5TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

MOOT PROPOSITION

1. Mr. Aryan Khurana is a 16-year-old genius, Indiana citizen and "Mirchi Music" award
winner. He is an incredible singer, not only in rap, rock, hip-hop and jazz, but also in classical and
folk music. He wants to develop his musical career by releasing fusion albums that combine
different genres and participating in world music tours. So, he wanted an ultra-modern, multi-
functional architectural marvel, where he could have his own recording studio, theater for live
music performances, and a rooftop pool for parties. He lied that he was a major and handed the
assignment over to the bidder.

2. M/s Singhania & Singhania is a well-known construction builder and infrastructure supplier.
They are willing to complete all the work at a price of 5,00,000 rupees/-. Both parties know that
this is an unrealistic low-price contract, and the payment will be paid in installments according to
the order of completion of the different stages of the assigned work.

3. Mr. Aryan Khurana accepted their offer, and entered into a contract for the construction of
a multipurpose building providing all amenities. According to the contract, the ground floor was
for parking lots, the first floor was for music theatres, the second floor was for the recording studio,
and the last floor for the rooftop pool.

4. M/s. Singhania & Singhania ran out of resources for further construction on completion of
the construction work for the ground and first floor. They informed Aryan that they could not
complete the construction unless further capital was made available to them.

5. Aryan arranged to host a poolside party and invited top music directors, producers and other
celebrities from the music industry who he believed would fund his dream music album and
musical journey. Desperate for the completion of the rooftop pool as stipulated, he requested for
the continuance of the construction and asked that the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- be spent
 5TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

out of their own funds assuring them that the money would be paid to them as soon as his album
is released.

6. The rooftop pool was completed and the party was a huge success. Aryan signed a contract
with Chaitanya Producers, who agreed to finance the fusion album and the world tour. Aryan told
Ms.
Isha Singhania, manager of M/s. Singhania & Singhania "Ma'am, you saved my career. Don't worry
about 3,00,000 rupees / -." As a promise, M/s. Singhania &
Singhania started a new project. However, Aryan’s new fusion music
album was a catastrophic failure. Social media enthusiasts and meme pages criticized his loud and
bizarre large-scale fusion music.Due to this, he found himself in a position unable to pay the
remainder amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to M/s. Singhania & Singhania.

7. Given the circumstances, Ms. Isha Singhania forced Aryan to perform music at her
daughter's birthday party. In addition to family and friends, she also invited rich people to secure
contracts related to building, construction etc. In return, she agreed to release Aryan to pay the debt
of Rs. 3,00,000. Aryan agrees with this and is ready to participate in the musical performance at
the party. He also wanted to regain his lost reputation and start his career again. However, he
developed a sore throat due to too many rehearsals before the party and did not perform on the
advice of the doctor.

8. On Aryan’s eighteenth birthday, both parties decided to change to contract on humanitarian

grounds. Aryan admitted to the debt accrued from M/s. Singhania and Singhania and agreed to
repay the debt through simple monthly installments (EMI) rupees of Rs.10,000/- per month, until
the amount of 3,00,000/- rupees is repaid.

9. Aryan later came to a realization that the work done by M/s. Singhania & Singhania was not
performed as directed and the materials used for construction were of poor quality and
 5TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

unsatisfactory. On calculation, he found that the total cost would only amount to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
He claimed that he paid the amount and refused to pay any additional money.

10. Aryan then decided to dispose of his property without paying a penny to M/s. Singhania and
Singhania. When they discovered all these fouls, they tried to stop it by exerting tremendous
pressure to recover their total amount of Rs. 3,00,000 /-that they spent on construction and
convenience facilities. Even after granting additional time and changing terms of the contract, they
were unable to realize Aryan’s debt. As a last resort, they sent him a legal notice stating that the
money shall be repaid within 15 days. However, Aryan did not send any letters or respond to
notices

11. In relation to this, M/s. Singhania & Singhania finally decided to seek remedy from the court
of law. The suit was sent by M/s.Singhania & Singhania before the civil court of Ames, in the state
of Indiana, on the grounds that they had constructed the building as per the terms of the contract
and had taken all the diligent steps to recover
the loan made available to Mr. Aryan Khurana for Rs.3,00,000/- but now he refused to pay the said
amount and alleged fraud against him. They also prayed for injunction restraining Aryan from
selling the property until the suit was disposed off.

12. The Civil Court of Ames heard the matter and held that a minor’s contract is void ab inito
and thus set Aryan free from all his liabilities towards M/s. Singhania & Singhania by upholding
the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. The plea of restitution raised by the
Plaintiff was rejected and injunction was not granted.

13. M/s. Singhania & Singhania preferred an appeal before the High Court of Ames. The High
Court granted injunction and decided to hear the case on merits. The following are the issues
framed for consideration:
 5TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

i. Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Singhania & Singhania and Mr. Aryan
Khurana? ii. Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?

iii. Whether the Civil Court of Ames was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?

Note:

o Any other relevant issue that the mooters find appropriate can be raised, subject to a
maximum of four issues in total. o The principles of supply of ‘necessaries’, frustration of
contract, estoppel, ratification and novation may be relied upon.
o Laws of Indiana are pari materia to laws in India.
o Common Law judgments and other foreign judgments hold high persuasive value in
Indiana.