MOOT PROPOSITION ALLOTMENT

DECEMBER 2021

INSTRUCTIONS:-

1. The students are instructed to prepare the Memorial from one side only.
2. The roll numbers have been mentioned against every allotted moot prop.
3. The students have to prepare their sides in the order mentioned against their roll numbers
i.e., Petitioner- Respondent only.
4. This component of the Paper VI is of 50 Marks. The Moot Memorial and the Orals for
the Moot will be evaluated out of 25 Marks each.
5. The schedule for the Memorial Submission and Moot Orals shall be uploaded shortly.
6. The Memorial should be submitted by 27th November, 2021
7. The clarifications for the props can be submitted till 15th November, 2021
8. In case of any query, please contact the Project Coordinators.
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Ms. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur is a public-spirited individual with keen interest in welfare of women
facing domestic violence. She filed a Public Interest Litigation before Supreme Court to
challenge the vires of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, section 22 of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 and Rules 32 and 33 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The petitioner contends that the court-mandated restitution of conjugal rights amounted to a
"coercive act" on the part of the state which violates one's sexual and decisional autonomy, right
to privacy and dignity, all of which come within the purview of right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21.

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that when either the husband or the wife
has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may
apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being
satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why
the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
Special Marriage Act, 1954 also has a similar provision under s 22 of the Act. Rules 32 and 33 of
Order XXI of the CPC deals with the execution of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
She claims that the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights was not recognized by any of the
personal law systems of India. The same has its origins in feudal English Law, which at that time
considered a wife to be the chattel of the husband and that the United Kingdom itself has
abolished the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights in 1970. The Petitioner also seeks
reconsideration of the Supreme Court judgment in Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (AIR
1984 SC 1562) by which it had set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision quashing
section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said judgment, the court had made the
following observations:

• In India conjugal rights i.e. right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other spouse is
not merely creature of the statute. Such a right is inherent in the very institution of marriage
itself. There are sufficient safeguards in Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to prevent it from
being a tyranny.
• Section 9 is only a codification of pre-existing law. Rule 32 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil
Procedure deals with decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights or for an
injunction.

• Section 9 of the Act is not violative of Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution if the
purpose of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the said Act is understood in its proper
perspective and if the method of execution in cases of disobedience is kept in view.

• It is significant that unlike a decree of specific performance of contract; a decree for restitution
of conjugal rights, where the disobedience to such a decree is wilful i.e. is deliberate, might be
enforced by attachment of property. Where the disobedience follows as a result of a wilful
conduct i.e. where conditions are there for a wife or a husband to obey the decree for restitution
of conjugal rights but disobeys the same in spite of such conditions, then only the properties have
to be attached, is provided for. This is so to enable the Court in appropriate cases when the Court
has decreed restitution for conjugal rights to offer inducement for the husband or wife to live
together and to settle up the matter amicably. It serves a social purpose, as an aid to the
prevention of break-up of marriage.

The matter is pending before 5 judges Constitution bench of Supreme Court.

Roll No :-

14117 -15086

15213 – 16055

16193 – 16208

16219 – 17001

17004 – 17008
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Kamlesh was suffering from mental illness of the depressive type and was advised by the Doctor
on roll of the Ben Medical Hospital, Mohali to undergo electro-convulsive therapy. Prior to the
treatment Kamlesh signed a form of consent to the treatment but was not warned of the risk of
fracture involved. Even though the risk was very small and on the first occasion when the
treatment was given Kamlesh did not sustain any fracture but when the treatment was repeated
for the second time, he sustained fractures.
No relaxant drugs or manual control were used except that a male nurse stood on each side of the
treatment couch throughout the treatment. About this treatment there were two bodies of opinion,
one of which favored the use of relaxant drugs or manual control as a general practice, and the
other opinion was for the use of drug that was attended by mortality risks and confined the use of
relaxant drugs only to cases where there are particular reasons for their use and Kamlesh case
was not under that category. On these facts the expert opinion of Dr. Suresh, Consultant
Psychiatrist attached to the Hospital was taken.
After few minutes of the second session, Kamlesh, bled profusely from his mouth and died.
Mrs. Satwanti wife of Kamlesh have filed case against Doctors and Hospital for medical
negligence and claiming compensation for her husband’s death.
Argue the case

Roll No:-

17010 – 17011
17013 – 17014
17015 – 17016
17017 – 17018
17019 – 17020
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Dr. Anju, a Delhi surgeon, enters into an agreement with Pammi, a junior doctor. As per
agreement, Dr. Pammi to assist Dr. Anju for three years and during this period Dr. Pammi is to
be paid Rs.20, 000 per month. There is a provision in the agreement that after termination of the
services or after completion of the term of agreement, Dr. Pammi will not practice as a doctor in
Delhi before the expiry of three years. Dr. Pammi is dismissed by Dr. Anju from the service.
And seven months after her termination, she starts to practice in Delhi. Dr. Anju files suit to
restrict him to do so as the period of three years has not expired. Argue the case.

Roll No. :-
17022 – 17024
17025 – 17026
17027 – 17028
17029 – 17030
17033 – 17036
 MOOT PROBLEM
One Nirman Singh desired to purchase a Residential Apartment for self-occupation for
residential purposes at S.A.S Nagar, Mohali and came in contact with the Ghar Apna Promoters
Ltd (GAPL). GAPL was in the process of developing a Residential Colony Apna Ghar Heights
in Mohali and these Residential Apartments were put for sale through advertisement dated 01
November 2016. An agreement dated 1st December, 2016 was executed between GAPL and Mr.
Nirman. GAPL allotted a Residential Apartment No. X-1/1 in Apna Ghar Heights, Mohali
having covered area of 200 sq mtrs vide letter of allotment No. dated 01.01.2017 for a total
consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/-. The agreement provides a schedule of payment and inter-alia
states that in case of delay GAPL will charge an interest @15%. One of the clause of
Agreement, makes it compulsory for the allottees to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Car Parking
space. Both the Car Parking and the purchase price amount is paid by Mr. Nirman. The
possession of the Residential Apartment was to be delivered within 12 months from the date of
allotment of Residential Apartment i.e. 01.02.2017 in terms of the agreement. Time was the
essence of the contract, Mr. Nirman followed up with GAPL vigorously for delivery of the
possession but the same was not given. GAPL never got the project registered under RERA. The
possession of the Residential Apartment was given to Nirman symbolically on 31.05.2018 i.e.
after a delay by obtaining his signatures on the Possession letter. After taking over the possession
of the Apartment Nirman found that there were several defects in the apartment and the same
was not ready for occupation. As such GAPL did not deliver the keys and kept the same to
himself for carrying out rectification of the defects and even till date such rectification is
pending. On 2.07.2018, Nirman inspected the apartment and found that some of the defects were
still there. The keys of the apartment are still with the GAPL, as a result the Mr. Nirman has not
been able to occupy the Residential Apartment till date. Nirman files suit for possession, transfer
of ownership and compensation for faulty services.
Roll No. :-
17037 – 17038
17039 – 17040
17041 – 17043
17046 – 17048
17056 – 17057
 MOOT PROPOSITION

1. Mr. Swarn Kumar is an influential businessman from Delhi with a company of Rs. 30
crores dealing in ice cubes. He enjoys gambling, socializing, and is notorious for
womanizing. On a trip to Goa with his friends, Mr. Aditya Sahni, an esteemed lawyer
from Delhi, also accompanied him.

2. On 3/10/2016, Mr. Kumar was playing poker at the Casino Royale, an offshore casino in
Goa. After losing approximately Rs. 3 crores, he was desperate for more money as he
believed he would have a winning hand. He signed a contract with Mr. Akhil Singhal
(money lender of the casino) and the money lender lent him Rs. 5 crores. The contract
contained a clause that he would pay him double the loan amount (Rs. 10 crores) at the
table and in default, he would sign over his majority shares in his company as security. It
is to be noted that this was a pre-written form of agreement.

3. Subsequently, Mr. Kumar lost all the money at the table and was unable to return double
the loan amount and as a consequence lost his majority shares of the company at 2.a.m on
4/10/2016. Thereafter, in a desperate attempt he called Mr Aditya, who then contacted Mr
Singhal to take double the loan but not to take majority shares of the company. Mr
Singhal refused the offer. Mr Singhal had acquired a lot of properties and companies this
way.

4. Immediately after acquiring majority shares of the company by Mr. Singhal, he signed a
contract with a Delhi based company named A & M Pvt. Ltd. For selling majority shares
of the company.
 5. The video from the Casino shows that Mr Kumar had consumed eight alcohol beverages
(8 x 30 ml) prior to signing the contract.

6. Mr Sahni on behalf of Mr Kumar has filed a civil suit before Delhi Commercial Court at
Tis Hazari to prevent Mr Singhal from taking over the company.

Roll No. :-

17058 – 17059

17061 – 17062

17063 – 17065

17067 – 17069

17071 – 17072
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Mazdoor Union is an all-India workers’ Union having its subsidiary Union in almost every state
of India. The Mazdoor Union caters to the needs & demand of the workers and works towards
upliftment of workers throughout India. Its subsidiary Union ensures that the workers are not
harassed by the big industries. However, Rajshree Industries Limited located in Ambala a
multimillionaire enterprise has doubled its workers beyond the limits. The said enterprise is
known for paying salaries to its working after period of 2 months and not on monthly basis. It
does not care for the basic needs of its workers despite statutory recognition of these needs. The
workers of the enterprise are paid reduced wages on account of fines & penalties unknown to the
workers. They face arbitrary decisions; rules are frame for the benefit of enterprise only and so
on. The workers Union after huge negotiations were allowed to settle the aforesaid disputes with
the management. Each time the union and the management would sit across the table for
negotiations the management would leave the decisions and continue its arbitrary behaviour with
the workers. Similar problems have been witnessed by workers Union in state of India and this
was largely found out due to the issue of non-recognition of workers Union. When this issue
reached the Mazdoor Union, the said Union decided to file a public interest litigation before The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India praying therein that certain amendment be made to the trade
union act 1926 to provide for mandatory recognition of trade unions by the employer. They also
sought for the enforcement of Indian Trade Union Amendment Act 1947 which was brought to
introduce chapter III-A to the existing trade unions act 1926 to provide for obligatory recognition
of trade unions. However, the respondent Union of India has contested that the issues primarily
on the ground that it is the prerogative of the Parliament to enforce an act or amendment and the
court cannot issue writ for the same. Argue on behalf of petition and the respondent.
Roll No. :-

17076 – 17079
17080 – 17081
17083 – 17085
17087 – 17090
17095 – 17098
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Enlightened by the latest medical bulletins about the hazards of using asbestos sheets and
frightened by the plight of deformed workers in the asbestos industry an NGO named Public
Causes having its Head Quarters at Noida filed a Public Interest Litigation against functioning of
an asbestos industry situated in UP. Duly concerned with the plight of the workers in that
industry and also after understanding the ill effects endured by the consumer and users of
asbestos sheets, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment on 09-12-2011 having the
following ingredients:

a) The judgment will impose obligation to all the asbestos industries functioning within the
territory of India.
b) Every asbestos Industry must have a health clinic wherein the workers must be screened
c) The industrial undertaking must bear all the medical expenses of both working and retired
employees.
d) Before marketing the Asbestos Sheet, the manufacturer should obtain health clean
certificate from the accredited agency.
e) Labour Inspectors of the area where the industrial unit functions shall be responsible for
the implementation of the above said regulations and the District Collector shall
supervise the work of the Labour Inspectors.

Mamco Industries Ltd. are having a large asbestos Manufacturing Unit at Arakonam, Tamilnadu
and their products cater to the needs of all the southern states on India. It is an accepted fact that
Mamco asbestos Unit did not implement the regulations as stipulated in the judgment of the
Supreme Court, not the Labour Inspectors indicated Mamco for its failure to implement the
regulations nor the Collector of District where the manufacturing Unit functions supervise or
censure the Labour Inspectors. Public Causes filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court
of India against the District Collector, Supreme Court, besides acting on the contempt, passed an
order under Art. 142 of the Indian Constitution suspending the District Collector for 6 months.
Both Mamco Industries Ltd. and District Collector filed Separate Writ Petitions under Art. 226
of the Constitution of India in High Court of Madras; challenging the legislative judgment of the
Supreme Court of India and the second one, challenging the order of the Supreme Court under
Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, as the Second limb of Art. 142 was not complied with.
Both writ petitions were clubbed by the High Court and posted for hearing.

The following issues have been put for hearing before the High Court:
a) Whether a legislative judgment comes under Art. 141 of the Constitution?
b) Whether a legislative judgment comes under the phrase ‘Law’ under Art. 13 of the
Constitution?
c) Whether the Supreme Court usurps the legislative power conferred on the Legislature
when enacting legislative judgments?
d) Whether the legislative judgment of the Supreme Court becomes s a force of law without
getting the assent of the President?
e) What is the legality of the order of the Supreme Court passed under Art. 142, when both
the Parliament and the President did not pass any subsequent legal actions?

Roll No. :-

17099 – 17104
17105 – 17106
17110 – 17112
17113 – 17114
17117 – 17119
 MOOT PROPOSITION

The Sisters of St. Assisi of Alipore is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies
Registration Act, 1961, being founded on 26.3.1973. Clause 3(b) of the Memorandum of
Association of the petitioner-society states:

“To acquire, take over, rent, provide, establish, aid, maintain, administer and/or run colleges,
schools, institutions, hostels, houses, associations, libraries, reading rooms, or any other activity
with education for its purpose for all persons, primarily for Catholics but also for all other
persons, irrespective of religion, race, caste, community or social status.”

The society, in a letter dated 16.12.1997 addressed to the Inspector of Colleges, North Bengal
University, made it clear that it did not seek minority status or special concessions – it wished to
establish a college on secular lines.

On 10.1.1998, the Inspector of Colleges, North Bengal University, submitted his inspection
report, in which he mentioned that originally the society did desire to have minority status for the
proposed college. However, they subsequently changed their mind.

As a result, the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal,
by its letter dated 21.7.1998, approved the proposal for the establishment of the College, on the
footing that it would be a non-minority secular institution. On this basis, the first governing body
of the college was constituted in accordance with Statute 1 of the Statutes relating to the
Governing Bodies of Colleges of North Bengal University. On 13.9.2004, the University granted
permanent affiliation to the College from the academic year 2003-2004.

Following yet another change of heart, the society issued a letter to the Chairman, National
Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the NCMEI), dated
27.6.2007, seeking the issuance of a status certificate of a minority educational institution for the
College.

The NCMEI passed an ex-parte order declaring the said women’s college as a minority
educational institution on 23.10.2007. Pursuant to this order, on 25.10.2007, the NCMEI issued a
minority status certificate. On 5.9.2008, the Registrar, University of North Bengal, filed an
application for cancellation of the said certificate.
This was dismissed by the NCMEI on 5.11.2009. Registrar, University of North Bengal has
approached Calcutta High Court against Sisters of St. Assisi of Alipore assailing the order of
NCMEI on the grounds that:

a. that education in the said institution is secular education open to persons of all religions and
hence Sisters of St. Assisi of Alipore can’t be a minority educational institution.

b. that even if they were a minority institution at any point in the past the Sisters of St. Assisi of
Alipore have waived their right to be so recognized on account of their letter dated 16.12.1997.
Matter is pending before Single judge of Calcutta High Court.

Roll No. :-

17120 – 17123
17127 – 17130
17136 – 17137
17140 – 17142
17143 – 17145
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Rakesh was a young boy 18 years of age. He fell in love with Purnima who was a young girl of
16 years of age. On 01.4.2012 they eloped from their respective houses and finally got married
as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Purnima’s family members were against this marriage.
Purnima's father lodged FIR against Rakesh u/s 363 and 376 IPC Purnima stating

On 5.5.2012 a typed letter signed by Purnima was received at the concerned Police Station
stating that she had married with Rakesh with her own will.

Thereafter on 7.5.2012 Rakesh and Purnima were apprehended by the police and produced
before the Magistrate. Purnima refused to undergo any medical examination. She also did not
state anything against Rakesh Kumar in her statement before the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

Subsequently Purnima gave in writing that she had left her parental house by her own accord and
went along with Rakesh. The court sent Purnima to Nari Niketan for some time and then on
17.5.2012 Purnima's custody was handed over to her parents.

Thereafter Rakesh Kumar demanded custody of his wife Purnima by filing Writ petition in the
Hon'ble High Court.

Argued in favour of the petitioner

Argued in favour of the respondent

Some of the issues are listed below:

(i) Whether Rakesh is liable for kidnapping of Purnima from her legal guardian.
(ii) Whether marriage between Rakesh and Purnima voidable under Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.
 (iii) Whether Rakesh is liable u/s 376 IPC
(iv) Whether petitioner Rakesh is entitled for the custody of Purnima

Roll No. :-

17147 – 17149
17152 – 17154
17155 – 17157
17158 – 17161
17168 – 17169
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Paramveer, a class XII student belongs to a rich and high-class family. He was very friendly with
Deepika, a class X student in the same school. Paramveer and Deepika had jointly participated in
several school events, dramas, and youth camps. As Deepika liked Paramveer’s company, she
often insisted that he took her out to movies, malls, and restaurants during school hours.
Paramveer was very conscious that Deepika was a minor, and that is why he was very particular
in reaching her to her home after every date. One evening, Paramveer throw a birthday party to
which several of his friends, classmates including Deepika were invited. After the party that
lasted till the late hours of night, Deepika refused to return back to her home and stayed at
Paramveer’s house. This time Paramveer did not persuade Deepika to return home. She was 16
year and 10 month on the day she decided to stay on.

Parents of Deepika prosecuted Paramveer for “KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFULL

GUARDIANSHIP”.

Roll No. :-

17173 – 17176
17177 – 17181
17183 – 17184
17185 – 17186
17188 – 17190
 MOOT PROPOSITION

The Constitution of India, 1950 deals with questions and concerns regarding citizenship under
Chapter II. Pursuant to the mandate of Article 11, a comprehensive enactment the Citizenship
Act, 1955 was enacted by the Parliament providing the modes and methods for acquisition and
termination of the citizenship under Indian Law. Government of India enacted the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019 (copy attached) to provide for relaxed norms for citizenship to members
belonging to six specified religious minorities viz Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Jain and
Parsi minority communities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who have reached
Indian territory by 31st March 2014.
Consequent upon the protests by members of civil society the matter was referred by the
President for advisory opinion of the Supreme Court under Art 143 of the Constitution. It is
pending before the Supreme Court. Argue from both sides.

Roll No. :-

17191 – 17192
17195 – 17197
17198 – 17199

17200 – 17202
16220 – 17002
 1
—( ) — REGISTERED NO. DL—(N)04/0007/2003—19

EXTRAORDINARY
PART II — Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 71] NEW DELHI, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1941 (SAKA)

Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation.

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Legislative Department)
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2019/Agrahayana 21, 1941 (Saka)

The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the
12th December, 2019, and is hereby published for general information:—

THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019

NO. 47 OF 2019
[12th December, 2019.] An
Act further to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Seventieth Year of the Republic of India as follows:— 1. (1)
This Act may be called the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. Short title and
commencement.
(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—

 of 57 of 1955.
Amendment 2. In the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2,
section 2.
in sub-section (1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—
"Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or
Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into
India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by
the
34 of 1920.
Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the
31 of 1946.
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of
the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated
as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act;".
Insertion of 3. After section 6A of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, new section 6B.
namely:—
Special '6B. (1) The Central Government or an authority specified by it in this behalf
provisions as to may, subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed, on
citizenship of
person covered an application made in this behalf, grant a certificate of registration or certificate of
by proviso to naturalisation to a person referred to in the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1)
clause (b) of of section 2.
sub-section (1)
of section 2. (2) Subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in section 5 or
thequalifications for naturalisation under the provisions of the Third Schedule, a
person granted the certificate of registration or certificate of naturalisation under
sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a citizen of India from the date of his entry
into India.
(3) On and from the date of commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019, any proceeding pending against a person under this
section in respect of illegal migration or citizenship shall stand abated on
conferment of citizenship to him:
Provided that such person shall not be disqualified for making application for
citizenship under this section on the ground that the proceeding is pending against
him and the Central Government or authority specified by it in this behalf shall not
reject his application on that ground if he is otherwise found qualified for grant of
citizenship under this section:
Provided further that the person who makes the application for citizenship
under this section shall not be deprived of his rights and privileges to which he was
entitled on the date of receipt of his application on the ground of making such
application.
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to tribal area of Assam,
Meghalaya,Mizoram or Tripura as included in the Sixth Schedule to the Reg. 5 of 1873.
Constitution and the area covered under "The Inner Line" notified under the Bengal
Amendment
of section 7D. Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.'.
4. In section 7D of the principal Act,—
(i) after clause (d), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:—
"(da) the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder has violated any of the
provisions of this Act or provisions of any other law for time being in force
as may be specified by the Central Government in the notification published
in the Official Gazette; or";
(ii) after clause (f), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—
"Provided that no order under this section shall be passed unless the
Amendment Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder has been given a reasonable
of section 18. opportunity of being heard.".
5. In section 18 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2), after clause (ee), the
following clause shall be inserted, namely:—
"(eei) the conditions, restrictions and manner for granting certificate of
registration or certificate of naturalisation under sub-section (1) of section 6B;".
SEC. 1] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY 3
 6. In the Third Schedule to the principal Act, in clause (d), the following proviso shallAmendment
of Third
be inserted, namely:— Schedule.
'Provided that for the person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or
Christian community in Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, the aggregate period
of residence or service of Government in India as required under this clause shall be
read as "not less than five years" in place of "not less than eleven years".'.

————
DR. G. NARAYANA RAJU,
Secretary to the Govt. of India.

UPLOADED BY THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI–110002
AND PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI–110054.

MGIPMRND—4385GI(S3)—12-12-2019.
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Mr. Raj, a Driver is speeding. A squirrel runs in front of driver’s car so driver A swerves, and
because of the high rate of speed of which he is traveling, loses control of his vehicle and hits a
mailbox. The mailbox flies so violently up in the air from the impact that it hits an overhead
powerline. The force of the mailbox hitting the powerline forces the powerline to break off the
utility pole onto the sidewalk where it is still electrified. A pedestrian approaching the scene steps
on the powerline and is injured by the live powerline.
Argue the case taking the following principles into consideration:

(i) Actual cause and proximate cause. Actual cause is sometimes referred to as cause in fact. It
means that “but for” the negligent act or omission of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have
been harmed. This is known as the “but for” test.

(ii) On the other hand, the “eggshell theory” is the legal doctrine regarding causation that a
tortfeasor takes their victim as they find them. So, if a plaintiff is more severely harmed than a
normal person because of a preexisting condition, the defendant will still be held as the cause of
the harm.

(iii) student may take any other principle or the law to decide the liability.

Roll No. :-

17012 – 17044
17052 – 17054
17060 – 17064
17073 – 17074
17077 – 17078
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Mr. Sabyata, appointed a robort in his restaurant to serve the food and beverages. The Robort was
purchased from a renowned company dealing in the artificial intelligence roborts. The condition
was to get the monthy check up and service by the company on the 1st day of every month.

On 1st september, 2020 the company wanted to give the service facility but the owner denied due to
the lockdown. On 1st october, 2020 the lockdown opened and the restaurant was opened with a
covid protocols. The company called for the service but the restaurant owner was reluctant as no
customer was coming.

On 15th October, the owner Mr. Sabyata called the Company named ‘AI specialist’ for the service
but they said we can viit on 1st of November as all the slots are booked.
They also advised not to make use if the services are not done.
Mr. Sabyata sent the Robort for service to the service agency of AI Specialist and the service was
done on 25th October and sent to the retaurant.

On 30th October, the robort was delivering the order and threw the food on a customer and due to
some technical issues starting hitting the public including the owner.

The customer claimed for compensation from Mr. Sabyata. But he said the liability should be paid
by AI agencies?

Argue the case from the side of Mr. Sabyata and Defend it from the side of the AI Specialists?

Roll No. :-

17082 – 17088
17089 – 17096
17097 – 17100
17101 – 17115
17116 – 17118
 MOOT PROPOSITION
Kirori Lal & Sons Limited (hereinafter known as “Company”), a Private Limited Company,
established by Mr. Rajneesh Kirorilal in 1956 is engaged in the business of ironworks, steelworks,
cotton mills and hydroelectric power plants. Mr. Rajneesh Kirorilal also established a Trust in the
name of “Kirori Lal & Sons” for carrying on philanthropist activities like maintaining and
supporting schools and hospitals etc.
The “Kirori Lal & Sons” (hereinafter known as the “Trust”) holds 27% shareholding in the
Company. The Trust with other Kirorilal Family trusts collectively holds 40% shareholding in the
company. Mr. Piyush Kirorilal (Successor of Mr. Rajneesh Kirorilal) was appointed as Chairman of
the group companies for a period of 24 years from 1993-2017 and thereafter retired from the official
position.
Thereafter, the Company through its selection committee appointed Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, who was
also a member of Board of Directors of the Company to hold the position of Executive Chairman of
the Company for four consecutive years (2017-2021) and assured him a free hand in discharge of
his duties. In 2018, Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, through a Board meeting in the “Other items” and
without giving any prior notice, was removed from the Directorship of the company on the ground
that “the Board of Directors have lost Confidence in his leadership” and Mr. Piyush Kirorilal was
appointed as Interim Chairperson of the company.
It was alleged that Mr. Kamlesh Sharma has leaked the confidential information of the Company
and its group Companies to outside third parties and also to media and he openly came out against
the Directors of the Company and that of its Group Companies and the Trusts, which does not
augur well for smooth functioning of the company.
A group of shareholders, represented by Mr. Kamlesh Sharma ( referred to as “the Petitioners”)
who hold 18% equity in the shareholding of the company challenged the removal of Mr. Kamlesh
Sharma from the position of Chairman of the company alleging that affairs of the Company are
being conducted in an oppressive manner prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioners and public and
filed a petition under section 241 and 242 of Companies Act, 2013 against other Directors of the
Company and Trustees of the Trusts (referred to as “the Respondents”).
Roll No. :-

17125 – 17128

17129 – 17138

17148 – 17156

17160 – 17163

17164 – 17165
 MOOT PROPOSITION

A Company “TCL” in the name of TCL Clothing Private Limited operates in ladies’ wear. It earned
huge profits over the years and eventually decided to expand its business by introducing varieties of
kids wear. In order to achieve the above objective, they approached the “LNC” Private Limited, a
large manufacturer of kids wear garments. “TCL” entered into a contract for the purchase of kids
wear garments from LNC Pvt Ltd. The contract price was Rs. 6,00,000 and both the parties agreed
upon a payment schedule. TCL Pvt. Ltd agreed to pay Rs. 4,00,000 partially upon the delivery of
kids wear clothes on 1st January, 2020 and a full and final payment of Rs. 2,00,000 on 1st March
2020.
LNC Pvt. Ltd delivered the garments to TCL Pvt. Ltd on the agreed date i.e., 1st January, 2020 as
per the contract. However, shortly after taking the delivery of the clothes, TCL Pvt. Ltd lost a
profitable contract with its large booking agents which resulted in a significant down in the demand
for their kids wear garments. LNC Pvt. Ltd, was also suffering from financial difficulties due to a
number of legal actions brought against it.
It was realised by LNC Pvt. Ltd that TCL Pvt. Ltd would be unable to pay the remaining amount of
Rs.2,00,000 on 1st March 2020, LNC Pvt. Ltd agreed to accept Rs. 50,000 in full satisfaction of the
debt. TCL Pvt. Ltd duly paid such amount on 1st March, 2020.
On 3rd March 2020, LNC Pvt. Ltd delivered the rest of the clothes to TCL Pvt. Ltd. On delivery it
was found that the clothes were of poor quality. On 4th March, 2020, a notice was sent to the to
LNC Pvt. Ltd., to exchange the clothes. The notice was acknowledged and accepted by LNC Pvt.
Ltd. However, no exchange took place. On 20th March, 2020 second notice was sent which was
neither acknowledged nor replied.
Hence, TCL Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against LNC Pvt. Ltd and claimed Rs. 1,50,000 for breach of
contract. LNC Pvt. Ltd contended that it was not bound to pay the amount claimed in the suit
because the clothes were of good quality.

Roll No. :-

17166 – 17170
17171 – 17172
17196 – 15164
17003 – 17005
17006 – 17007
 MOOT PROPOSITION
The nations of Bollywood and Lollywood have been embroiled in a state of conflict for more than
seventy-five years since their independence from the colonial rule of Hollywood. The state of
Crushmir is a part of the nation of Bollywood, but some parts of Crushmir are claimed by
Lollywood as their own and are occupied by it militarily. The conflict between Bollywood and
Lollywood has fueled an anti-Bollywood militancy in Crushmir, which is a friction point for the
state of Bollywood. At the same time, Crushmir is generally rooted in traditions of syncretism and
the students from the state of Crushmir regularly complete their schooling and education from
various parts of Bollywood. Inquilab Alam, a resident from the State of Crushmir, is one such Ph.D.
candidate pursuing his doctorate in Persian Literature from the University of Delhi Belly which is
located in the city of Delhi Belly in Bollywood. Inquilab is a cricket fan and as a general
observation, Inquilab always appreciates the team which plays cricket well.
On the evening of 23rd October, Inquilab went to Underdoggs, a sports bar in Delhi Belly, to watch
a cricket match between the teams from Bollywood and Lollywood with his friends from Crushmir.
As Bollywood was losing the match, Inquilab started appreciating the Lollywood bowler who
decimated the Bollywood team’s batting lineup in loud and unequivocal terms. He was confronted
about his support of Lollywood by a group of disgruntled Bollywood nationalists who also
happened to be at the bar. Inquilab remained unfazed and defended his stand that the Lollywood
team has played well. Meanwhile, Inquilab was joined by his friends and one of them raised the
slogans of ‘Lollywood zindabad’ and ‘Crushmir zindabad.’ Violence broke out immediately after
the same and the Bollywood nationalists got into a fistfight with Inquilab and his friends. Bouncers
were called in to stop the fight and subsequently the police were also informed. The police invoked
sections 124A, 153A, 325, and 326 of the Bollywood Penal Code against Inquilab and filed a report
under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after investigation. The matter is at the
stage of framing of charges before the Court of Session.
Argue the case on behalf of the prosecution as well as Inquilab. Please note that the laws of the
nation of Bollywood are in pari materia with the laws of India.

Roll No. :-

17009 – 17023
17031 – 17032
17034 – 17035
17047 – 17050
17051 – 17055
 MOOT PROPOSITION

State of Luciana is a constitutional republic consisting of 21 states, each with a substantial degree of
control over its own affairs. The constitution of Luciana and all laws are same as of India. The state
of Luciana has the same approach towards its international obligation as that of India. Luciana
remains one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. Luciana has a mix culture of a
varied castes and linguistic groups whether major or minor. It has a blend of cultures and population
from different religions Including Hinduism, Islamic, Sikhism and Christianity. They are the
significantly residing population in Luciana.

The state of Luciana carries all the attributes of becoming an international Personality as a state but
is not recognized by several other countries as a state under the obligations of International Law.
The constitution of Luciana has several provisions regarding the protection of women and children
and the government of Luciana has enacted several laws on the same lines to give a better
protection to the children and women of the state. Focusing the increase in crime done by youths
and the better protection of youths, the state of Luciana has enacted the most logical legislation with
the purpose of dealing the children in need of care and the children in conflict with the law. Rawals,
Mash, and Peter are three children who have been grown up in adverse situations as Rawals and
Mash were the abandoned children and were not known to their parentage while Peter was an
orphan and was living his life by roaming on the streets and fighting for food each day with the
passage of his life. He had been kept in several orphanages at several occasions till he attained the
age of 11 years. With the passage of time all the three boys met each other and developed a deep
friendship. They started living together without any guardianship and started taking independent
decisions. They developed a sense of brotherhood amongst themselves and became the partners in
their usual day-to-day activities. They started consuming alcohol, taking drugs together. They were
collective responsible for many petty offences for the sake of their livelihood and enjoyment and
gradually formed a notorious gang named “Devils Treat”. They were caught by the police at several
occasions but were made free on the grounds of their age.

In 2014, the Devils treat raised its arm and included another guy named Keash of 13 years age.
Keash belonged to an affluent family and used to fulfil all the monetary demands of the Devils
Treat. Keash then was fully involved in the gang and used to share his contribution in every
offences committed by “Devils Treat”. Keash used to be always on his toes on the demands of the
other colleagues of Devils Treat, however after
sometime he started realizing his involvement in the gang as a wrong step taken by him. Gradually
Keash started maintaining distance from the gang and hardly involved in any further activities. With
the reason of ignorance of Keash to the gang activities, the other gang members were not happy and
talked to him amicably several times regarding his ignorance of the gang and persuaded him to
involve actively. Keash ultimately finished every connection with the gang. The other members of
Devils Treat now decided to make Keash learn a lesson for his non-involvement and called him for
a cordial chat on a tea stall on July 5, 2021. Keash came to meet the gang members on a Local tea
stall and then never retuned. At that time Rawals was 16 years 8 days, Mash was 16 years 4 months
and Peter was of 17 years 2 months.

After an extensive search for Keash for two days, when the whereabouts of Keash were not
discovered, his Parents came to Jambia Police station on the next day on 08th July 2021 for
registering an FIR for his disappearance. Jambia is a City of Luciana which is infamous for its
prevailing anti social actions like honour killing, force lifting of young girls and boys for marriage,
etc. Keash used to live with his parents in Jambia. After two days, Jambia Police started a manhunt
for the search of Keash and found a dead body with a disfigured face from the bank of river, which
was later recognized as the body of Keash by the forensic reports of his blood and tissue, which was
found near his dead body.

The Autopsy also showed the signs of struggle, footmarks, and brain haemorrhage. The media made
a hue and cry over this murder which put a lot of pressure on the administration to put the culprits
behind bar, but no evidence was recovered neither any suspects were found.

On 11 August 2021 Peter was arrested on the charge of theft. On a (police) search of the house of
Peter, a diary (written by Keash) was recovered. On strict questioning with Peter, the police came to
know that the Devils Treat was last to meet Keash before his disappearance and they went together
with Keash to the Bank of river. After that, all the three members of Devils Treat were arrested for
murder while following all the procedures of criminal law of the state of Luciana.

The State of Luciana enacted Juvenile Justice (care and Protection for Children) Act 2015, passed
by Parliament of Luciana amidst intense controversy, debate and protest on many of its provisions
by Child Rights Activist-fraternity. The Act was on the same lines of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2015 of India. According to which (section 15):

“In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is
above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his
mental and

physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and
the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in
accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced
psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts.

Explanation—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a
trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the
alleged offence. (2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should
be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in
summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section
(2) of section 101: Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within
the period specified in section 14.”

The boys denied any involvement in, and knowledge of Keash’s murder, but the board with the help
of expert psychologists came to a conclusion that the boys were well versed with the murder of
Keash and can be tried as adults. Consequently, the case was committed to the Sessions’ court of
Jambia as there was no other special court. With the help of available evidence, the sessions court
found the boys guilty of murder and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment.

Immediately, public interest litigation was filed in the High Court of Jambia under Article 226 and
227 of The Constitution of Luciana by Luciana Group for Child Rights (LGCR), an organization
working for protection of child rights in the state of Jambia, alleging that sec. 15 of the Juvenile
Justice (care and protection of children) Act 2012 is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 15
of the Constitution of Luciana and the Act itself violated Article 20 (1) of the constitution. LGCR
also condemned that the definition of the act itself says that anyone who is below the age of 18 is a
child and on the other hand treating these children between 16 to 18 years age under trial as adults,
is baseless. LGRC also alleged that the decision of board for treating these three children as adults
is due to the governmental pressure and public rage.
Now the High Court of Jambia will hear the matter. The precedents of the High courts of India and
the Supreme Court of India will have persuasive value. All the Acts (legislations) of state of
Luciana are similar to Indian laws.

Roll No. :-

17068 – 17070

17084 – 17086

17093 – 17102

17108 – 17109

17121 – 17122
 MOOT PROPOSITION

Right to Information Act was passed in the year 2005 with the objective of ensuring transparency in
the government’s functioning. The Act sets out a practical regime for RTI for securing the citizens
access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority and the constitution of a Central Information
Commission and State Information Commissions. No legislation apart from this has been able to
establish a system of good governance in the Country.

Under the RTI Act, 2005, Public Authorities are required to make disclosures on various aspects of
their structure and functioning. This includes: (i) disclosure on their organisation, functions, and
structure, (ii) powers and duties of its officers and employees, and (iii) financial information. The
intent of such suo moto disclosures is that the public should need minimum recourse through the
Act to obtain such information. If such information is not made available, citizens have the right to
request for it from the Authorities. This may include information in the form of documents, files, or
electronic records under the control of the Public Authority.

In 2020, the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM
CARES Fund), was created following the COVID-19 pandemic in India. The PM CARES Fund is a
public charitable trust. It has been set up keeping in mind the need for having a dedicated fund with
the primary objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like posed by the
COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected. The Prime Minister is Chairperson (ex-
officio) of the PM CARES Fund and Minister of Defence, Minister of Home Affairs and Minister
of Finance, Government of India are ex-officio Trustees of the Fund. The Prime Ministers as the
Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of PM CARES Fund has the power to nominate three trustees
to the Board who shall be eminent persons in the field of research, health, science, social work, law,
public administration and philanthropy. All the Trustees of the PM CARES Fund act in a pro bono
capacity.

An RTI application was filed demanding information about the donations received in the fund, to
provide the fund’s trust deed and the government orders and circulars relating to its creation. When
no information was received within 30 days, an appeal was filed. Finally, a response from the
PMO’s information officer came that stated that: “PM CARES Fund is not a Public Authority under
the ambit of Secon 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, relevant information in respect of PM
CARES Fund may be seen on the Website pmcares.gov.in.
It was further stated that PM CARES Fund comprises voluntary donations made by individuals and
institutions and is not a part of business or function of the central government in any manner. PM
CARES Fund is not a part of any government scheme or business of the central government.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court to seek a direction declaring the fund to be
'public authority' within the meaning of provisions of RTI Act and claimed that since the PM
CARES Fund's Trustees are high government functionaries, it is essential that checks and balances
envisioned in Part III of the Constitution are put in the place on the functioning of the fund and it
must be made subject to the provisions of RTI Act.

Argue from both the sides.

Roll No. :-

17126 – 17132
17133 – 17135
17153 – 17159
17175 – 17182
17187 – 17189
17201 – 17203