{CASE NO.

1} RADHA VS KRISHNA (4)

Radha awards a contract to Krishna for daily supply of milk to her school. The Purchase order clearly
reads that all the stipulations in this contract are extremely important and deviations will not be
condoned. The Purchase order seeks the delivery of Milk with 3.5% Fat, 4% SNF, Nandhini Brand
manufactured by KMF, 20 Litres in half litre pouches, Delivery to be done before 8.00 AM every day
except Sundays. The Price agreed is Rs.30 per Litre. The Purchase order further states that in the
unlikely event of any condonation on the terms will attract a penalty of Rs.5 per litre. The period of
the Contract is from 1.1.2020 to 31.3.2020. Krishna accepts the purchase order and commences the
supply.

On 1st March 2020 Radha is very upset about the past performance of Krishna and cancels all further
supplies from him. In the termination notice, Radha points to various occasions when Krishna did not
adhere to the Purchase Order and yet she accepted the milk. There were times when she did not
levy the penalty and paid him in full per litre although he had not performed according to the
contract. She sighted instances and dates where Krishna bought Amul brand of Milk and she
accepted the same. There were times when he bought Tetra Pack milk which costs Rs.70 per litre
and she accepted the same but did not pay him more than the contracted price of Rs.30. In some
other instances he bought the milk on Sunday and did not make delivery on Monday.

Krishna on the other hand contests the termination and states that the date and time when this
breach happened she should have cancelled further orders. By taking the milk Radha has condoned
the deviation and as such can claim only damages. The behaviour of Radha has led Krishna to believe
that these deviations are not the essence of the contract and as such as long as he has been giving
milk there should not be any problem. The supply should continue till 31 st March

Please adjudicate this dispute. Please provide a logical reasoning for your decision.

{CASE NO. 2} LAKSHMANA VS RAVANA (4)

Mr. Rama, the house owner entered into a rental agreement with Mr. Lakshmana for Rs.10,
000 per month, with a stipulation that Mr.Lakshmana cannot sub-let the house to anyone
else. Disregarding this stipulation Mr.Lakshmana sub-let the house to Mr.Ravana for Rs.15,
000 per month. Mr.Ravana defaulted to pay the rent to Mr.Lakshmana as a sub-tenant and
Lakshmana filed a suit against Mr.Ravana for recovery of dues. Mr.Ravana, coming to know
of the contract that Mr.Lakshmana had with Mr.Rama, contends that he need not pay the
rent as Mr.Lakshmana had no right to sub-let the house and the contract of sub-tenancy is
ultra Vires the original contract of lease of the said house and unlawful and therefore the
sub tenancy agreement with him is not enforceable .

1. Kindly adjudicate the dispute?

2. Please explain whether one clause in a contract being ultra vires makes the entire
contract not enforceable?
3. Please provide logical reasoning to your decisions.
 {CASE NO.3} IIM STUDENTS TRUST VS GOVINDA PVT LTD (4)
Govinda Pvt. Ltd, signs a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to donate Rs.50, 000 by
way of sponsoring a music Programme to the IIM Student’s Trust in the IIM annual fest
coming up in the month of February. On the basis of this MOU, the IIM Student’s Trust paid
an advance of Rs.50, 000 to Abracadabra Musicians, out of their own funds. On the day of
the function Govinda Pvt. Ltd, refuses to pay the promised sum. IIM Student’s Trust files a
suit against Govinda Pvt. Ltd, for reimbursement of the amount.
Please adjudicate the dispute. (Please make some valid and rational assumptions to your
reasoning)
{CASE N0.4} DRESS ALL (DA) VS MY FASHION (MF) (5)
Dress All Pvt Ltd based (DA) in Bangalore dispatches the 100 Shirts, 100 Pants, 100 Skirts,
100 Tops to My Fashion LLP (MF) in Mumbai for the Dusshera festival. The contract is “Sale
or Return 10 Days”. As an adjudicator you are requested to state the legal position on the
contention of the parties for the following events that happened:
4.10.21 – DA dispatched the goods in 4 different boxes. In transit, due to heavy rains, 30
shirts arrive in completely wet condition. DA contends that the risk has been transferred to
MF on the date of dispatch. Who is carrying the risk of the goods?
8.10.21 – MF calls DA and informs them that the skirts are of excellent quality and they will
buy them. Immediately an hour after this confirmation, there is a fire due to no fault of MF,
and 50 skirts are burnt beyond recognition. MF contends that ownership has not passed to
them as 10 days are not over. Who is the owner of the skirts?
10.10.21 – MF dispatches 50 Tops to another retailer Bombay Dresses (BD) on “Sale or
Return 5 Days” and immediately BD moves 25 to their sister concern Ladies Tops (LT). While
in the custody of LT, the tops get stolen. Who is the owner DA / MF / BD / LT?
20.10.21 – After the festival sale and heavy rush in the shop of MF on 14 th, 15, 16th & 17th ,
MF decides to return the unsold items to DA as per terms of contract. DA refuses to accept
the goods and ask MF for full payment. Who is the owner of the goods?
{CASE NO.5} MOTTAI VS HIPPI (4)
Mr.Mottai, a hair dresser, in Thirupathi agreed to tonsure (remove the hair fully) the head of
Mr.Hippi for Rs.100. Mr.Mottai removed only the hair on the forehead portion and
Mr.Hippi had to go to another hair dresser to remove the balance hair and paid Rs.75 for
the same. Mr.Mottai claims Rs.50 for having removed half the hair on the head. Mr.Hippi
refuses to pay and raises a counter claim that Mr.Mottai has to compensate him Rs.75 paid
to the 2nd hair dresser. Mr.Mottai substantiates his claim on the argument that he has to be
paid on the quantum of work done in terms of the Contract (Quantum Meruit).
Please explain who is correct and why?
Or
Can both be wrong? If so, how?
 {CASE NO.6} PRUDENT VS PROMPT SETTLEMENT INSURANCE COMPANY (4)
Mr. PRUDENT of Mumbai got an order for supply of Electric Motors from “ALL ELECTRIC” of
Muscat, Oman. The price agreed to was U$ 1,000,000 FOB Mumbai, Incoterms, payment in
full on DP basis through STATE BANK OF INDIA.
Mr. PRUDENT, shipped the goods from Mumbai by SS HURRICANE, the ship nominated by
“ALL ELECTRIC” and obtained a Bill of Lading on “FREIGHT TO PAY” basis. Immediately
thereafter Mr. PRUDENT took out a marine insurance policy “Mumbai port to “ALL
ELECTRIC” Warehouse at Muscat” after showing the contract documents and paying the
insurance premium to M/S PROMPT SETTLEMENT INSURANCE COMPANY, the insurers.
Thereafter Mr. PRUDENT handed over the Bill of Lading, his invoice for U$ 1,000,000 and the
insurance policy to STATE BANK OF INDIA, Mumbai with instructions to hand over these
documents to “ALL ELECTRIC” on their payment of US 1,000,000. SBI accordingly dispatched
the documents to their branch at Muscat.
Meanwhile the ship SS HURRICAN sank in the Arabian Sea. “ALL ELECTRIC”, having become
aware of this, refused to retire the documents when presented to them by SBI, Muscat. SBI
Muscat returned the documents to SBI Mumbai, who in turn gave them back to Mr.
PRUDENT.
Immediately Mr. PRUDENT lodged a claim with PROMPT SETTLEMENT INSUARNCE
COMPANY for the amount insured. The insurance company has rejected the claim on the
following grounds:
1. The Contract was FOB, Mumbai, and Incoterms.
2. Accordingly “ALL ELECTRIC” is the owner of the goods and hence Mr. PRUDENT has
no “insurable Interest” in the goods.
3. All Electric carries the risk and therefore they should claim insurance

When Mr. PRUDENT contended that he had revealed to the insurer that the contract was
FOB and produced the copy of the BILL OF LADING at the time of paying the premium and if
what the insurer says is correct, then how they issued the policy to him? Insurance company
replies that Insurance is a contract of “Uberrima fide” that at the time of insuring there is a
presumption of insurable interest of the party.
Mr. PRUDENT has now approached you to help him with advice on how to resolve this case?