FRESHERS’ INDUCTION MOOT 2022

Campus Law Centre

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE AT

ELON, STATE OF MUSK

MS. TANUSHKA VERMA……………………. PLAINTIFF

VERS US

MR. ADITYA JOHAR

BHANUSALI……….…………………………DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Index of Authorities 3

Statement of Jurisdiction 4

Statement of Facts 5

Statement of Issues 6

Summary of Arguments 7

Arguments Advanced 8

Prayer 14

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES:
1. The Indian Contracts Act, 1872
2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

BOOKS:
1. Law of Contract and Specific Relief by Avtar Singh
2. Pollock and Mulla – The Indian Contract Act, 1872

CASES:
1. Raghunath Prasad vs Sarju Prasad 1923 51 I.A. 101
2. Shivganawa Madiwalaappa Vulari vs Basangauda Govindgauda Patil AIR 1938 BOM
304
3. Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien, [1994 1 AC 180: 1993 4 ALL ER 417
4. Ranee Annapurni Nachiar vs Swaminatha Chettiar and Ors. (1910) MLJ 785
5. Smt. Kamla Bai And Anr. vs Arjan Singh And Ors AIR 1991 MP 275
6. Mahub Chander v Raj Coomar (1874) 14 Beng LR 76
7. McEllistrim v Ballymacelligott Coop Agricultural & Dairy Society 1919 AC 548

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiff approached the Hon’ble Court to exercise its jurisdiction as per section 15 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 reads:

Court in which suits to be instituted. —Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest
grade competent to try it.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ms. Tanushka Verma (plaintiff) is a passionate actress from the small town of Fursat
Ganj, who after a challenging struggle of 2 years to cut in the Bhelwood industry of the
city of musk got a break in the film directed by Mr. Aditya Johar Bhanusali.
2. The film was a big-budget Period Drama produced by Bhrama Production which is
headed by Mr. Aditya. Both the studio and its head (Mr. Aditya) holds the position as
one of the powerful players of the Bhelwood film industry and are infamous for getting
their way whether its actors’ dates or the release dates in case of clashes with other
films
3. Ms. Tanushka secured her role in the film on account of her talent and star-worthy
charismatic personality given the reception that the news of her casting in the film got
amongst the public at large. Mr. Aditya himself reiterated that she deserved the role.
Her hard work and determination of over two years’ struggle had yielded fruit.
4. Ms. Tanuska’s film career kicked off with a big-budget project which had its shooting
location at exotic places and as a newcomer, she looked for guidance from her patron
Mr. Aditya. Mr. Aditya’s attention and help for the plaintiff catalyzed their friendship
which ultimately resulted in a romantic relationship between the two of them.
5. As Ms. Tanushka and Mr. Aditya’s fondness for one another became apparent to the
crew, the rumors of the relationship started to catch fire. Despite the couple denying the
rumors, the film started to be discussed around their romantic relationship with even a
hashtag (#AdUshka) being used to refer to the couple.
6. While the publicity of her relationship had already distressed Ms. Tanushka, she
discovered she was pregnant with Mr. Aditya. Mr. Aditya on hearing the news was
shocked but was worried more about the completion of the project which was still 15
months away. The news pregnancy leaked and compounded the condemnation Ms.
Tanushka was subjected to, with even her family belittling her character.
7. Stressed as she could be Ms. Tanushka proposed Mr. Aditya Marriage as the solution
to the problem of bad publicity that her pregnancy had brought to her and the film. Mr.
Aditya despite claiming to have feelings for her refused to marry her. On re-
examination of his financial interest associated with Ms Tanushka, Mr. Aditya agreed
to marry her only if she signed a contract. The contract which had unconscionable terms
was signed by Ms. Tanushka under extreme stress whose consideration is illegal, it
being marriage.
8. Ms. Tanushka has moved to the Hon’ble Court to get the contract declared void given
her consent was obtained under undue influence and the consideration/object of the
contracts being illegal that is marriage.

5
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S CONSENT IN THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED UNDER UNDUE INFLUENCE AND HENCE NOT FREE

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE CONSIDERATION/OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT IS ILLEGAL

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE CONTRACT IS AN AGREEMENT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

6
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the consent in the contract is given under undue influence?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court, the consent in the contract is not “free
consent” defined under Section 14 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 and is affected by
“undue influence” defined under Section 16 of the Indian Contracts Acts, 1872.

2. Whether the consideration and object of the contract are lawful?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court, the consideration and object of the contract
is not “lawful” under Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. It is a contract whose
consideration is Marriage is not lawful.

3. Whether the contract is that of restraint of trade?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court, that clause IX of the contract between the
plaintiff and the defendant is of “restraint of trade” and “void” under Section 27 of the Indian
Contracts Acts, 1872.

7
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. The consent under the contract is not “free consent” and under “undue
influence”

1)Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Free consent

Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by—

(1) coercion, as defined in section 15, or

(2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or

(3) fraud, as defined in section 17, or

(4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or

(5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21 and 22. Consent is said to be so
caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue
influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Undue Influence

(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting
between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of
the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is
deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another.
a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he
stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or
b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is
temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or
bodily distress.
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a
contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced,
to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue
influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.

8
2) The aforementioned sections’ application was given by the court in Raghunath Prasad vs
Sarju Prasad 1 to determine the undue influence the following stages are to be looked at

i. whether the relationship is such that one party is in a position to dominate the will
ii. whether the issue of the contract has been induced by undue influence (i.e whether
the transaction is unconscionable)
iii. onus probandi

i. Whether Mr. Aditya was in the position to dominate the will of Ms. Tanushka

Mr. Aditya is a powerful established producer and director in the business for more than
two decades. he not only is an influential figure but is also the patriarch of a powerful film
family which owns the Bhrama Studio. Ms. Tanushka on the other hand was a newcomer
who had been already struggling for over two years to make it to the silver screen in
Bhelwood. Clearly, even without the extremely complicated situation that Ms. Tanushka
was in at the time of signing the contract, it was easy for Mr. Aditya to dominate her will
give the authoritative position he held in the industry

3) Mr. Aditya and Ms. Tanuska had a relationship of love that also involved sexual relations,
their relationship could be presumed of that of husband-and-wife (Shivdas Loknathsingh vs
Gayabai Shankar Surwase2). Mr. Aditya is in the dominant position in this relationship3 as
described by Section 16(2a)4

4) ii. Whether the issue of the contracts has been induced by undue influence
The situation in which this contract is very important to establish Mr. Aditya’s use of position
to dominate the will of the plaintiff. Ms. Tanuskha to enter prior to signing the contracts was
an unmarried pregnant woman (with Mr. Aditya’s Child), the news of whose pregnancy was
subject to public discussion. She being subject to condemnation even from her family,
approaches Mr. Aditya to tie the knot with him to save her face in front of society. It is also
important to note that her first film was yet to be completed and released for her to have an
identity of her own sans professional as well as a personal relationship with Mr. Aditya and
hence was not in a position to survive the social scrutiny of having a child without being
married. Mr. Aditya clearly used his position to dominate the will of Ms. Tanushka when she
proposed him to marry her to which he refused at first and only agreed to marry her only if
she signed the contract which is the subject matter of the suit. In Ranee Annapurni Nachiar vs
Swaminatha Chettiar and Ors5 The Madras High Court laid emphasis on the circumstances in

1
Raghunath Prasad vs Sarju Prasad 1923 51 I.A. 101
2
Shivganawa Madiwalaappa Vulari vs Basangauda Govindgauda Patil AIR 1938 BOM 304 at 307-308
3
Barclays bank plc v O’Brien,[1994 1 AC 180: 1993 4 ALL ER 417 at 424]- “the sexual and emotional ties
provide a weapon for undue influence” wives are afforded a special treatment
4
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
5
Ranee Annapurni Nachiar vs Swaminatha Chettiar and Ors. (1910) MLJ 785

9
which the contracts are signed in order to determine whether the will of the party has been
induced by undue influence. The circumstances in which the contract between Mr. Aditya
and Ms. Tanushka are signed are such that the defendant had undoubtedly used the plaintiff’s
circumstances to make her an exclusive economic asset to his studio (clause ix of the
contract).

10
 2. Whether the consideration and object of the contract are “lawful”?
5) Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872
What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not. —The consideration or object of
an agreement is lawful, unless—
it is forbidden by law;
or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law;
or is fraudulent;
or involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another;
or the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.
In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful.
Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

6) Ms. Tanushka wanted to marry Mr. Aditya, who only agreed to marry her if she signed the
contract which is the subject matter of the suit. Marriage ought to be
procured, if not from mutual affection, at least from the free and deliberate decision of
the parties with an unbiased view of their welfare6. The consideration for getting Ms.
Tanushka to work exclusively for Bhrama Studio that Mr. Aditya presented was to get
married to her.

7) in Smt. Kamla Bai and Anr. vs Arjan Singh and Ors7 the court held that contract, where
consideration is provided for marriage, is invalid under section 23. In the contract between
Ms. Tanushka and Mr. Aditya, the defendant got exclusive working rights with the plaintiff
in exchange of marrying the defendant and providing her a place to stay. The contract is
against public policy where marriage has been used as a tool further and cementing the
plaintiff as an exclusive economic asset to Ms. Tanushka.

8) While the contracts provide for a bungalow and servants8 for Ms. Tanushka but it is to take
care of the plaintiff and defendant’s child, there was no consideration for the promise of her
working exclusively for Bhrama Studios. With no details as to how much work Ms. Tanushka
would get from Bhrama Studio, this clause9 is ambiguous and there is no consideration for

6
Pollock and Mulla- the Indian Contracts Acts, 1872 pg. 602
7
Smt. Kamla Bai And Anr. vs Arjan Singh And Ors AIR 1991 MP 275
8
Clause XI of the contract of subject matter
9
Clause IX of the contract of subject matter

11
this promise of the plaintiff which prevents her to work for any other studio. The contract is
that of the consideration for marriage hence not “lawful” under section 2310

10
the Indian Contract Act, 1872

12
 3. Whether the contract is an agreement in restraint of trade?
9) Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Agreement in restraint of trade, void
Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or
business of any kind, is to that extent void.

Exception 1.—Saving of agreement not to carry on business of which good-will is sold.—One

who sells the good-will of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a
similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving
title to the good-will from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits
appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business.
10) Clause IX of the contract of the subject matter in the suit restricts Ms. Tanushka to work
for any other studio but Bhrama Productions. In Mahub Chander v Raj Coomar11 the court
ruled that even agreement to partial restriction trade is void under section 2712. Ms. Tanushka
is restrained from practicing her profession of acting freely and is restrained to work for only
Bhrama Production hence should be void as under Section 2713.

11) Agreement of restraints of trade are valid only if it falls within any of the statutory, or
judicially created exceptions14.
Statutory exceptions include

• sale of goodwill
• partnership act
Judicial interpretations

• trade combinations
• exclusive dealings
• restraints upon employees
the restraints in the Clause IX of the subject matter of the contract do not come under any of
the aforementioned restrictions and hence makes the agreement void. Also, the clause
provides for the restraint of time for unlimited period which was held invalid in McEllistrim v
Ballymacelligott Coop Agricultural & Dairy Society15.

11
Mahub Chander v Raj Coomar (1874) 14 Beng LR 76
12
the Indian Contracts Act, 1872
13
the Indian Contracts Act, 1872
14
Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief, 12th Ed Pg. 293
15
McEllistrim v Ballymacelligott Coop Agricultural & Dairy Society 1919 AC 548

13
 PRAYER
In light of the issue raised, arguments advanced, authorities cited, and the pleadings made
before this Hon’ble Court, the plaintiff respectfully prays for a decree declaring the contract
between the plaintiff and defendant void.

Signed

s/d- Counsel for the Plaintiff

14