Isbr Intra-Moot Court Competition 2 Edition: Writ Jurisdiction

ISBR INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2nd Edition TEAM-E (R)
ISBR INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2nd EDITION
ISBR, 2021
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF
WRIT JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 315 of 2021
PARVAAH IOC INDUSTRIES
V.
PETITIONER NO.1 RESPONDENT NO.1
&
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appeal (Civil) No. 2304 of 2021
ROT MANUFACTURERS IOC INDUSTRIES
V.
APPELLANT RESPONDENT NO.2
PETITIONS U/ARTs. 136 & 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA,1950
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
1
ISBR INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2nd Edition
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATION ...................................................................................................... 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... 7
I. Case Laws ....................................................................................................................... 7
II. Legislations ............................................................................................................... 10
III. Journals & Books ...................................................................................................... 11
IV. Websites .................................................................................................................... 12
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................ 13
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 13
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 16
ISSUE 1 ............................................................................................................................... 16
ISSUE 2 ............................................................................................................................... 16
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 17
1. WHETHER IOC INDUSTRIES IS LIABLE FOR INJUNCTION & TO PAY

COMPENSATION TO BHORA VILLAGE RESIDENTS? .............................................. 17
3. WHETHER ROT LIABLE FOR PAYING COMPENSATION FOR FAILING TO

COMPLETE THEIR CONTRACT WITH IOC? ................................................................ 17
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 19

COMPENSATION TO BHORA VILLAGE RESIDENTS? .............................................. 19
1.1. IOC has obtained environmental clearance and other necessary permissions ...... 19
1.2. Is burdening IOC Industries with compensation and injection in the hour of
COVID-19 valid? ............................................................................................................. 20

COMPLETE THEIR CONTRACT WITH IOC? ................................................................ 24
2
2.1. Every Breach of contract cannot be justified merely on the basis of invocation of
COVID-19 as a Force Majeure condition. ....................................................................... 24
2.2. The contract didn’t have a force majeure clause ................................................... 26
2.3. Commercial Non-Performance doesn’t support frustration or invoke Force Majeure

27
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 29
3
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
& And
ACJ Accident Claims Journal
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Chap. Chapter
DLT Delhi Law Times
Edn. Edition
i.e. That is
Ltd. Limited
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
No. Number
Ors. Others
4
Pg. Page
S. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SLP Special Leave Petition
WP Writ Petition
AJ Appellate Jurisdiction
WHO World Health Organization
V. Versus
US United States
UK Ukhrakhand
Vaj. Vajasthan
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
Env. Environment
c. Canon
5
cc. Canons
CL Common Law
Cert. Certiorari
CJS Corpus Juris Secundum
ER Employer
EE Employee
SARS-CoV2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Coronavirus-2
COV. Covid
JD Juris Doctor
JUST. Justice
Resp’t Respondent
Resp. Responsum
Rescr Rescriptum
6
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. Case Laws
S.NO CASE TITLE CITATION
1 High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirish High Court of Judicature at

Kumar Rangroa Patil Bombay v. Shirish Kumar
Rangroa Patil, (1997) 6 SCC
339.
2 High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirish Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,

Kumar Rangroa Patil (1997) 6 SCC 241
3 S. P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
4 State of Bombay v. United Motors Ltd AIR 1953 SC 252
5 Coffee Board v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1971 SC 870
6 Satish Kumar vs Union Of India Ors Satish-Kumar-Vs-Union-of-

India-Ors M.A.T No.425 of
2015
7 Bandhua Mukthi Morcha etc vs Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802.

and others
7
8 Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co 1954 SCR 310
9 Rural Fairprice Wholesale Ltd. v. IDBI Rural Fairprice Wholesale

Ltd. v. IDBI, 2020 SCC
OnLine Bom 518
10 Anant Raj Ltd v. Yes Bank Anant Raj Limited v. Yes

Bank Limited, 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 543
11 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. Vendanta 2020 SCCOnLine Del 542

Inc.
12 Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India Narmada Bachao Andolan v.

Union of India, 10 S.C.C. 664,
18 October 2000
13 Kendra Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Kendra Dehradun vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987 SC
2187
14 Samit Mehta vs. Union of India Samit Mehta vs. Union of

India National Green Tribunal
Aug 23, 2016
8
15 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs Vedanta O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No.

Limited & Anr 88/2020 & I.As. 3696-
3697/2020
16 Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity (2017) 14 SCC 80

Regulatory Commission
17 Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. AIR 1954 SC 44
18 Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 588
19 Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Hyaliram Jaganath AIR 1968 SC 522
20 M.C. Mehta vs Union of India M.C. Mehta And Anr vs

Union Of India & Ors on 20
December, 1986
9
II. Legislations
S.NO. Title of Legislation
1. Article 136, The Constitution of India
4. Section 51A(g) of Part IV of The Constitution of India
5. The Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974
6 CPCB, Environment Protection Act, 1986
7 Section 37, Indian Contract Act, 1872
8 Section 32, Indian Contract Act, 1872
9 Section 56, Indian Contract Act
10 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
11 Force Majeure Clause Office Memorandum No.F. 18/4/2020-PPD
12 Noti. No. 283A8/2020-GRID SOLAR
13 Months’ Rental Waiver to the IT Companies Operating from (STPI) dt. 16-4-2020
10
III. Journals & Books
S.NO. Title of Journal/Book
1 Durga Das (1993). Introduction to the Constitution of India (15th ed.)
2 Dr. S. K. Kapoor, International Law and Human Rights (18th Edn.)
3 E. M. Rao, Industrial Jurisprudence, LexisNexis
4 Dr. S. R. Myneni, Law of intellectual Property, (7th Edn.)
5 M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (6th Edn, 2010
6 P. J. Fitzgerald, Salmond on Jurisprudence (12th Edn.)
7 V. G. Ramachandran, Law of Writs
8 Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (8th Edn.)
9 Oxford Dictionary of Law, (4th Edn.)
10 Oxford Medical Dictionary (Android Application)
11 P Ramanatha Aiyar, Law Lexicon, (3rd Edn.)
12 Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016
11
IV. Websites
S.NO. Website Link
1 En.oxforddictionaries.com
2 www.icmr.nic.in
3 www.manupatrafasttrack.com
4 www.un.org
5 www.cioms.ch
12
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants herein have approached the Supreme Court of Indiana though:
1. Appellant: An appeal U/Art. 136 of The Constitution of Indiana, 1950
2. Petitioner: A Wit Petition U/Art. 32 of The Constitution of Indiana, 1950.
The petitions have ben clubbed together and the Supreme Court has admitted the petitions as
maintainable. The respondents have appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana in
response to the petitions and appeals filed by the petitioner and appellant.
This memorandum sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which the
claims are based in the instant case. The petitioners affirm that they shall accept any judgement
of this Hon'ble Court as final and binding upon itself and shall execute it in its enmity and in
good faith.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The relevant facts are not contested by the parties, except as indicated in this opinion.
I. Indiana is one of the world's largest countries, with a diverse culture and heritage.
With numerous languages spoken, it is a home to people of different religions and
communities. It is a quasi-federal country and a major economic player in the Asian
region; consisting of East, West, North, South and Central Provinces. Indiana is the
Asian region's only democratic republic with socialist and secular characteristics. It
is abundant in minerals and other natural resources, and it is surrounded by rivers,
green forests, and mountains.
II. In the year 2020, a worldwide pandemic broke out due to the contagious SARS-
CoV2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2) and the disease caused
by contracting this virus is called as COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease). On
13
11.03.2020, World Health Organisation (WHO) officially declared the outbreak of

Covid-19 as a global pandemic. It has spread across 170 countries while affecting
millions, is still increasing at a staggering rate. Amongst these countries, Indiana is
one of the most affected.
III. Indiana experienced its second wave of the virus in the year 2021 which worsened
the situation. Hospitals battling a furious Covid-19 surge around the country have
exhausted their supplies of oxygen cylinders, necessary to help patients in dealing
with the oxygen depletion caused by the virus. High Courts of various states have
been ordering the Indiana’s government to get oxygen by any means possible,
though most avenues of procurement, including imports from other countries, are
too slow for the current emergency.
IV. To meet the rising demand for oxygen cylinders the government of Indiana in haste
gave all the environmental clearances and necessary permission for setting up of
medical oxygen generation plants. IOC Industries is one such industry which got the
permission to set up a plant on a large scale at a distance of 200 meters from Jamuna
river in Bhora village of Ukhrakhand.
V. Three months later from setting up of this plant the inhabitants of Bhora village
started reporting in large numbers severe health diseases like typhoid, cholera,
diarrhea, encephalitis, etc. This water borne diseases were the result of excessive
water pollution caused by the medical oxygen generation plant of the IOC Industries.
VI. After information regarding the contamination of Jamuna river and critical health
conditions of locals of Bhora village was made public, an NGO named Parvaah
immediately filed Petition in Supreme Court of Indiana asking for injunction and
compensation to the people affected by the pollution.
VII. Meanwhile ROT Manufacturers, a leading manufacturing company for raw materials
in Vajasthan, had signed a contract with IOC Industries for providing raw materials
for the purpose of cryogenic distillation process, a process to produce oxygen. But
14
since state borders of Vajasthan got sealed due to the surge of Covid patients in the
state, they were not able to supply the raw materials owing to which IOC Industries
incurred huge losses. To seek compensation IOC Industries filed a suit against ROT
Manufacturers which was appealed in the High Court of Ukhrakhand. The High
Court decided in favour of IOC Industries and ordered the ROT Manufactures to
compensate for the losses. Appealing against this decision, the ROT Manufacturers
approached the Supreme Court of Indiana.
VIII. The Supreme Court took note of both the cases against IOC Industries. The Court
decided to here both the matters on 21.05.2021 and clubbed the cases, inter alia, Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 315 of 2021 and Appeal (Civil) No. 2304 of 2021.
15
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
WHETHER IOC INDUSTIRES IS LIABLE FOR INJUCTION & TO PAY

COMPENSATION TO BHORA VILLAGE RESIDENTS?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE PRODUCTION OF OXYGEN BY IOC INDUSTRIES IS LEGALLY

ALLOWED ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER ROT LIABLE FOR PAYING COMPENSATION FOR FAILING TO

COMPLETE THEIR CONTRACT WITH IOC
16
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted that there has been no violation of rights done as per the IOC industries,
considering they have obtained the environmental clearance from the government of Indiana
under the ambit of Environment Protection Act, 1986. Under section 6 of the Disaster
management act and section 2 and 4 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 special powers are
given to state governments to take decisions in good faith which may protect and provide for
the citizens affected in the pandemic. IOC and have been performing under the strict routine
of producing a huge number of oxygen cylinders for the citizens of the nation suffering from
COVID-19. Under such circumstances it is not legally viable for IOC industries to impose any
form of injunction or compensation which may affect their production.
2. WHETHER MANAGEMENT OF WASTE BY IOC INDUSTRIES NEAR BHORA

VILLAGE ACCORDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS?
It is humbly pleaded before the Court of Law that the Rules of procedure may be valid, since
the case is being looked at in the times of emergency. Due to the global pandemic, emergency
is instilled under the ambit of section 6 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. According to
the government served environment clearance NOC, the IOC industries have their own
treatment plants. Also, the treatment plants are according to the set standard as per the
Environment Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the facts of the petition as per Parvaah should
be investigated before further accusation.

COMPLETE THEIR CONTRACT WITH IOC?
The appellant is liable as they cannot opt for the defense of Force Majeure as in the matter
of Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs Vedanta Limited & Anr. [O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No.
88/2020 & I.As. 3696-3697/2020], a petition seeking inter alia restrain on invocation of the
17
bank guarantees issued in favour of the Respondent, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
considered the issue of invocation of COVID-19 as a Force Majeure condition and held that
"Every breach or non-performance cannot be justified or excused merely on the invocation of
COVID-19 as a Force Majeure condition". The Court further observed that it would have to
take into consideration various factors to assess whether a party is genuinely prevented or
justified in its non-performance due to the epidemic/pandemic.
18
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is humbly pleaded before the Court of Law that the Rules of procedure are not valid, since
the case is being looked at in the times of emergency. The spread of global pandemic, COVID-
19 has given special powers to the National Authority under the ambit of section 6 of the
Disaster Management Act, 2005.
1.1.IOC has obtained environmental clearance and other necessary permissions
In times of emergency the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and

National Executive Committee (NEA) gives authority to the Union Ministers and the State
Government to take effective measures to prevent COVID-19. The necessary actions
undertaken by the State governments and other ministers is provided under Section 6 (i)
of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Therefore, the early environmental clearance was provided to IOC industries due to the
high demand of oxygen cylinders to combat the global pandemic, COVID-19. Since IOC
is a promising industry capable of fulfilling absolute obligations in producing oxygen in
mass to combat the emergency, the permissions given to them are completely valid. To
buck up with the number of covid patients and the providing oxygen cylinders for every
patient, mass production of oxygen is a necessity of the hour. Also the fact that IOC has
the necessary permissions the term hastily can be set aside considering production of
oxygen involves saving the lives of a larger section of the society striving to breadth.
The Indian Constitution, in the 42nd Amendment, has laid the foundation in Articles 48A
and 51A for a jurisprudence of environmental protection. Today, the State and the citizens
are under a fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment, including
forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
19
The two Articles read as follows.
“Article 43A. – Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests

and wildlife – The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”
"Article 51A(g) – It shall be the duty of every citizen of India......... to protect and improve
the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have
compassion for living creatures. “Environment” includes water, air and land and the inter-
relationship which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other
living creatures, plants, microorganism and property. As the IOC oxygen generation plant
was set up after getting all the necessary permission after the state IOC won’t be
accountable as stated in M.C. Mehta vs State Of Orissa And Ors1.
1.2. Is burdening IOC Industries with compensation and injection in the hour of COVID-
19 valid?
Oxygen Production is in very high demand to battle the global pandemic. There have
been several cases where the patients have lost their lives due to the unavailability of
oxygen cylinders. It has left kids orphaned and families struggling in grief due to the
loss of their dear ones. Therefore, the mass production of the oxygen should be
encouraged in this hour skipping the waste disposal issue for later. Previously in the
case of Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar, there was a case registered for pollution in
the Bokaro river. However, when the board had analyzed and monitored the situation,
it was found that the effluent generated was not responsible for polluting the river.
Therefore the case was dismissed and the Petitioners' requests were not considered.
IOC industries is a big organisation trying to produce and supply maximum oxygen
cylinders in time to meet the demands of the hospitals. Installing pre-treatment plants
takes time to install and involves a considerable amount of expenditure. Considering
the current economy of Indiana and the demand of oxygen cylinders it will be difficult
for IOC to continue production as per the demands. It will lead to compromise on
1
AIR 1992 Ori 225
20
certain levels which may slow down the current level of production. The following will
have consequences such as struggling to meet the demands and in return loss of lives
badly affected with COVID-19. Considering the ongoing emergency it will be legally
void to put an injunction on production of oxygen under article 21 of the Indian
constitution which speaks of right to life. As that will in turn injure the fundamental
rights of all the citizens of India as a whole.
1.2.1. Injunction against IOC industries will lead to a violation Right to

Health and Medical Care for citizens of India
In State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla2, it has been held that- the right to
life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to
health and medical care. The Supreme Court in Vincent v. Union of
India3, emphasized that a healthy body is the very foundation of all
human activities. Art.47, a Directive Principle of State Policy in this
regard lays stress note on the improvement of public health and
prohibition of drugs injurious to health as one of the primary duties of
the state4.
In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India5, the Supreme Court has very

specifically clarified that preservation of life is of paramount
importance. The Apex Court stated that ‘once life is lost, status quo
ante cannot be restored6.’ It was held that it is the professional obligation
of all doctors (government or private) to extent medical aid to the injured
2
AIR (1997) SC 1225
3
1987 AIR 990 : 1987 SCR (2) 468
4
Supra note p.1639
5
AIR (1989) 2039, (1989) SCR (3) 997
6
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Ed. 6th (2010), p. 1616
21
immediately to preserve life without legal formalities to be complied

with the police.
Article 21 casts the obligation on the state to preserve life. It is the

obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to
preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may
be punished. No law or state action can intervene to delay and discharge
this paramount obligation of the members of the medical profession.
No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of the

paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession. The
obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure
whether in statute or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge
of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way. The
court also observed: “Art. 21 of the Constitution cast the obligation on
the State to preserve life. The patient whether he be an innocent person
or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the
obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to
preserve life so that the innocent may be protected. The writ petition is
strictly against this.
2. WHETHER MANAGEMENT OF WASTE BY IOC INDUSTRIES NEAR BHORA

VILLAGE ACCORDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS?
It is humbly submitted that there has been no violation of rights done as per the IOC
industries, considering they have obtained the environmental clearance from the
government of Indiana under the ambit of Environment Protection Act, 1986.
2.1. IOC has obtained the Environmental Clearance from the responsible authorities
Setting up an industry requires legal permissions from the State Government

and various other authorities. COVID-19 is considered a global Pandemic as
per United nations and the government officials of Indiana. Also, IOC has
22
already obtained the required documents before setting up the industry, the
sincerity behind the documents should be questioned considering the
documents have undergone officials responsible for issuing the clearance.
Furthermore, it has been passed by the government under the ambit of special
powers in section 6 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
It is also said that under the ambit of section 2 in the Epidemic Disease Act,
1897 says if the situation is threatened by an outbreak and the ordinary
provisions of law are insufficient than Section 2A empowers the Central
government to inspect the situation and section 4 of the same act protect the
actions undertaken by the officials under good faith. Considering the
environmental clearances given by the government is in good faith, IOC is not
responsible or answerable to the Bhora villagers.
23

COMPLETE THEIR CONTRACT WITH IOC?
The appellant is liable as they cannot opt for the defense of Force Majeure as in the
matter of Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs Vedanta Limited & Anr.7, a petition
seeking inter alia restrain on invocation of the bank guarantees issued in favour of the
Respondent, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi considered the issue of invocation of
COVID-19 as a Force Majeure condition and held that "Every breach or non-
performance cannot be justified or excused merely on the invocation of COVID-19 as
a Force Majeure condition". The Court further observed that it would have to take into
consideration various factors to assess whether a party is genuinely prevented or
justified in its non-performance due to the epidemic/pandemic.
3.1. Every Breach of contract cannot be justified merely on the basis of invocation of
COVID-19 as a Force Majeure condition.
In the case of Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs Vedanta Limited &

Anr., The Court held that it is a settled position in law that a "Force Majeure
clause is to be interpreted narrowly and not broadly. Parties ought to be
compelled to adhere to contractual terms and conditions and excusing non-
performance would be only in exceptional situations....... It is also not the duty
of Courts to provide a shelter for justifying non-performance. There has to be a
'real reason' and a 'real justification' which the Court would consider in order to
invoke a Force Majeure clause."
Quoting the case of M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Limited
again it was said that the following are the pertinent points which need to be
taken into consideration in order to access and analyze whether force majeure
clause is attracted or not:
• Whether a contract contains force majeure clause or not?
7
O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No. 88/2020 & I.As. 3696-3697/2020
24
• If the contract contains Force Majeure clause, Section 32 of the Indian

Contract Act, 1872 is attracted.
A party which successfully establishes the force majeure clause is relieved of

its obligations to perform its obligations under the contract during the time the
supervening force majeure event subsists, the performance of the obligations
under the contract are suspended and is relieved of its liability to pay damages
for breach of contract.
The Court referred to the principles related to Force Majeure laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission8 and observed that whether the non-performance or
breach of contract is attributable to COVID-19 will have to be examined on the
facts of each case and every breach of contract or non-performance cannot be
justified or excused merely on the invocation of COVID-19 as a Force Majeure
condition.
The Court laid down the following factors for assessing whether a party is
genuinely prevented or able to justify its non-performance due to the pandemic:
• conduct of the parties prior to the outbreak;

• deadlines imposed under the contract;
• steps that were to be taken; and
• compliances that were required to be made.
It is evident from the judgement of the Delhi High Court that a party in breach
of performance of a contract, which was required to be contractually undertaken
prior to the commencement of the national lockdown, cannot take refuge from
compliance by invoking Force Majeure and absolve itself from performing its
contractually agreed obligations. COVID-19 is not an excuse for condonation
of past breach or non-performance of contractual obligations which were
8
(2017) 14 SCC 80
25
expected to be completed prior to the pandemic outbreak. Additionally, the

factors suggested by the High Court for determining whether the present
pandemic would justify the breach or non-performance of a contract would lead
the way for determining future disputes among parties arising from invocation
of COVID-19 as a Force Majeure condition.
3.2. The contract didn’t have a force majeure clause
Whether the situation of Covid-19 and the subsequent lock downs would be
covered under Section 32 or Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall
depend on the fact whether the contract contains the force majeure clause or not.
In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co.9 Judiciary examined the

nature and terms of the contract and the circumstances under which it was
entered into to determine whether or not the supervening circumstance, which
is alleged to have happened here, has substantially prevented the performance
of the contract as a whole. The contract involved in the present case is an
ordinary contract of sale and purchase of a piece of land and is one of the many
contracts entered into by the defendant company with many persons. This can
be closely related to the sale and purchase of raw materials.
3.2.1. Time Limit of performance of contract
The most material point which was considered by the Hon'ble Court in
the present case was that there was absolutely no time limit within which
the items will be sent. As there was an opportunity to send the goods
prior to the start of lockdown. The following situation could be easily
prevented. Therefore, it was observed that the performance of the
contract in question is not impossible, so the contract is not frustrated at
all. Therefore, construing COVID-19 lockdown a ‘force majeure’ event
9
AIR 1954 SC 44
26
will depend on the contractual obligations binding the parties and the
manner of its performance.
3.3.Commercial Non-Performance doesn’t support frustration or invoke Force Majeure
In the case of Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India10 it was established
that the courts have no general power to absolve a party from the performance
of his part of the contract merely because its performance has become onerous
on account of an unforeseen turn of events. Commercial hardship will not by
itself support frustration and excuse performance. The lockdown indeed offer
some hardships but the order had been given before the govt had sealed the
borders and there was time period where the appellant could have sent and
transported the raw materials to the respondent.
The relevant portion of Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Hyaliram Jaganath11 also
says that “It is therefore manifest that their application was refused because of
a personal disqualification and not be reason of any force majeure. Since this
was the position there is no question of the performance becoming impossible
by reason of any change in the Government's policy which could not be foreseen
by the parties. No question also would arise of importing an implied term into
the contract.”
In this matter, there was an ordinary contract of sale and purchase wherein
Naihati Jute Mills (buyer) agreed to purchase and Hyaliram Jaganath (seller)
agreed to sell 2000 bales of Sadipur N.C. Cuttings. The contract was in standard
form prescribed by India Jute Mills Association. One of the printed terms
provided –"Buyers shall not however be held responsible for delay in delivering
letters of authority or opening letters of credit where such delay is directly or
indirectly caused by god or due to act of God, war, mobilization, demobilization,
10
AIR 1960 SC 588
11
AIR 1968 SC 522
27
breaking off trade relations between Governments, requisition by or inference
from Government or force majeure...."
The contract could not be performed by the seller on account of the change of
the policy of the government imposing total prohibition of import of Pakistan
jute. They could not provide the import license to the seller. Therefore, a
contract is not frustrated merely because the circumstances in which it was made
are altered.
The performance cannot be discharged merely it has become onerous for one of
the parties to perform which in this case could be could be avoided as a possible
lockdown to avoid the disease was totally foreseeable by the parties involved.
28
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is
humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. IOC industries is not liable to pay compensation as well as undergoing

2. ROT Manufactures are liable to pay compensation
3. The writ petition and the appeal filed is to be dismissed
AND / OR
Pass any other order/(s) that this Hon’ble Supreme Court deems fit in the interest of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT
29

Isbr Intra-Moot Court Competition 2 Edition: Writ Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isbr Intra-Moot Court Competition 2 Edition: Writ Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISBR INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2nd Edition TEAM-E (R)

ISBR INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2nd EDITION

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDIANA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 315 of 2021

PARVAAH IOC INDUSTRIES

PETITIONER NO.1 RESPONDENT NO.1

Appeal (Civil) No. 2304 of 2021

ROT MANUFACTURERS IOC INDUSTRIES

APPELLANT RESPONDENT NO.2

PETITIONS U/ARTs. 136 & 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA,1950

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION ...................................................................................................... 4

I. Case Laws ....................................................................................................................... 7

II. Legislations ............................................................................................................... 10

III. Journals & Books ...................................................................................................... 11

IV. Websites .................................................................................................................... 12

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 13

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 16

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 17

1. WHETHER IOC INDUSTRIES IS LIABLE FOR INJUNCTION & TO PAY

3. WHETHER ROT LIABLE FOR PAYING COMPENSATION FOR FAILING TO

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 19

1. WHETHER IOC INDUSTRIES IS LIABLE FOR INJUNCTION & TO PAY

2. WHETHER ROT LIABLE FOR PAYING COMPENSATION FOR FAILING TO

2.2. The contract didn’t have a force majeure clause ................................................... 26

2.3. Commercial Non-Performance doesn’t support frustration or invoke Force Majeure

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ACJ Accident Claims Journal

AIR All India Reporter

DLT Delhi Law Times

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SLP Special Leave Petition

WHO World Health Organization

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

CJS Corpus Juris Secundum

SARS-CoV2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

S.NO CASE TITLE CITATION

1 High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirish High Court of Judicature at

2 High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirish Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,

3 S. P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149

4 State of Bombay v. United Motors Ltd AIR 1953 SC 252

5 Coffee Board v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1971 SC 870

6 Satish Kumar vs Union Of India Ors Satish-Kumar-Vs-Union-of-

7 Bandhua Mukthi Morcha etc vs Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

8 Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co 1954 SCR 310

9 Rural Fairprice Wholesale Ltd. v. IDBI Rural Fairprice Wholesale

10 Anant Raj Ltd v. Yes Bank Anant Raj Limited v. Yes

11 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. Vendanta 2020 SCCOnLine Del 542

12 Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India Narmada Bachao Andolan v.

14 Samit Mehta vs. Union of India Samit Mehta vs. Union of

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

15 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs Vedanta O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No.

16 Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity (2017) 14 SCC 80

17 Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. AIR 1954 SC 44

19 Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Hyaliram Jaganath AIR 1968 SC 522

20 M.C. Mehta vs Union of India M.C. Mehta And Anr vs

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT