Moot Court Exercise:

Analysis and Discussion of this case

1.The case presented involves a dispute between Sidd Mahesh, a music prodigy, and M/s. Sahir
& Sahir, a building constructor and infrastructure provider, over the construction of a
multi-purpose building with amenities. Sidd Mahesh entered into a contract with M/s. Sahir &
Sahir for the construction of the building, but the construction was left incomplete due to a lack
of funds and materials. Sidd Mahesh requested M/s. Sahir & Sahir to complete the construction
of the roof top pool, and promised to pay them as soon as his album was released.

2.The roof top pool was completed, but Sidd Mahesh's album turned out to be a flop, and he
was unable to pay M/s. Sahir & Sahir the amount owed to them.

3. Later on, M/s. Sahir & Sahir and Sidd Mahesh decided to alter the contract, and Sidd Mahesh
agreed to pay the debt through monthly installments.

4.However, Sidd Mahesh later claimed that the work done by M/s. Sahir & Sahir was not
performed as he had specified and that the material used was substandard.

5.Sidd Mahesh decided to dispose of his property without paying M/s. Sahir & Sahir. M/s. Sahir
& Sahir sent a legal notice to Sidd Mahesh, but he did not respond. M/s. Sahir & Sahir filed a
suit before the Civil Court of Sardam, seeking the repayment of the amount owed to them and
an injunction to restrain Sidd Mahesh from selling the property until the suit was disposed of.

The case raises several legal issues, including:

1.Was there a valid contract between Sidd Mahesh and M/s. Sahir & Sahir, and did they perform
their obligations under the contract?

2.Did Sidd Mahesh breach the contract by failing to pay the amount owed to M/s. Sahir & Sahir,
and did M/s. Sahir & Sahir have a right to seek legal remedy?

3.Did Sidd Mahesh have a legitimate claim of substandard work and material, and if so, how
should the court address this issue?

4.Was M/s. Sahir & Sahir entitled to an injunction restraining Sidd Mahesh from selling the
property until the suit was disposed of?

5.Did Sidd Mahesh have a legitimate reason for not performing at Ms. Asha Sahir's daughter's
birthday party, and was he released from his obligation to perform in exchange for the release of
his debt?
The issue in this moot court exercise :

1.Appears to be centered around the breach of contract between Sidd Mahesh, a minor, and
M/s. Sahir & Sahir, a building constructor and infrastructure provider, regarding the construction
of a multi-purpose building with amenities. ?

2.The main question at hand is whether Sidd Mahesh, as a minor, had the legal capacity to
enter into the contract and whether the contract was binding on him. Additionally, there are
issues related to the quality of construction, payment obligations, and the legal remedies
available to the parties involved.?

Facts of the case:

1. Sidd Mahesh, a sixteen-year-old prodigy singer from Indiana, was awarded the "Sensational
Voice of the Nation" award.

2.Sidd wanted to develop his musical career by releasing fusion albums and engaging in world
music tours.

3. He entered into a contract with M/s. Sahir & Sahir, a building constructor and infrastructure
provider, to construct a multi-purpose building with a recording studio, music theatre, and a
rooftop pool.

4. M/s. Sahir & Sahir agreed to complete the construction for an unrealistically low price of
Rs.10,00,000/-, to be paid in installments.

5. M/s. Sahir & Sahir completed the ground floor and first floor but ran out of money and
materials for further construction.

6. Sidd requested M/s. Sahir & Sahir to continue the construction and spend the remaining
Rs.7,00,000/- from their own funds, promising to pay them once his album is released.

7. The rooftop pool was completed in time for Sidd's party, which was attended by music
industry professionals.
8. Sidd entered into a contract with Veenaghaana Producers for funding his music albums and
tours.

9. Sidd's fusion music album turned out to be a flop, and he was unable to pay the Rs.7,00,000/-
to M/s. Sahir & Sahir.

10. Sidd was compelled by Ms. Asha Sahir to perform at her daughter's party in exchange for
releasing him from the debt.

11. Sidd suffered from a severe sore throat and couldn't perform at Ms. Asha's party on the
doctor's advice.

12. On Sidd's eighteenth birthday, both parties agreed to alter the contract, with Sidd
acknowledging the debt and agreeing to pay through monthly installments of Rs. 20,000/-.

13. Sidd later claimed that the work done by M/s. Sahir & Sahir was substandard and estimated
the cost of rectification to be Rs.3,00,000/-, which he claimed to have already paid.

14. Sidd decided to dispose of his property without paying M/s. Sahir & Sahir.

15. M/s. Sahir & Sahir sent a legal notice to Sidd, demanding repayment within 15 days, but
Sidd did not respond.

16. M/s. Sahir & Sahir filed a suit in the Civil Court of Sardam, Indiana, seeking repayment and
an injunction to prevent Sidd from selling the property.

17. The Civil Court held the contract void ab initio based on Sidd being a minor, citing the
judgment in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose.

18. M/s. Sahir & Sahir appealed to the High Court of Sardam, which granted injunction and
decided to hear the case on merits