giBS

Centre for Legal Studies

Gitarattan International Business School
Student Notice
Ref: GIBS/ADM/STU/21-22/023 Date: 18.09.2021

Internal Moot Court Activity

BBA LL.B & BA LL.B (Semester-5)
All the students of BALLB and BBALLB of semester 5 are hereby informed that they all are required to
prepare for Internal Moot Court Activity as given below and may consult their Coordinators.

Date of Submission FACULTY

Date of Presentation Class
(Individual Memorial) COORDINATOR
BBALLB-5 Ms. Manika Gandhi
16th October 2021 18th Oct. 2021
BALLB-5 Dr. Tripti

GUIDELINES
All Students are required to prepare Individual Memorials from both the side and one Group Memorial as
a Team, Presenting as Plaintiff or Defendant as the case may be. Students may consult their assigned
coordinators for resolution of their queries.

Rules:
1. Teams Consisting of 6 students will be divided as plaintiff and defendant containing 3 students each where
two would be mooters and one will be designated as researcher. (But for internal session all three students
will be dealing with issues and argue the case).
2. Both Plaintiff and Defendant shall be given the opportunity to argue and present their case for 30 min and
15 min for Rebuttals will be given to them.
3. Any extension of time beyond the specified period shall be subject to the discretion of the judges.
4. The division of time between the speakers is the discretion of the team members, subject to a maximum of
10 minutes for one speaker.
5. Before the commencement of the each round, each team shall indicate to the ‘court officer’ as to how they
wish to allocate their time.
6. At the End of the Moot Court Presentation there will be Question Round where judges will be asking the
questions from the Team.

Evaluation Criteria
12 marks for Each To be Submitted and evaluated by
Memorial Submission(Individual Memorial) A1
Student coordinator
12 marks for each To be Submitted to coordinator
Group memorial Submission A2
Speaker and evaluated by Judges
Given during the Moot Court
Presentation (Oral Pleading) A3 6 marks
Presentation by Judges
Total 30 Marks
A1: Individual Memorial (12 Marks); A2: Group Memorial= (12 Marks) = (Judge 1+Judge 2)/2; A3: Presentation= (6 Marks) = (Judge 1+Judge
2)/2; Total: 30 Marks
Director
MOOT PROBLEM – 1
Karim worked as a system operator at a computer Centre in Jajhhar Dist., Haryana and lived in the town.
His village was at a distance of 12 kms. from his workplace which he ordinarily visited on Saturdays and
Sundays.

Sher Shah was a farmer who lived with his family consisting of his wife, Sobti, son Gajendar Shah and a
daughter Naina. Sher Shah’s brother, Suri Shah, also lived in the same household. He was used to drinking
and gambling and owed a debt of Rs. 20,000 to Karim. Whenever Karim demanded his money, Suri Shah
showed his helplessness but never denied to pay off his debt.

Karim was in love with Naina and used to meet Naina on the weekends when her father was not at home
on the pretext that he had come to collect the money. Sher Shah did not like it and told Karim many a

times not to visit his home in his absence. He also scolded his daughter for meeting Karim but Karim did
not stop visiting Naina.

During the day on Monday, 8th August 2020, Karim received a phone call from Suri Shah inviting him to
come that evening to collect his debt. Karim went to their house around 8.30 P.M. The members of Naina’s
family had finished their dinner and were preparing to go to sleep.

On hearing some whispering voices coming from the backyard of their house, Sher Shah with his brother
Suri Shah and son Gajendar Shah went there to investigate. They saw Karim talking with Naina.

Sher Shah lost his temper and started abusing Karim. Gajendar Shah brought a lathi from inside and gave a
blow to Karim on the leg. Then Suri Shah grabbed the lathi from Gajendar Shah and started beating Karim
mercilessly giving blows on his head and chest. On hearing the hue and cry, other villagers came to the
scene.

They found Suri Shah giving blows to Karim while the other two were shouting abuses on Karim. Karim
was bleeding from the head and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital by the villagers where
he died three days later without regaining consciousness.

The post-mortem report confirmed that Karim suffered injuries on the head and fractures of three ribs. There
were many concussions on different parts of his body. There was much loss of blood. While none of the
injuries independently was sufficient to cause death, the cumulative result was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. FIR was registered against Suri Shah, Gajendar Shah and Sher Shah under
Section 307 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Three days later when Karim died, it was changed to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The session court charged and
convicted all the three accused persons under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life
imprisonment for the murder of Karim. The accused persons pleaded grave and sudden provocation in their
defence. They also pleaded that the prosecution had failed to prove existence of common intention of all the
three accused to kill Karim. In the absence of proof of common intention, they cannot be convicted under
Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.

Frame Issues and Memorials on the basis of the facts given.

MOOT PROBLEM -2
In the case of:
Mrs. Madhu V. Mr. Vinayak and Others

Mr. Ronak Saini and Mrs. Sheela Saini were married in 2017 and were residents of Kolkata in the State of
West Bengal and they were working there in a US based Multi National company.

After 3 years of their happy marital life, Mrs. Sheela Saini became aware that she cannot give birth to a
healthy child. She came to know about this fact by reading medical reports kept secretly by her husband. As
per that report Mr. Ronak Saini suffered from some serious congenital medical problem that may pass on to
their child.

Then they had quite a big fight in this regard that he never told her about his health problem either prior to
her marriage or thereafter but kept the information secret. She remained in her in-laws house under their
care, as her husband went for employment training program to Pune for two months.

After some time Mr. Ronak Saini learnt that his wife, desirous of having a healthy child, developed an extra
marital relationship with her office colleague, Mr. Vinayak However, he did not object to the same.

Mr. Vinayak however, confessed to his wife that he had an illicit relationship with Mrs. Sheela Saini. Mrs.
Madhu, wife of Mr. Vinayak, furious about the matter, filed a complaint against her husband as ‘main
accused,’ Mrs. Sheela Saini as ‘second accused’ and Mr. Rahul Sen as ‘an abettor’ as he, through his silence
and acquiescence facilitated, rather, to put it bluntly, encouraged Mrs. Sheela Saini and Mr. Vinayak to
indulge in ‘adultery’ thereby ruining her marital life. She pleaded that she too shall be recognized as
‘aggrieved person’ as her matrimonial life was disturbed with these developments.

Meanwhile, an NGO filed a Public Interest Limitation in the Supreme Court with a plea that Section 497 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall be struck down as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Indian Constitution on
the ground that the relevant section of Indian Penal Code, 1860 gives ‘immunity only to adulteress but not
to men’ when both are equally guilty. As a matter of principle of ‘public policy’, gender neutrality shall be
observed in criminal law.

Mrs. Madhu also impleaded herself challenging the constitutional validity of sec. 497 in the Supreme Court
as it violates different Articles of Indian Constitution. She also submits that such ‘total immunity cannot be
given to Mrs. Sheela Saini, the adulteress.

She submits that S. 198 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also unconstitutional for it ‘discriminates
on the basis of sex’ which is prohibited under Article 15 (1) of Indian Constitution.

Mrs. Madhu also filed a petition in the Family Court for ‘divorce’ from her husband under The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
Mr. Ronak Saini also applied for divorce from his wife under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Mrs. Sheela
Saini objected that ‘it is strange that he, instead of she, filed for divorce when ‘in reality non-disclosure of
his serious health problem has brought forth this state of affairs’.

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused persons ‘declaring that Sec. 497
does not violate any of the provisions of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court, after hearing preliminary arguments, admitted and clubbed all the SLPs for final
disposal.

• The matter to be heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

• Students shall prepare memorials/arguments for both Petitioner and Respondent.
• Students may frame their own issues.