CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

07-P

CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition. No. 1-2 of 2020

~IN THE MATTER OF~

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

ZIGMA CORPORATION, INDIA

(PETITIONER)

VERSUS

COLLECTOR OF STAMPS, MAHARASHTRA & Anr.

(RESPONDENT)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ I

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... X

ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................... XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................... XII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................. 1
I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTANIABLE
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .................................................................... 1
I.1. Remedy under Article 32 is a matter of right .............................................................. 1
I.2. Fundamental right guaranteed by Constitution is violated ......................................... 2
I.2.A. Zigma Corporation has rights & Locus Standi .................................................... 2
I.2.B. Article 14 is violated ............................................................................................ 2
I.3. Non- exhaustion of Alternate Remedy is not a ground to dismiss Writ Petition ........ 3
II : WHETHER STAMP DUTY IS APPLICABLE ON ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS? ... 4
II.1: E-contracts and click wrap agreements are valid legal contracts. ........................... 4
II.2: Stamp Duty is not applicable on e-contracts and click wrap agreements under
Maharashtra Stamp Act. .................................................................................................... 7
II.2.A Stamp duty requires a signature on the executed instrument .............................. 7
II.2.B Click wrap agreements do not include signatures. .............................................. 8
III: WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE COLLECTOR WERE ILL-FOUNDED .................... 8
III.1. Breach of Fundamental Rights ................................................................................. 9
III.2.A. Discrimination against Zigma Group ................................................................ 9
i. Presence of a Discretion………………………………………………...……9
ii. Lack of application of mind- Unreasonable Act…………………….…….10
iii. Arbitrary Act……………………………………………………………...10
III.1.B Procedure not followed .................................................................................... 11
i. Breach of Natural Justice..……………………………………………...….11

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ II

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ii. Breach of Remedy and adequate representation…………………….…….12

iii. Arbitrariness…………………………………………………………........12
III.3. Irreparable loss to reputation and revenue to the Petitioner ................................. 13
III.3.A. There is publication ......................................................................................... 13
III.3.B. Publication of false statements ........................................................................ 13
III.3.C. Publication was Injurious to Reputation of the Zigma Group ........................ 14

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 15

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ III

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

& And

Sec. Section

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

Vol. Volume

No. Number

Ors. Others

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

v. Versus

r/w Read with

International Covenant for Civil and

ICCPR
Political Rights

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

IT Information Technology

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ IV

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

A.R. Anutulay v. R.S. Nayak [1984] 2 SCR 495 --------------------------------------------------- 12

A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand, AIR 1961 1506 ------------------------------------------------ 4
ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521. ------------------------------------------- 9
Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, 1976 SCR (2) 884.----------------------- 10
Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722. ------------------------------------------------- 9,11
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly, (2016) 6 SCC 82. ------------------- 1
Alka Bose v. Parmatma Devi & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6197 OF 2000]. ---------------- 6
Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721 -------------------------------------------------------- 2
Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147. --------------------- 12
Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 1955 AIR 740. ------------------------------ 2
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas AIR 1966 SC 543 ----------- 6
Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (2001) 4 SCC 197 ---------------------- 11
D.P. Choudhary v. Kumari Manjulata, AIR 1997 Raj 170 ---------------------------------------- 14
D.R. Nim. v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1301. ----------------------------------------------- 3, 10
Dadu v. State of Maharasthra, (2000) 8 SCC 437 --------------------------------------------------- 1
Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 147, 1461 --------------------------------------------------- 1
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax. West Bengal, 1955 AIR 65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3. ----------------------------------------- 9,10
Eurasian equipment and chemicals limited v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 2 SCR 674.----- 10
Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601. --------- 2
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477. ----------------------------------------------- 9
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902 ------------------------------------------ 9
K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SCC 725. ---------------------------------------- 1, 3
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 -------------------------------------- 12
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 1. ------------------------------------------------------ 2
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI, (1997) 5 SCC 536. ------------------------------------------------ 4
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. -------------------------------------- 2, 9,12
Marthanda Varma v. State of Kerala, (2019) 17 SCC 627. ----------------------------------------- 2
Om Prakash Gupta v. Saraswati Shaw, (2002) 2 ICC 702 (Cal). --------------------------------- 11

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ V

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771.------------------------------------------------- 2, 9

Peteti Subba Rao v.Anumala S. Narendra, (2002) 10 SCC 427 ---------------------------------- 11
Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, (2010) 4 SCC 460. ------------------------------------------------------ 1
R.D. Shetty v. International Airports Authority, 1979 AIR SC 1628. ------------------------ 9, 11
Rasheeda Siddiqui v. Mustafa Aleem Siddiqui, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3738. ----------------- 11
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124-------------------------------------- 1, 2, 3
S.P Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, 1996 SCC (1) 573. --------------------------------------- 9
Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P, (2002) 2 SCC 188. ------------------------------------ 10
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1. --------------------------------------------------- 9
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538------------------------------- 2
Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP, (1991) 1 SCC 212. ------------------------------------------- 13
Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SC 682. ----------------------------------------------------- 9
Tamil Nadu Organic Private Ltd v. State Bank of India, AIR 2014 Mad 103. ------------------ 6
Tara Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 335 -------------------------------------------------- 1
Trimex International FZE v. Vedanta Aluminum Limited, India, 2010 (1) SCALE 574 ------ 8
Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singh, (2016) 11 SCC 378. -------------------------------- 10
Union of India and Ors. v. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 697. ------------------ 4
United Precision Engineers Ltd. v. KIOCL Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 1077. --------------- 11
Vijaya Jain v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 8172. ------------------------------------- 4, 10
Vora v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 866. ------------------------------------------------------- 10
Zirka v. Sohiu, AIR 1923 Lah 242; CCRA v. State Bank of India, (1976) 2 MLJ 275 -------- 7

Statutes

General Clauses Act, 1897, sec. 3(42). ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2

INDIA CONST. art. 12. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
INDIA CONST. art. 14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
INDIA CONST. art. 32. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
INDIA CONST. part III. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Indian Contract Act, 1872, sec.10. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
Indian Evidence Act, 1882, sec. 62. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, sec. 38. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Indian Stamp Act, sec. 33 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
Information Technology Act, 2000, sec.10-A. ------------------------------------------------------- 4

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ VI

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Information Technology Act, 2000, sec.3 ------------------------------------------------------------ 8

Information Technology Act, 2000, sec.3A ---------------------------------------------------------- 8
Information Technology Act, 2000. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4, 7
Maharashtra E – Registration and E-Filing Rules, 2013, sec. 5, cl.(a). --------------------------- 7
Maharashtra E – Registration and E-Filing Rules, 2013, sec.15, cl.(a). -------------------------- 7
Maharashtra E – Registration and E-Filing Rules, 2013. ------------------------------------------- 7
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, sec. 53. --------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, sec.2, cl.(i). ---------------------------------------------------------- 7
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, sec.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
Maharashtra Stamp Act, sec. 37, cl. 2. --------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Maharashtra Stamp Act, sec.33. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Maharashtra Stamp Act., sec. 37. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Preamble, Information Technology Act, 2000 ------------------------------------------------------- 6

Articles, Journals and Books

A.V. Dicey, The Law of Constitution, 1885. --------------------------------------------------------- 9

Arnfinn Bårdsen, Reflections on “Fair Trial” in Civil Proceedings According to Article 6 § 1
of the European Convention on Human Rights, Scandinavian Studies In Law (1999-2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
Chauhan, V. (1995). REASONED DECISION : A PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL
JUSTICE. Journal of the Indian Law Institute,37(1), 92-104. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43951591. -------------------------------------------------------------- 12
Koprivica Harvey, Ana., Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Law Cases, Max Planck Encyclopaedia
of Comparative Constitutional Law (2018). ------------------------------------------------------ 13
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed. 2014). ------------------------------------------------ 1
P.K. Tripathi, The Fiasco of Overruling A.K. Gopalan, AIR Journal 6 (1990). ------------- 3, 10
Singh, A. P., Reasoned Decision: The Necessity and Importance to Achieve Transparent and
Accountable Society, Journal of National Law University Delhi, 3(1), pp. 163–181. (2015)
doi: 10.1177/2277401720150110. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 10

International Cases

E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones, [1910] AC 20. ------------------------------------------------------------ 14

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974). -------------------------------------------------- 14

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ VII

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Groff v. America Online, Inc, File No C.A. No PC 97-0031 1998 WL 307001 (R.I.Superior Ct
1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
Hotmail Corporation v. Van $ Money Pie Inc. C98-20064 (N.D. Ca, April 20, 1998). -------- 4
I lan Systems, Inc v. Netscout Services Level Corp., 9 Civ Act No.00-11489-WGY (D.Mass.
Jan 2 2002). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
Mantovanelli v. France, (8/1996/627/810). ---------------------------------------------------------- 12
Nader v. Bork, 366 F Supp. 104 (D.D.C. 1973). ---------------------------------------------------- 10
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964). ------------------------------------------------- 13
Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127--------------------------------------------------- 14
Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] AC 40 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
Rookes v Barnard 9 [1964] AC 1129. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd, (1896) UKHL 1. -------------------------------------------------- 2
Savile v Roberts (1699) 1 Ld Raym 374, 91 ER 114. ---------------------------------------------- 14
Spring v Guardian [1994] 3 All ER 129 ------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Steven J. Caspi, et al v. the Microsoft Network LLC, et al, 323 N.J.super 118 (N.J. App., 1999).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
United States v. Martin Wunderlich, 342 US 98. --------------------------------------------------- 10

International Statues

AUSTRALIA CONST. sec 117. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

ICCPR, Art. 2, Cl. 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12
ICCPR, art. 2, cl. 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
ICCPR. Art 26 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
UDHR, art 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
US CONST. 14th Amendment -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ VIII

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has jurisdiction in the present matter under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India for Writ Petition No.1-2 of 2020.

Article 32 in the Constitution of India, 1950

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part;

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ IX

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

[A] BACKGROUND: ZIGMA GROUP

1. Zigma Corp. Media Networks Limited, a subsidiary of Zigma Corporation (Zigma Group)
is a private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in 2011. It has a business
of publishing, radio, film, entertainment, web portal and is headquartered in Mumbai.
2. Zigma TV’ and ‘Zigma Money’, are also owned by Zigma Media. A mobile application
called Zigma Digital for an annual subscription, with the content of Zigma Group being
available was launched.
[B] THE BACKGROUND OF THE INITIAL DISPUTE
3. Zigma TV, strong believers of nationalism, unleashed various scams. They have affixed
pressure on the State Government on various issues across the state. Chief Editor of Zigma
Money, Mr. Chintan Swamy went on to state that “the state government, led by the Chief
Minister was plagued by gross mismanagement and incompetence”.
4. On 2nd February, 2020, a rival media company stated that there were major violations
relating to privacy and non-compliance with law by Zigma Digital. These allegations were
dismissed as they did not stand scrutiny. Zigma also issued a clarification.
5. Society for Internet filed a PIL before the Bombay High Court with regards to the privacy.
Zigma Group furnished documents as evidence, copies of e-contracts and click- wrap
agreements were not admitted for lack of stamp duty and were impounded.
C] THE FINAL DISPUTE
6. Parallelly, the Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra imposed a penalty of INR 196 crores on
Zigma Media, for non-payment of stamp duty on execution of Agreements with Customer’s
including the 51 million unique users of Zigma Digital.
7. This news was widely reported which resulted in reduced circulation of Zigma Groups
newspapers, the production houses and other partners wished to terminate their contracts
with Zigma Group, quoting news reports which stated that contracts with Zigma Corp. are
being dishonoured. This resulted in Zigma Group’s revenue taking a massive hit and its
proposed investments from foreign investors and institutional investors taking a backseat.
8. With the loss of revenue and the criticism faced by the Zigma Group, a petition was filed
before the Supreme Court. They claimed that the loss of revenue and criticism faced was
because of the actions of the Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra. Zigma Group questioned
the applicability of the impugned statute on e-contract and click wrap agreements.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ X

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ISSUES RAISED

The following issues are presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for its
consideration:

~ISSUE I~

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA?

~ISSUE II~

WHETHER STAMP DUTY IS APPLICABLE ON ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS?

~ISSUE III~

WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE COLLECTOR WERE ILL-FOUNDED?

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ XI

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

It is contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court can entertain the Writ Petition filed by the
Petitioner since there is a prima facie violation of fundamental right of the Petitioner and
exhaustion of alternate remedy is not a ground for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

ISSUE II

It is contented that Stamp duty is not applicable on electronic documents under Maharashtra
Stamp Act because they are not signed instruments that can bear the imposition of a stamp.

ISSUE III

It is contended that the Stamp Collector’s actions were ill-founded, because they were in
complete breach of all the procedures laid in the Act. There was an evident discrimination
and arbitrariness on the part of the Collector that caused loss of revenue to the Petitioner.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ XII

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTANIABLE

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

It is contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the writ petition is maintainable as (I.I.)
Remedy under Article 32 is matter of right. (I.2.) Fundamental Right guaranteed by
Constitution is violated, and (1.3.) Non-exhaustion of Alternate Remedy is not a ground to
dismiss writ petition.

I.1. REMEDY UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS A MATTER OF RIGHT

Article 321 guarantees the right to move to the Supreme Court, by appropriate proceedings, in
order to enforce the Fundamental Rights 2 enumerated in the Constitution. 3 It is also well
established that the courts being the protector and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights,4 cannot
refuse to entertain petitions that seek protection against infringement of the fundamental
rights.5

By virtue of the Latin Maxim: Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium;6 where there is a right, there is a remedy;
similarly Article 32 was brought7 as a remedy for the protection of the rights. If, the Petitioner
can show a prima facie infringement of fundamental rights8 or a public interest9 successfully,
then according to clause 1,10 of Article 32, protection against such infringement is guaranteed.
Thus, writ petition under Article 32 shall be an appropriate remedy.11

It is evident that in the case at hand, the fundamental right which have been guaranteed by the
Constitution are infringed therefore the writ petition is maintainable.

1
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
2
INDIA CONST. part III.
3
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed. 2014).
4
Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 147, 1461.
5
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
6
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed. 2014).
7
K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SCC 725.
8
Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, (2010) 4 SCC 460.
9
Tara Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 335; Dadu v. State of Maharasthra, (2000) 8 SCC 437.
10
INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl. 1.
11
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly, (2016) 6 SCC 82.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 1

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

I.2. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED BY CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED

It is contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the (I.2.A.) Zigma Corporation has
rights and locus standi, and (I.2.B.) Article 14 is violated.

I.2.A. Zigma Corporation has rights & Locus Standi

The court reiterated that, Article 14 ‘is a declaration of equality of all persons within the
territory of India, implying thereby the absence of any privileges in favour of any person.12 A
company is recognised as a juristic person in the landmark case of Salomon v. Salomon13, and
has been reiterated in India as well.14 In Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar15
corporates were also included under the ambit of Article 14. Furthermore, the term ‘person’ as
used in Article 14, shall be interpreted along the lines of General Clauses Act, 1897 by virtue
of Article 367 of the Constitution. According to this ‘person’ includes ‘company’16 thereby
guaranteeing fundamental rights, therefore Zigma Corporation, India has locus standi in the
matter at hand.
When the State or the officer of the State 17 acts in an unreasonable manner, it is deemed
arbitrary 18 and negates equality 19 The said act therefore violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.20

I.2.B. Article 14 is violated

Article 14 of the Constitution protects persons against any sort of discriminatory treatment21
and guarantees equality before law22 to all people. It is also considered as a basic feature of the
Constitution.23 It is the pillar on which the foundation of India’s Democratic Republic lies.24 It
grants right to equality and prohibits discrimination.25

12
Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721.
13
Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd, (1896) UKHL 1.
14
Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 1955 AIR 740.
15
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
16
General Clauses Act, 1897, sec. 3(42).
17
Marthanda Varma v. State of Kerala, (2019) 17 SCC 627.
18
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 1 SCC 248.
19
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
20
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
21
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
22
Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601.
23
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 1.
24
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1402.
25
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 2

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

In the case at hand, the procedure established was not followed, since the documents were
impounded26 by the court and directly sent to the collector. The Petitioner was not given a
chance to pay the Stamp Duty and get his documents admitted as evidence under Section 37
(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. There is no valid reason for denying the chance to the
Petitioner to pay the Stamp Duty. Therefore, the act of sending the documents to the Collector
is arbitrary and unreasoned which violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Collector has misused the discretion as laid down in Section 39 of the Maharashtra Stamp
Act, 1958, by imposing INR 196 Crores27 on Zigma Media for non-payment of stamp duty on
various E-contracts with customers even though they should not be subject to duty. Out of the
many E-Commerce Giants, namely Walkart & Amzone,28 etc the Collector of Maharashtra
imposed stamp duty only on the Zigma Group. Hence, it is evident that Zigma Corporation has
been penalised without any sound reason and the same qualifies to be arbitrary29 and without
any lawful reason.30

It is thus, submitted that the arbitrary and unreasonable acts of the Collector stand in violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution.

I.3. NON- EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATE REMEDY IS NOT A GROUND TO DISMISS WRIT

PETITION
The Supreme Court is the guardian of Fundamental Rights 31 and the mere presence of an
alternative remedy, shall not be adequate to invalidate the Writ Petition filed in cases of
violation or threat of violation to a fundamental right.32

In the case at hand, fundamental rights of the Petitioner, guaranteed by the Constitution of India
have been infringed, therefore Zigma Corporation has not exhausted the alternate remedy
provided under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, which is approaching the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority, under Section 5333 of the Act. The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition to

26
Moot Proposition, ¶ 9, Page 2.
27
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10, Page 3.
28
Moot Proposition, ¶ 13, Page 3.
29
D.R. Nim. v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1301.
30
P.K. Tripathi, The Fiasco of Overruling A.K. Gopalan, AIR Journal 6 (1990).
31
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
32
K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SCC 725.
33
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, sec. 53.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 3

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

the Supreme Court which should be maintainable, because the existence of a remedy under the
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, does not bar the Supreme Court from deciding the matter. In
other words, the matter shall not be sent to another authority as stated in the Maharashtra Stamp
Act, 1958.34

Writ Petition shall be maintainable under Article 32. Even if there is an alternate remedy, the
court cannot dismiss the application upon such grounds alone. 35 As far as Article 32 is
applicable, the provisions of the Act cannot bar or curtail these remedies.36

It is reiterated that, existence of an alternative remedy is not a complete bar to invoke Writ
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or High Court37 and thus, it is humbly submitted that the
Writ Petition be maintainable.

II. WHETHER STAMP DUTY IS APPLICABLE ON ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS?

It is contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the stamp duty is not applicable on
electronic documents since (II.1.) E-contracts and click wrap agreements are valid legal
contracts, and (II.2.) Stamp duty is not applicable on E-contracts and click wrap agreements
under Maharashtra Stamp Act.

II.1. E-CONTRACTS AND CLICK WRAP AGREEMENTS ARE VALID LEGAL CONTRACTS.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 has recognised contracts formed through electronic
means under Section 10-A.38According to this section, a contract cannot be held unenforceable
on the grounds that the communication of proposal with respect to its acceptance or revocation
was done in an electronic form.39 Validity of E-contracts and Click-wrap agreements was first
highlighted globally in the case of Hotmail Corporation v. Van $ Money Pie Inc.,40 whereupon
the court upheld the validity of licenses in a wrap agreement and said that the terms of the
license would be binding ‘on the defendant by virtue of him having clicked on ‘I agree’ option

34
Vijaya Jain v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 8172.
35
A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand, AIR 1961 1506.
36
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI, (1997) 5 SCC 536.
37
Union of India and Ors. v. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 697.
38
Information Technology Act, 2000.
39
Information Technology Act, 2000, sec.10-A.
40
Hotmail Corporation v. Van $ Money Pie Inc. C98-20064 (N.D. Ca, April 20, 1998).

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 4

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

that substantially indicates his assent to the offer.41 This was then reiterated in various cases
like Groff v. America Online, Inc,42 Steven J. Caspi, et al v. the Microsoft Network LLC, et al43
and I lan Systems, Inc v. Netscout Services Level Corp.44

In India, The Indian Contract Act, 1872 has not yet specifically included E-contract or click-
wrap agreements under their ambit. The only essential requirement would therefore be that the
E-contracts and Click-wrap agreements should comply with the pre-requisites which are
provided under Section 10 of Indian Contract Act, 187245.
According to the Indian Contract Act, the following are the pre-requisites46
1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Free consent of the parties
4. Competency to contract
5. Lawful object
6. Lawful purpose

The click-wrap agreement laid down by the Zigma Corporation is a valid agreement as it
follows all the necessary conditions as laid down in the Contract Act. In the present case the
following conditions are met:
• Offer- The Click-wrap agreements of the Zigma Group make an offer to the users by
laying down the terms and conditions on the web page/ mobile application for the
subscription.
• Acceptance- Acceptance of the offer takes place when the user clicks the “I Agree”
button while subscribing for Zigma Corporation’s digital services.
• Free Consent- Consent is given freely while accepting the terms and conditions of the
agreement during the time of subscription as there is no form of coercion and the users
make all the decisions.
• Competence to Contract- Once the users clicks the agreement, the contract become
valid. There is an intention to create legal relationship and pay for the subscription.

41
Hotmail Corporation v. Van $ Money Pie Inc. C98-20064 (N.D. Ca, April 20, 1998).
42
Groff v. America Online, Inc, File No C.A. No PC 97-0031 1998 WL 307001 (R.I.Superior Ct 1998).
43
Steven J. Caspi, et al v. the Microsoft Network LLC, et al, 323 N.J.super 118 (N.J. App., 1999).
44
I lan Systems, Inc v. Netscout Services Level Corp., 9 Civ Act No.00-11489-WGY (D.Mass. Jan 2 2002).
45
Indian Contract Act, 1872, sec.10.
46
Id.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 5

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

• Lawful Object and Lawful Purpose- The object of the contract between Zigma
Corporation and customers was for a lawful object of providing the digital services.

Therefore this constitutes as a valid form of contract even though it is not technically a
traditional contract. This was also iterated by the Court in Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia
v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas,47 which stated that:
“Ordinarily, it is the acceptance of offer and intimation of that acceptance which results in a
contract. This intimation must be by some external manifestation which the law regards as
sufficient. Hence, even in the absence of any specific legislation, validating e-contracts cannot
be challenged as they have the same binding value as a traditional contract is.”48

In the same way the Court in Tamil Nadu Organic Private Ltd v. State Bank of India,49, noted
that "contractual liabilities could arise by way of electronic means and that such contracts
could be enforced through law."50

The agreement should be in tandem with the essentials listed in Section 10 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 and thus, will have the equal force of evidentiary value, as a written one
like in the case51 where the court held that a sale agreement can be oral and have the same
binding value and enforceability, as a written agreement.

The Preamble of Information Technology Act 52 itself validates the legality of an electronic
document where transactions are given a legal recognitions via electronic data interchange and
other forms of electronic communication which deal with the use of alternatives to paper based
forms of communication and storage of information to facilitate electronic filing of
documents.53

Therefore it is humbly submitted that E-contracts and Click-wrap agreements are legally valid
documents since they are inherently recognized by the statutes. Hence the electronic documents

47
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas AIR 1966 SC 543.
48
Id.
49
Tamil Nadu Organic Private Ltd v. State Bank of India, AIR 2014 Mad 103.
50
Id.
51
Alka Bose v. Parmatma Devi & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6197 OF 2000].
52
Preamble, Information Technology Act, 2000.
53
Id.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 6

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

presented by the Zigma Group are valid documents since they fulfil the essentials of a
traditional contract also are also recognized by the Information Technology Act.

II.2. STAMP DUTY IS NOT APPLICABLE ON E-CONTRACTS AND CLICK WRAP AGREEMENTS
UNDER MAHARASHTRA STAMP ACT.

It is contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that stamp duty is not applicable for E-
contracts and click wrap agreements under Maharashtra Stamp Act since (II.2.A.) Stamp duty
requires a signature on the executed instrument, and (II.2.B.) Click wrap agreements do not
include E-signatures.

II.2.A. Stamp duty requires a signature on the executed instrument

Application of stamp duty requires the instrument to be executed.54 Execution with reference
to instruments, mean “signed” and “signature”. 55 This means that only the documents
authenticated with electronic signatures, following the procedure prescribed under IT Act 56are
validly executed and are liable to payment of stamp duty. Courts have held that where there is
no sign, that document is not deemed to be executed.57

Along with the Maharashtra Stamp Act, Maharashtra E–Registration and E-Filing Rules, 2013
facilitate the payment of stamp duty online. Section 558 deals with E-registration requirements
wherein Clause (a) states that the affixing an electronic signature or a biometric thumb print
along with digital photo is mandatory through the software module for all executants and
attesting witnesses.59 Similarly, Section 1560 deals with the requirements for E-filing wherein
Clause (a) states that the affixation of an electronic signature or a biometric thumb print along
with digital photo is mandatory for the person filing the notice.61
Thus in order for a document to be stamped online, they need E-signatures or digital signatures
in order for stamp duty to be applicable to them. In the present matter, it is highly unlikely that
e-signatures were affixed on various agreements executed with over 51 million unique users

54
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, sec.3.
55
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, sec.2, cl.(i).
56
Information Technology Act, 2000.
57
Zirka v. Sohiu, AIR 1923 Lah 242; CCRA v. State Bank of India, (1976) 2 MLJ 275.
58
Maharashtra E – Registration and E-Filing Rules, 2013.
59
Maharashtra E – Registration and E-Filing Rules, 2013, sec. 5, cl.(a).
60
Maharashtra E – Registration and E-Filing Rules, 2013.
61
Maharashtra E – Registration and E-Filing Rules, 2013, sec.15, cl.(a).

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 7

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

and customers of the Zigma group which inadvertently implies that the instrument is not
executed under the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

II.2.B. Click wrap agreements do not include signatures.

Electronic record can be duly signed only by affixing a digital signature or an E- signature.62
Click wrap agreement require the clicking of an 'I Agree' tab which is not a valid electronic
signature under the IT Act.

Even though Click-wrap agreements are not 'signed', they are still deemed executed. This was
held in the case of Trimex International FZE v. Vedanta Aluminum Limited, India63, where the
Apex Court gave legitimacy to electronic agreements or electronic contracts even if the same
were not electronically signed and registered.64

Hence in the present matter, the E-contracts and the click-wrap agreements entered into by the
Zigma Group is not an 'instrument' liable to be imposed with stamp duty under the Maharashtra
Stamp Act since Click Wrap agreements which do not hold signatures cannot affixed with a
stamp duty. It is also highly impossible to affix signatures on such a form of electronic
document.

Thus, it is humbly submitted that the Stamp Duty as imposed by the Collector on the E-
Contracts and Click-Wrap Agreements shall not be valid because stamp duty cannot be
imposed on documents which are not executed instruments under the Maharashtra Stamp Act
and the documents entered into by the Zigma Group does not come under such ambit.

III. WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE COLLECTOR WERE ILL-FOUNDED

It is contended that the Collector did not act in consonance with the law since there is (III.1.)
Breach of Fundamental Rights, and there is an (III.2.) Irreparable loss to reputation and
revenue to the Petitioner.

62
Information Technology Act, 2000, sec.3; Information Technology Act, 2000, sec.3A.
63
Trimex International FZE v. Vedanta Aluminum Limited, India, 2010 (1) SCALE 574.
64
Id.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 8

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

III.1. BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

It is contended that there was (III.1.A.) Discrimination against Zigma Group, and (III.1.B.)
Prescribed procedure was not followed

III.1.A. Discrimination against Zigma Group

Article 14,65 is the right to equality and a fundamental right, enshrined in the Part III of the
Indian Constitution. It is a part of the basic structure66 of the constitution and prohibits hostile
discrimination.67 This Rule of Law laid down by A.V. Dicey68 is so integral to humankind that
it has been recognized in all jurisdictions around the world 69 along with various other
Covenants such as ICCPR.70

In the landmark case of E.P. Royappa,71 the Supreme Court had laid down the ‘Doctrine of
Arbitrariness’. Through various judicial pronouncements the court has interpreted this doctrine
liberally by stating “equality is antithetic to arbitrariness”72. In other words, Article 14 ensures
equality of treatment73 in a fair manner. Any actions of Legislature, executive, “State”74 or
under authority of law75 needs to be founded on sound principles76 and should not be arbitrary77
in any manner whatsoever. Failure of which would attract the violation of article 14.78
The Stamp Act prescribes Administrative functions to the Government Officers.79 According
to the case of Maneka Gandhi,80 no administrative authority shall act in an arbitrary manner. It
is thus contended:
i. Presence of a discretion
The phrase “not exceeding” grants a discretion to the Collector81 to choose a value of the duty
payable. The legislature only provides for the Maximum limit.

65
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
66
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
67
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771.
68
A.V. Dicey, The Law of Constitution, 1885.
69
US CONST. 14th Amendment; AUSTRALIA CONST. sec 117.
70
ICCPR. Art 26; UDHR, art 7.
71
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3.
72
ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521.
73
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
74
INDIA CONST. art. 12.
75
R.D. Shetty v. International Airports Authority, 1979 AIR SC 1628.
76
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902; Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SC 682.
77
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
78
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
79
S.P Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, 1996 SCC (1) 573.
80
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 1 SCC 248.
81
Vijaya Jain v. State of UP, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8172.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 9

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Therefore, the Collector has discretion under the Central82 as well as the State Act83 and has
not used it correctly in the present case. Giving absolute discretion to the Collector itself is “a
ruthless master”84 which highlights the possibility of misuse of discretion.

ii. Lack of application of mind- Unreasonable Act

What arbitrariness really means is the lack of following a reasoned decision or any determining
principles. 85 Reasoned decision help in understanding the thought or work done86 in depth.
Thus, Zigma Group seems to be penalised without any reason other than political, the same
qualifies to be arbitrary 87 and without any lawful reason 88 . In the present case, Res Ipsa
Loquitur and the facts hint at the colourable exercise of power89 by the State Government since
it shows that they would have wanted to cause trouble to the Petitioner90 which they could not
have done otherwise.91
Due to the absence of any reasoned decision,92the act of the Collector shall be unreasonable.93

iii. Arbitrary Act

Through judicial interpretations, it is known that an arbitrary act negates equality.94
It is well established that the Zigma Group has been upfront in all political findings95 and
pestered the State Government to be transparent in its dealings.96 It has been very diligent of
the recent actions of the State Government concerning the POC Bank.97 Out of the many E-
Commerce Giants, namely Walkart & Amzone,98 etc. the Collector of Maharashtra imposed
stamp duty only on the Zigma Group. The same has been evidently pressed by the State

82
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
83
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
84
United States v. Martin Wunderlich, 342 US 98.
85
Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P, (2002) 2 SCC 188.
86
Singh, A. P., Reasoned Decision: The Necessity and Importance to Achieve Transparent and Accountable
Society, Journal of National Law University Delhi, 3(1), pp. 163–181. (2015) doi: 10.1177/2277401720150110.
87
D.R. Nim. v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1301.
88
P.K. Tripathi, The Fiasco of Overruling A.K. Gopalan, AIR Journal 6 (1990).
89
Nader v. Bork, 366 F Supp. 104 (D.D.C. 1973).
90
Vora v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 866.
91
Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singh, (2016) 11 SCC 378.
92
Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, 1976 SCR (2) 884.
93
Eurasian equipment and chemicals limited v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 2 SCR 674.
94
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3.
95
Moot Proposition, ¶3, Page 1.
96
Moot Proposition, ¶4, Page 1.
97
Moot Proposition, ¶4, Page 1.
98
Moot Proposition, ¶10, Page 3.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 10

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Government, 99 due to the Chief Editor’s comments on the functioning of the State
Government.100

Since, it is established position of law that arbitrariness negates Article 14,101 it is submitted
that the baseless imposition of duty on the Zigma Group leads to breach of the fundamental
right enshrined under Article 14.

III.1.B. Procedure not followed

According to Section 38 of the Central Act102 as well as the Section 37 of the State Act103, it is
the obligation of the Court104 to impound the Documents under Section 33105 and determine
the penalty to be paid. Only then, if a party is unwilling106 or unable to pay the stamp duty,107
the appropriate step shall be to send the instruments to the Collector under Section 37(2).108 It
is the sole prerogative of the party to choose be bound by the duty calculated by the court or
not to get the instrument admitted as evidence.109
It is thus contended that:

i. Breach of Natural Justice

Principles of natural justice cast an obligation upon the administration to act in a fair manner.110
They should be observed at all possible times.111
In the case at hand, the documents were impounded112 and directly sent to the Collector. The
Petitioner was not given a chance to accept/decline the payment of the requisite Stamp Duty.
The same breaches the one of the principles of natural justice: Audi Alterem Partem. Section

99
Moot Proposition, ¶13, Page 3.
100
Moot Proposition, ¶4, Page 1.
101
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SC 722; R.D. Shetty v. International Airports Authority,
1979 AIR SC 1628.
102
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, sec. 38.
103
Maharashtra Stamp Act., sec. 37.
104
United Precision Engineers Ltd. v. KIOCL Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 1077.
105
Indian Stamp Act, sec. 33; Maharashtra Stamp Act, sec.33.
106
Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (2001) 4 SCC 197; Rasheeda Siddiqui v. Mustafa Aleem
Siddiqui, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3738.
107
Peteti Subba Rao v.Anumala S. Narendra, (2002) 10 SCC 427.
108
Maharashtra Stamp Act, sec. 37, cl. 2.
109
Om Prakash Gupta v. Saraswati Shaw, (2002) 2 ICC 702 (Cal).
110
Chauhan, V. (1995). REASONED DECISION : A PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. Journal of the Indian
Law Institute,37(1), 92-104. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43951591.
111
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1402.
112
Moot Proposition, ¶9, Page 2.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 11

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

37 of the State Act, acts like a notice to the alleged defaulter who can choose to pay or not. The
petitioner in the case was denied the option to choose his course of action and so the act should
stand nullified113 on the grounds of breach of natural justice.114

ii. Breach of Remedy and adequate representation

Principles of fair hearing in civil cases deal with the ability to determine the cases effectively.115
Appreciation of evidence becomes an integral part of the adequate presentation in court which
affects the fair hearing. It is upon the court to ascertain the manner in which evidence was taken
is fair.116
The particular act in question rendered the documents submitted by Zigma Group before the
Bombay High Court inadmissible. This further stands in the way of the petitioner’s right to fair
hearing; since the Zigma Group shall be unable to present its side before the High Court
adequately. Furthermore, the nature of the evidence is primary117 was very vital to the case118
and may affect the outcome119 thus qualifies to be an improper rejection under Section 167,
Evidence Act. 120 It would also interfere with the Petitioner’s right to effective remedy as
guaranteed by the Constitution of India as a fundamental right under part III and the basic
structure121 as well as according to ICCPR.122
The fact that the Petitioner was denied a chance of fair hearing and123 providing sufficient
materials 124 for his representation by virtue of the acts of the Collector, the petitioner’s
fundamental rights stand violated.

iii. Arbitrariness
The case of Shrilekha Vidyarthi125 also highlights that if a prescribed procedure of carrying out
an operation is laid down, and there is no obstruction in performing the same, performance of
the act in a manner otherwise shall be deemed arbitrary.

113
A.R. Anutulay v. R.S. Nayak [1984] 2 SCR 495.
114
Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147.
115
Arnfinn Bårdsen, Reflections on “Fair Trial” in Civil Proceedings According to Article 6 § 1 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Scandinavian Studies In Law (1999-2012).
116
Mantovanelli v. France, (8/1996/627/810).
117
Indian Evidence Act, 1882, sec. 62.
118
Narain v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 484.
119
Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins, 131 F.2d 352, 354-55 (5th Cir. 1941).
120
Indian Evidence Act 1872, sec. 167.
121
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
122
ICCPR, art. 2, cl. 3.
123
Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] AC 40.
124
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax. West Bengal, 1955 AIR 65.
125
Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP, (1991) 1 SCC 212.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 12

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

In the case at hand, the Collector acted upon Section 37(2) despite the presence of Section
37(1), without any sound reason.
There seems to be no reason for denying the Petitioner the chance to pay the stamp duty and
therefore, the entire act of sending the documents to the Collector shall be deemed violative of
Article 14.

Thus, it is submitted that the ill-founded actions of the Collector were in complete violation of
Article 14 as well fair trial principle of Procedural Fairness.126

III.2. IRREPARABLE LOSS TO REPUTATION AND REVENUE TO THE PETITIONER

The case at hand satisfies the requirements of defamation, namely (III.2.A.) publication,
(III.2.B.) false statements and (III.2.C.) injury to reputation

III.2.A. There is publication

Publication is said to take place when apart from the accused and the aggrieved, a third party
is made aware of the said content.127 It is undisputed that the information about imposition of
stamp duty128 and inadmissibility of documents as evidence129 was made public and discussed
at a national level.130
Since newspapers are a valid source of publication131, the criteria of defamation was complete
in the case at hand.

III.2.B. Publication of false statements

There is still no substantial proof or source to state that Clickwrap Agreements and E-Contracts
are subject to Stamp Duty. Thus, the imposition of stamp duty becomes baseless.
The state of Maharashtra has always criticised the actions of Zigma Group.132 It is, thus, correct
to say that the imposition was actuated by malice, and utter irresponsibility 133with regard to

126
Koprivica Harvey, Ana., Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Law Cases, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Comparative
Constitutional Law (2018).
127
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964).
128
Moot Proposition ¶ 10, Page 3.
129
Moot Proposition ¶ 9, Page 2.
130
Moot Proposition ¶ 11, Page 3.
131
Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127.
132
Moot Proposition ¶ 4, Page 1.
133
Rookes v Barnard 9 [1964] AC 1129.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 13

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

content of publication. 134 The allegations of Collector being false and fabricated 135 and
therefore liable to be punished.

III.2.C. Publication was Injurious to Reputation of the Zigma Group

The scope of defamation includes loss of reputation 136or a quantifiable economic loss.137
In the present case, the Zigma group suffered from drop in newspaper consumers, 138
termination of contracts,139 delay in investments,140 uninstallation of apps141 and the same can
be easily appropriated. Thus, it is undisputed that the Zigma group suffered losses due to the
actions of the Collector. 142

Since the act of defamation is independent of Malice or Intention,143 therefore, it is humbly

submitted that the acts of the Collector were defamatory in nature, liable for compensation and
hence, unjustified.

134
D.P. Choudhary v. Kumari Manjulata, AIR 1997 Raj 170.
135
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
136
Savile v Roberts (1699) 1 Ld Raym 374, 91 ER 114.
137
Spring v Guardian [1994] 3 All ER 129.
138
Moot Proposition ¶ 11, Page 3.
139
Moot Proposition ¶ 11, Page 3.
140
Moot Proposition ¶ 11, Page 3.
141
Moot Proposition ¶ 7, Page 2.
142
Moot Proposition ¶ 12, Page 3.
143
E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones, [1910] AC 20.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 14

 CMR VII VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it is most
humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India be pleased to:

1. HOLD, the PIL filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 maintainable

2. DECLARE, the Electronic Documents free from Stamp Duty
3. DECLARE, the actions of the Collector ill-founded
4. DECLARE, the actions of the Collector defamatory in nature.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction, relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of justice,

equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever humbly pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for Petitioner)

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ~ 15