1

TEAM CODE:
TC-02

GRAPHIC ERA HILL UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW

II SEMESTER MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SARDAM

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. SENGHAL & SENGHAL……………...………………………PETITIONER

VERSUS

SIDD MALHAR………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 2

LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………………
……………………….3

INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………………
…………………..4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………….….
………………………………………5

STATEMENT OF
FACTS…………………………………………………………………………………………
………….6

STATEMENT OF
ISSUES………………………………………………………………………………………
……………7

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………
……………8

ARGUMENT
ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………………………
………......9-15

1. Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Senghal and

Senghal and Mr. Sidd Malhar ?

2. Whether the judgement passed in Mohori Bibee v.

Dharmodas Ghose needs reconsideration?

3. Whether the Civil Court of Sardam was correct in rejecting

the plea of restitution?

PRAYER FOR RELIEF……………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………16
 3

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

& And

AIR All India Report

AC Appeal Cases

Anrs Another

Art Articles

CJ Chief Justice

Co. Company

Edn. Edition

ICA Indian Contract Act

i.e. Id est (That is)

IPA Indian Partnership Act

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

LR Law Review

No. Number

Pg. Page

Rs. Rupees

Pvt. Private

v. Versus

Bom. Bombay
 4

Cal. Calcutta

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

1. The Indian Contract Act, 1872

2. The Indian Majority Act, 1875

3. The Specific Relief Act, 1963

Text Books

1. Dr. Avtar Singh, Law of Contract and Specific Relief

(Eastern Book Company)

2. Dr. R.K. Bangia , Contract-I ( Allahabad Law Agency )

3. Nilima Bhadbhade, Pollock and Mulla, The Indian Contract

and Specific Relief

Act Volume-I

Case Laws

1. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose

2. Latcharao v. Viswanadham
3. Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI
4. Cowern v. Nields
5. Kujiu Collieries limited v. Jharkhand mines Ltd
6. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd v. Sh Pala Ram Gupta
 5

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Defendant have the honour to submit before the Hon’ble High Court of Sardam,
the memorandum for the defendant under Section 2, 10 and 11 of The Indian
Contract Act,1872.

The Hon’ble High Court of Sardam shall not entertain the matter
filed by the Petitioner.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the
present case.
 6

STATEMENT
MEMORIAL OF FACTS
FOR RESPONDENT

1. Sidd Malhar, a 16 year old citizen of Indiana & recipient of

“Sensational Voice of the Nation” was an outstanding and versatile
singer. He wanted a multi-purpose, architectural marvel where he
could have his theatre for live performance & roof top pool for
parties. He misrepresented himself as a major & put the task out
to render.

2. M/s. Senghal & Senghal was a leading building constructor &

infrastructure provider who offered to do the entire work for Rs.
10,00,000/-. Both the parties knew this was unrealistically low price
contract & the amount will be paid in installments after completion
of different phases of work . According to the contract, ground floor
was for parking, first floor for music theatre ,second floor for
recording studio & last floor for roof top pool. The constructors
completed the construction of ground & first floor and ran out of
the money

3.. Sidd had arranged poolside party & invited top music directors &
renowned individuals whom he believed would fund him. He
requested the Senghal & Senghal to spend the remaining amount of
Rs 7,00,000 on the work out of their funds & assured that he will
repay the money as soon as the album is released.

4.Then Sidd entered into a contract with Veenaghaana Producers

who funded his tours & albums. He told Ms. Asha Senghal , the
manager, that he will repay the money soon but Sidd’s new fusion
album was a disastrous flop. He found himself unable to pay the
amount of Rs 7,00,000/- to M/s. Senghal & Senghal. Ms Asha
Senghal compelled Sidd to render music performances in her
daughter’s birthday party and in return agreed to release him from
debt. Sidd agreed on this but suffered from a severe sore throat
and didn’t perform on the advice of his doctor.

6. On Sidd’s 18th birthday, the parties decided to alter the contract.

Sidd acknowledged the debt & both agreed on the payment through
EMI of Rs 20,000 per month till the repayment of amount Rs
7,00,000/-. Sidd later on felt that the work done was not upto the
mark & the material wasn’t satisfactory and would have cost them
only Rs 3,00,000/- which he had already paid. So, Sidd decided to
dispose off his property.
 7

7.They tried every way to get back the money but Sidd didn’t
return the amount & at last they sent him a legal notice stating
they want repayment within 15 days but Sidd didn’t send any reply
to it. Suit was filed by M/s Senghal & Senghal before the Civil Court
of Sardam where they alleged fraud against him & prayed for
injunction restraining Sidd from selling the property until the suit
was disposed off. The Court held that minor’s contract is void ab
initio & released him from liablities upholding the judgement passed
in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose & the Plea of restitution was
rejected. After it , suit was filed in High Court of Sardam where HC
granted injunctions & decided to hear the case.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Senghal and

Senghal and Mr. Sidd Malhar ?

2. Whether the judgement passed in Mohori Bibee v.

Dharmodas Ghose needs reconsideration?

3. Whether the Civil Court of Sardam was correct in rejecting

the plea of restitution?
 8

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue-1

The council on the behalf of the defendant most humbly and

respectfully submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Sardam that
there is no valid contract between M/s. Senghal and Senghal and
Mr. Sidd Malhar because according to Section 10 and Section 11 of
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 the contract with a minor is void-ab-
initio.

Issue-2

The council on the behalf of the defendant most humbly and

respectfully submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Sardam that
the judgement passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose 1
doesn’t need reconsideration because before this judgement there
were controversies whether, if a minor enters into an agreement, it
would be voidable at his option or altogether void. Ever since this
decision it hasn’t been doubted that a minor’s agreement is
absolutely void. Any other rule would have made the law
asymmetrical and would have created confusions.

Issue-3

The council on the behalf of the defendant most humbly and

respectfully submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Sardam that
the Civil Court of Sardam was absolutely correct in rejecting the
plea of restitution. The theory of restitution , chiefly devoted to gain
1
(1903) 30 Cal. 539
 9

a benefit by way of a null agreement or contract , is covered in

Section 65 of the Indian Act , 1872 . Provisions of Section 65 apply
only when an agreement at a subsequent stage is discovered to be
void or when a contract becomes void later on by one person or
the person or the other . But Section 65 will never come into play
if the contract was void-ab-initio2.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue-1 Whether there is a valid contract between M/s.

Senghal and Senghal and Mr. Sidd Malhar ?

1. The council on the behalf of the defendant most humbly and

respectfully submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Sardam
that Mr. Sidd Malhar is not competent to Contract as per the
Provisions of the Indian Contract Act,1872. For an agreement
to be a contract, Provisions of Section 10, Indian Contract
Act,18723, must be fulfilled.

For an agreement to be a contract:

 Parties should be competent to contract.

 There must be free consent of parties.
 There should be lawful consideration
 There should be lawful object.
 It should not be expressly declared to be void

2
void from the beginning

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

3
‘When agreements are contracts:
All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object,
and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.
Nothing herein contained shall effect any law in force in India and not hereby
expressly repealed by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in
the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.’
 10

The counsel humbly and respectfully submits before the

hon’ble court that Mr. Sidd Malhar is a minor, his
consent can’t be considered as valid consent and the
agreement is not for to supply necessities to the minor,
thus it is not a valid contract.

2. Contract with a minor is absolutely void because according of

Sec 11 of ICA,18724, a minor is not competent to make a
contract. Therefore, Mr Malhar being below the age of 18
years, is a minor and thus not competent to contract.
In the case of Latcharao v. Viswanadham5, it was held by
the hon’ble court, “as a minor cannot enter into a contract,
contract with a minor is void-ab-initio.”

3. A person who has not attained the age of majority is a

minor. Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 18756 provides that
a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority
when he completes the age of 18 years.
Mr. Sidd during the time of contract was 16 years old so he
is incompetent to contract which makes this contract invalid.

4. A minor is incompetent to enter into a contract and any

contract entered by him is void-ab-initio7. The sole purpose of
this law is to accord protection to minors because a person
who has not attained a certain level of understanding and

4
Who are competent to contract:
Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law
to which he is subject,1 and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting
by any law to which he is subject.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

5
(1903) 30 Cal. 539
6
Age of majority of persons domiciled in India.
1. Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the
age of eighteen years and not before.
2. In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as
a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the
eighteenth anniversary of that day.
7
Mallick, Indian Contract Act, p. 411.
 11

distinction between correct and incorrect can be defrauded

easily. As a result, the contract by a minor cannot be
enforced in a court of law.
In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI 8it was held by the
hon’ble court that, “a contract must be entered into by a
person who can make a promise or make an offer. Else, the
contract will be void as an agreement which is not
enforceable under law is void. Thus, minors cannot enter a
contract.
In the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose9, it was
concluded that any contract that involves a minor will be void
ab initio and will follow no consequences. This was the
landmark judgement that stated the nature of the minor’s
agreement.
5. For a contract to be valid, parties to contract must have a
free consent. Consent is defined under Section 13 of Indian
Contract Act,1872 10as agreement between two or more people
upon the same thing in the same sense. Mutual consent is
essential for every agreement and agreement is generally
essential for formation of contract. Therefore, no binding
contract can be formed if there is no consensus ad idem.

Thus, it is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court

that as a minor is not competent to give a valid consent,
hence contract with Mr. Sidd Malhar is not valid as it does
not fulfill the conditions specified under sections of Indian
Contract Act,1872.

8
T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, p. 136.
9
(1903) 30 Cal. 539

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

10
‘Consent defined:
Two or more people are said to consent when they agree upon the same
thing in the same sense’

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 12

Issue 2- Whether the judgement passed in Mohori Bibee v.

Dharmodas Ghose needs reconsideration?

6. The council on the behalf of the defendant most humbly and

respectfully submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Sardam
that the judgement passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas
Ghose doesn’t need reconsideration because before this
judgement there were controversies whether, if a minor enters
into an agreement, it would be voidable at his option or
altogether void. Ever since this decision it hasn’t been doubted
that a minor’s agreement is absolutely void. Any other rule
would have made the law asymmetrical and would have
created confusions.

7. This case covers a wide scope of minor’s agreements.

According to the ruling, any transaction with a minor is null
and void simply because of section 2,10 and 11 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. When section 11 is read in conjunction
with section 10, the result is that a contract is null void.
 13

8. Section 10 of the ICA stipulates that all contracting parties

must be competent but Sec 11 establishes the competency
criteria, which excludes children, persons of sound mind and
those who are expressly prohibited by law.

9. Talking about this case, here, Dharmodas Ghose, who was a

minor at the time, obtained a loan from Bhramodutt, a lender
in Calcutta, by claiming to be an adult and signing a
mortgage deed in his favour. At the time, the mortgage was
advance money. Kedarnath, Bhramodutt’s agent, had received
information that the respondent was a minor; thus, he could
not execute the deed. Nonetheless, he signed a mortgage deal
with Dharmodas Ghose.

The youngster then filed a lawsuit against Bhramodutt with his

mother and guardian, requesting that the court revoke the
mortgage deed because he was a juvenile at the time it was
signed. Jenkins J. , a trial court judge, accepted the
respondent’s appeal and annulled the mortgage deed.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

The appellant’s appeal against the order was likewise

dismissed by the High Court, therefore he took his case to
the Privy Council. At the time of the appeal, Bhramodutt had
passed away. As a result, he was succeeded by Mohori Bibee.

10. In the case, the Privy Council strictly defined that any
sought of contract or agreement with a minor or with any
infant shall be null and void or void-ab-initio. Majority Act,1875
outlined the definition of the minor, according to which any
person who is below the age of 18 years or has not
completed the age of 18 years shall not be competent to
create or enter into any sought of contract or agreement.

11. This judgement is correct because minor or infant comes

in the contract of such people who cannot give there free
consent along with the reason that they are not in position
 14

where they can think in a manner in which a prudent or an

ordinary person could do it. An agreement is a deal where
free or equal consent of both the parties are given but in a
case of the minor, they can be dominated by the majors
which can lead to the violation of one of the condition to
form a contract i.e., free consent.

12. Any other rule would have made the law asymmetrical
leaving it to the whim of a child to pick and choose between
agreements made by him which he will and he will not
enforce. A child may show poor judgement in making a
particular contract, and it is a protection against his own
ignorance and immaturity- not merely fraudulent manipulation
by others- that the law affords. The general assumption that
every man is the best judge of his own interests is suspended
in the case of the children.

13. In the case of Cowern v. Nields, a minor was carrying

out business as a hay and straw merchant and he entered
into a contract with the plaintiff for supply of clover and hay
and also received a cheque for the same. The clover delivered
by the minor was rejected as bad and he failed to deliver the
hay. The action of plaintiff to recover the amount of cheque
did not succeed. Such contracts maybe beneficial for the
minor’s business but still they are not binding in nature.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

Issue – 3 Whether the Civil Court of Sardam was correct in

rejecting the plea of restitution

14. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

that the Civil Court was correct in rejecting the plea of
restitution . The theory of restitution , chiefly devoted to gain a
benefit by way of a null agreement or contract , is covered in
Section 65 of the Indian Act , 1872 .

15. The principle behind this provision is that an agreement

or a contract exists and that , if there is no agreement or
contract , the restitution doctrine cannot enter into effect . This
 15

philosophy is founded on a fairly prevalent rule of thought ,

which indicates that a person only pays attention if something
returns .

16. Section 65 of the Indian contract act , 1872 mainly deals

with the doctrine of restitution and it relates to the obligation
of the person who has received some advantage under void
agreement or contract . This section starts from the very basis
that there being an agreement or contract and if there was
no agreement or contract then the doctrine of restitution
cannot come into play .

17. Provisions of Section 65 apply only when an agreement

at a subsequent stage is discovered to be void or when a
contract becomes void later on by one person or the person
or the other . But Section 65 will never come into play if the
contract was void-ab-initio i.e. void from the very beginning .

18. Supreme Court of India in the case of Kujiu Collieries

limited v. Jharkhand mines Ltd 11 held that an agreement
which was discovered to be void at a later stage will invite
section 65 into the picture and in such a case an
advantageous person is bound to restore the disadvantaged
party .

19. Moreover , if the agreement was entered between a

major person being the plaintiff and the minor defendant in
this case then doctrine of restitution will not be applied , this
was held in the case of Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose .

20. In other case of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd v. Sh Pala

Ram Gupta it was held that an agreement or contract which
11
1974 AIR 1892,1975 SCR(1703)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 16

was void and illegal from the very beginning can never apply
the provisions of this doctrine .

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of factual matrix, issues raised, arguments

advanced and authorities cited it is humbly and respectfully
 17

submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Sardam that it may be

pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Mr. Sidd Malhar is minor and does not have the capacity to
enter into the contract .
2. The suit is not maintainable as the minor is not a competent
person to enter into a valid contract / agreement .
3. The Plea of restitution should be rejected by the court .
4. The injunction should not be granted .

And pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to grant in the justice , equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is Humbly Prayed.

Sd/-

(Council for the Respondent)

MEMORIALFORRESPONDENT