UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

20210401017

UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCISE

THE
g HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

First Appeal No. 22 of 1977 under section 96 of Civil Procedure code

IN THE MATTER OF

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ……. (appellant)

Versus
ABNASH TEXTILE TRADING AGENCIES …….. (respondent)

UPON SUBMISSION TO COMPANION JUSTICES

OF
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 1

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………3

Index of authorities …………………………………………………………………………...4
Statement of Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………………………...5
Statement of Facts …………………………………………………………………………….6
Issue Raised …………………………………………………………………………………...8
Summary of Arguments ………………………………………………………………………9
Advanced Arguments ………………………………………………………………………10
I. Whether the defendant is guilty of the breach of contract?

Prayer ………………………………………………………………………………………12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 2

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High court

AIR All India Reporter

Govt. Government

ICA Indian Contract Act

Criminal P.C Criminal Procedure Code

CPC Civil Procedure Code

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 3

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES

1. The Indian Contract Act,1872

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
3. The Partnership Act, 1973
4. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948

BOOKS
1. Amid Dhandha, NS Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes 250 (11th Ed. 2010)
2. Avtar Singh's Law of Contract & Specific Relief by Rajesh Kapoor (13th Ed. 2022)
3. Ashok Kumar Jain’s Law of Contract (9th Ed.)

CASES
1. Erroll Mackay V/s. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1932 PC 196
2. Muhammad Habidullah V/s. Bird and Company, AIR 1922 PC 178
3. Shankar Das Rup Lals Case, AIR 1952
4. H. Sham Sunder and Sons V/s. Ram Chand Spinning and Weaving Mills, AIR 1957
Punjab 90
5. G.D. Gear and Company V/s. French Cigarettes Company Ltd., Lahore, AIR 1931

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 4

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HAS THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE
RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 96
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 5

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The plaintiff-respondent M/s. Abnash Textile Trading Agencies, Ambala City, filed the
suit for the recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the damages for the breach of the
contract including the refund of the security amounting to Rs.36,000/-. According to the
plaintiff, it was a partnership firm carrying on the business of retail and wholesale sale of
cloth and is duly registered under the Partnership Act.
2. The defendant-appellant, Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board)
issued a tender notice in The Tribune, Chandigarh, dt. July 27, 1973 for the supply of
10,000 metres of khaki woollen cloth 145 cms. x 605 cm. per lineal metre. It, in compliance
with the conditions governing the tender for the supply of the cloth, gave its offer in the
form of tender vide letter dt. Aug. 10, 1973, for three items.
3. The relevant item was: wool khaki serge as per the sample of which the rate quoted was
35.89 per metre. The said tender submitted by it was accepted by the board at the said rate
and a telegram of acceptance thereto was sent to it asking it to deposit the security amount
of Rs.35,000/-.
4. Thus, a completed contract came into existence between the parties for the supply of wool
khaki serge at the rate of Rs.35.89 per metre.
5. The board also sent the letter of confirmation with endorsement dt. Sept. 13, 1973, which
was received by it on Sept.17, 1973 (by ordinary post. Thereafter, it deposited the security
amount of Rs.35,000/-.
6. In pursuance of the completed contract between the parties, the defendant handed over the
purchase order dt. Sept. 24,1973, Ext. P. 9, to its representative for the supply of 12,000
metres of wool khaki serge at the rate of 35.89 per metre. Since it had agreed to supply the
contracted goods within 60 days, it placed an order with M/s. Bhag Mal and Sons, Amritsar,
for manufacturing 10,000 metres of wool khaki serge and also deposited a large amount of
security with the said firm.
7. Before it could start the supply, to its surprise, it received a letter dated Oct. 9, 1973, from
the board wherein it was informed that the board did not propose to enter into any contract
with it for the purchase of woollen cloth and, therefore, it was directed to withdraw its
security deposit immediately.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 6

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

8. Since there was a completed contract between the parties, none of them was competent to
rescind the same. The board itself committed the breach of the contract. Later on the board
entered into a contract with some firm at Ludhiana and started purchasing from it.
9. Thus, it had suffered a loss of Rs.60,000/- as damages which it assessed on the basis of the
difference of the price which it had to pay to the manufacturer with whom it had entered
into the contract, and supply to the board at the rate agreed with the latter. It was also
entitled to the refund of Rs.35,000/-on account of the security deposited by it.
10. Besides, it also claimed a sum of Rs.4,000/- on account of the damages that it was likely to
pay to the manufacturer with whom it had entered into the agreement to manufacture the
goods.
11. The defendant resisted the suit on the allegations that no completed contract had come into
existence between the parties. The telegram, if any, was neither a valid acceptance of the
offer made by it, nor it amounted to an agreement between the parties. Such an agreement
could be valid only if it was duly and properly executed between the parties.
12. The board was a corporate body and the contract made and entered into on its behalf must
be in its name. It was denied that any purchase order was issued or handed over to the
plaintiff. According to the Board, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff vides letter dt. Sept. 28,
1973, requested it to issue the purchase order. It sent the letter dt. Oct. 7, 1973, to the effect,
that it did not want to enter into the contract for the purchase of 10,000 metres of cloth.
Furthermore, the plaintiff did not deposit the security amount within four days as intimated
to it. The defendant was, therefore, free to enter into any contract with any firm, and as
such the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 7

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

ISSUE(S) RAISED

I. Whether the defendant is guilty of the breach of contract?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 8

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the defendant is guilty of the breach of contract?

The appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble High court of Punjab and Haryana that
the contract is not completed as Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 lays down
conditions which makes a contract valid. However, in the present appeal the said conditions
have not been fulfilled due to which a contract does not exist hence there cannot be a breach
of contract. Therefore, the defendant is not guilty of the breach of contract.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 9

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the defendant is guilty of the breach of contract?

1. The appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
that the contract is not completed as Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 lays down
conditions which makes a contract valid.
A contract is valid and legally binding if the following six essential elements are present:

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration
4. Intention to create legal relations
5. Legality and capacity
6. Certainty

2. Offer is an essential element of a contract, according to section 2 (A) of the Indian Contract
Act,1872 1

3. In the facts of the case, it is highlighted that there was not a valid offer made by the
respondent as Offer must be definite, clear, complete and final, and the tender issued by
respondent is an invitation to offer. Moreover, it is humbly submitted that tender is not an offer
and an invitation to offer is not an offer.

4. Furthermore, the second essential of the contract i.e the acceptance has not been fulfilled in
the present context as the It was also contended that no letter of acceptance of the offer was
ever despatched to the plaintiff and it had been wrongly pleaded that the letter dt. Sept. 24,
1973, Ext. P. 9, i. e., the order for purchase, was given to the plaintiff, I do not find any merit
in these contentions.

1
“When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to
obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal’’

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 10

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Board was a corporate body as
provided under S. 12 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 2and, therefore, there could not be
a completed contract between the parties unless the same was in writing and duly
approved by the Board.

6. Since the contract does not exist due to unfulfillment of the essentials of a valid contract.
Hence, there is no breach of contract therefore, the respondent most humbly submits to the
Hon’ble High Court the defendant is not guilty of breach of contract.

2
12. INCORPORATION OF BOARD. -The Board shall be a body corporate by the name notified under sub-
section (1) of Sec. 5, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold property
both moveable and immovable, and shall by the said name sue and be sued.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 11

 UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT EXERCICE

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the petitioner
respectfully requests this Hon’ble court to adjudge and be pleased to:
• Dismiss the present appeal by the appellant as there is no breach of contract
• Pass any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which respectfully submitted

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT SHALL DUTY BOUND FOR
FOREVER PRAY.

On Behalf of the appellant

Counsel for appellant.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 12