back for 150 years or more, which show that, in equity an infant
cannot take advantage of his own fraud. I think it is established that in cases of fraud by an
infant the protection which the law throws around him is taken away: in other words, that the
defence of infancy cannot be successfully pleaded in defence of a fraud perpetrated by the
infant.”

Hence, the plaintiff has suffered loss and inconvenience because of the wrongful act of the
defendant. The defendant is bound to restore the benefit to the plaintiff according to the
estoppel16 applied and the defendant is liable to restore the damages.17

16
Sec 115 of the Evidence Act’1872
17
Sec 33(2)(b) of the SRA’1963

22
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities cited, the present case
may kindly be decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is entitled
to recover his amount of Rs 1,00,000/- and device along with interest @ 12 % pa from its due
date till its realization from Abhinav. Orange Electronics is also entitled to receive Rs
1,00,000/- for facing measure losses by the company due to Abhinav and Any other relief that
this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience

Respectfully submitted Date- ……APRIL, 2020

SAGAR SINGLA

BA LLB-2

Enrollment No.- 02619103819

(Signature of the counsel for the Plaintiff)

23
Memorial drawn and submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff