BM LAW COLLEGE

AFFILIATED TO JAI NARAYAN VYAS UNIVERSITY JODHPUR

APPROVED BY BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Session 2021-22
B.A. LL.B. 5th SEMESTER

SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO
DR. PRIYANKA GOSWAMI ASHOK
JAIPAL

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

 BM LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2021

IN THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT OF JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN

TEAM CODE-

IN THE MATTER OF

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TRIVACO …PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF GRANULA …RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8.prayer of relief

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

ALL Allahabad

Anr. Another

AP Andhra Pradesh

Art. Article

Cr. Criminal

Edn. Edition

Govt. Government

HMA Hindu Marriage Act

Hon‟ble Honourable

i.e. That is

No. Number

PC Privy Council

SC Schedule Caste

SC Supreme Court0

SCC Supreme Court Cases

u/s Under Section

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

www World Wide Web

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Table of Cases

S. No. Name of the Cases and Case Citation Page No.

1. 5
2. 5
3. 2
6
4.

5. Harish Chandrel Drall v. Suresg Wati 3

20. matter of Sheo Nath Singh v. Sujata 3

Treatises, Books, Reports And Digests

1. A.G.Gupte, Hindu Law, (1st ED. : 2003) (Premier Publishers Delhi)

2. Acharya Shuklendra, “Hindu Law”, Reprint 2009, Modern Law Publications, New
Delhi
Mayne‟s, Treaties on Hindu law and Uses, Edn.17th, (Bharat Law House) 2014
11.

A. Journals Referred

1. All India Reporter

4. Supreme Court Cases

3. Indian Law Reporter

2. Supreme Court Cases

B.
C. Database Referred

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

1. www.judis.nic.in

2. www.lexisnexis.com

3. www.manupatrafast.com

4. www.scconline.com

D. Legal Dictionary
1. Aiyer P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005)

2. Garner B.A., Black‟s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009)

3. Greenberg Daniel, Stroud‟s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, (4th ed.),
Sweet and Maxwell, Vol. 4
4. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed., 2008)

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

 BM LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THIS HON‟BLE FAMILY COURT OF

JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN UNDER SECTION 7 OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 19841. &
ALSO UNDER SEC. 13 OF HMA, 1955.

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 17 October 2000, the Democratic Republic of the Trivanco (DRT) filed an Application
instituting proceedings against State of Granula concerning a dispute over an international arrest
warrant issued on 11 April 2000 by a State of Granula examining judge against the acting
Trivancon Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. A. Pdombasi, seeking his detention and subsequent
extradition to State of Granula for alleged crimes constituting “grave violations of international
humanitarian law”. The arrest warrant was transmitted to all States, including the DRT, which
received it on 12 July 2000.

The DRT also filed a request for the indication of a provisional measure seeking “an order for the
immediate discharge of the disputed arrest warrant”. State of Granula, for its part, called for that
request to be rejected and for the case to be removed from the List. In its Order made on 8
December 2000, the Court, rejecting State of Granula’s request for the case to be removed from the
List, stated that “the circumstances, as they [then] presented themselves to the Court, [were] not
such as to require the exercise of its power, under Article 41 of the Statute, to indicate provisional
measures”.

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. State of Granula had violated the rule of customary international law concerning the
inviolability and immunity from criminal process of incumbent foreign ministers.
2. It should be required to recall and cancel that arrest warrant and provide reparation for
the moral injury to the DRT.
3. State of Granula raised objections relating to jurisdiction and admissibility.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. State of Granula had violated the rule of customary international law concerning the
inviolability and immunity from criminal process of incumbent foreign ministers.
2. It should be required to recall and cancel that arrest warrant and provide reparation for
the moral injury to the DRT.
3. State of Granula raised objections relating to jurisdiction and admissibility.

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT