Memorial Respondent SLS Hyd Full and Final

1ST SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2016
TEAM
TEAMCODE:
CODE:TN – 112
TN--112
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDUX
:IN THE MATTER OF:
Special Leave Petition No. /2016
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUX)
BAPG (BULB TECH AGGRIEVED PARTY GROUP) ......PETITIONER
V.
GOVERNMENT OF INDUX
NGE (NOT SO GENERAL ELECTRONICS) .......RESPONDENT(S)
SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

COMPETITION 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 02
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 04-05
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 06-09
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 10
ISSUES RAISED 11
STATEMENT OF FACTS 12-13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 14-15
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 16
1. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY BAPG IN THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDUXIS NOT MAINTAINABLE 16
1.1. THAT THE PRESENT PETITION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION OF LAW. 17
1.2. THAT PUBLIC INTEREST IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE.18
1.3. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY BARS THE PRESENT PETITION. 18
2. THAT THE CONTRACT BETWEEN “NGE” AND THE CUSTOMERS IS OF
STANDARD FORM. 19
3. THAT THE PATENT ON “BULB TECH” WAS VALIDLY GRANTED TO NGE. 23
3.1. THAT THE USE OF DEFINITE QUANTITY OF BARIUM ARSENIDE PHOSPHIDE
(“BAP”) AS A SEMICONDUCTOR IS A NOVEL STEP. 23
3.2. THAT THE IMPUGNED INVENTION HAS AN INVENTIVE STEP. 25
4. THAT THE DISPOSAL OF DATA DOESN’T LEADS TO INFRINGEMENT OF
RIGHT TO PRIVACY. 27
4.1 THAT DISPOSAL OF DATA MEANS DESTRUCTION OF DATA. 28

COMPETITION 2016
4.2. DESTRUCTION OF DATA CAN’T LEADS TO INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO

PRIVACY. 28
4.3. IF DISPOSAL OF DATA LEADS TO DISCLOSURE THEN ALSO IT WOULDN’T

LEAD TO INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVACY. 30
PRAYER 32

COMPETITION 2016
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2d Second series
v. versus
Hon’ble Honorable
Art. Article
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
Ltd. Limited
Co. Company
S.C Supreme Court
A.I.R All Indux Report
Nag Nagaland
Del Delhi
EWHC England and Wales High Court
USPQ United Nations Patent Quartely
Fed Federal
Cir Circuit
(P) Private
Ltd Limited
P.T.C Patent, Trademark and Copyright
Ed. Edition
U.S United States

COMPETITION 2016
Inc. Incorporated
Mfg. Manufacturing
Co. Company
R.P.C Report of Patent Cases
Ed. Edition
C.P.D Common Pleas Divisons
K.B King’s Bench
Q.B Queen’s Bench
W.L.R Weakly Law Report
Sc. Session Court
Div Division
& and
L.T Law Times
Pat. Patent
All ER ALL England Law Report
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
Comp. Computer
Cas. Cases
Mad Madras
C.P.D Common Pleas Divisons

COMPETITION 2016
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
 CONSTITUTION OF INDUX 21
 INDUX PATENT ACT, 1970 25, 27
 PATENTS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 27
 INDUX CONTRACT ACT, 1872 21
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 29
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (REASONABLE SECURITY PRACTICES AND
PROCEDURES AND SENSITIVE PERSONAL DATA OR INFORMATION)
RULES, 2011 32
BOOKS, ARTICLES & TREATIES
 KALYAN C. KANKANALA & ARUN K. NARASANI & VINITA

RADHAKRISHNAN, INDIAN PATENT LAW AND PRACTICE, (1ST ED. OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS 2010 ) 25,26
 NANDAN KAMATH, LAW RELATING TO COMPUTERS INTERNET &E-
COMMERCE, 5th ed. 2012. 31
 BRYAN A.GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1350 (9th Ed. 2009). 20
 STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY VOL. IV, (4TH ed.). 21
 V.G.RAMACHANDRAN, LAW OF WRITS 26 (6th ed. 2006). 18
 ASIM PANDYA,WRITS AND OTHER CONST.REMEDY 290 (1st ed. 2009). 18
 D.D.BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUX 3822 (8th ed.
2008). 18
 MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 240, (6th ed. Lexis Nexis 2013). 21
 POLLOCK AND MULLA, THE INDIAN CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF
ACTS, 1872 124 (14th ed. Lexis Nexis 2016). 21
ARTICLES

COMPETITION 2016
 VAIBHAVI PANDEY, DATA PROTECTION LAWS IN INDUX, SINGH AND

ASSOCIATES, THE ROAD AHEAD (1st July,2015). 30
 JUSTICE B. P. BANERJEE, WRIT REMEDIES (4th Ed. 2008). 18
CASES
Amulya v. Union of Indux, (1991) 1 U.J.S.C. 181. 18
Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 355. 19
AT & T Knowledge Ventures LP , re , 2009 E.W.H.C. 343 (Pat.). 25
Balakrishna v. Matha, (1991) Cr L.J. 691: (1991) 2 S.C.C. 203: (1991). 19
Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 188. 18
Bombay Agarwal Co. v. Ramchand Diwanchand , A.I.R. 1953 Nag. 154. 18
Brugger v. Medic Aid Ltd., 1996 R.P.C. 635. 28
Cable electrics Products v. Genmark Inc., 770 F 2d 1051 (Fed Cir 1985). 28
Daviel v. Parry, (1980) 20 ESTATE Gazatte 92.: 1988 C.L.Y. 435. 24
Durga Shankar v. Raghu Raj, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 520. 18
Gillette Co. v. S.C Johnson & Son Inc., 919 F 2d 720 (Fed Cir 1990). 28
Glaxo Group Ltd.’s Patent, 2004 R.P.C. 43. 27
Gobind v. state of M.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1378. 29
Graham v. John Deere Co., 15 L Ed 2d 545: 383 U.S. 1 (1966). 27
Henderson v. Stevenson, (1875) 2 Sc & Div 470: (1875) 32 L.T. 709 (H.L.). 23
Hill v. Gateway 2000 Inc., 105 F 3d 1147 (7th Cir 1997). 23
Hotickness v. Greenwood, 13 L Ed 683: 52U.S. 248 (1851). 27
Inter-globe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Sachidanad, (2011) 7 S.C.C. 463. 21
Jamshedji Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai, (2004)3 S.C.C. 214, 244.21

COMPETITION 2016
Janta Dal v. H.S Chaudhury, (1992) 2 S.C.C. 116. 20
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295. 29
L’Estrange v. F. Graucob Ltd., (1934) 2 K.B. 394.
Lease Management Services v. Purnell Secretarial Services Ltd., (1994) 13 Tr L.R. 337
(C.A.). 26
Loom Co. v. Higgins, 26 L Ed 1177: 105 US 580 (1881). 28
Mahendra Lal v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2989. 20
Mathai v. George, (2010) 4 S.C.C. 358. 19
Mr. K.J.Doraisamy v. The Assistant Manager, State Bank of Indux and others, [2007] 136
Comp Cases 568 (Mad). 33
Munisami v. Ranganathan, (1991) 2 S.C.C. 139: A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 492.
Munn v. Illinosis ,94 U.S. 113. 29
Nazuk Jahan v. ADJ (1980) 4 SCC 595. 19
Nirma Ltd. v. Lurgi Lentges Energietechnik Gmbh., (2002) 5 S.C.C. 520. 20
Paeco Inc. v. Applied Moldings Inc. , 562 F 2d 570: 194 U.S.P.Q. 353 (3rd Cir 1977). 26
Panduit Corpn. v. Denninson Mfg. Co., 810 F 2d 1561 (Fed Cir 1987). 27
Parker v. South Eastern Railway Co., (1877) 2 C.P.D. 416. 22
Philips Electrical & Pharmaceutical Industries Corpn. v. Thermal & Electronic Industries
Inc. , 450 F 2d 1164, 1169 ( 3rd Cir 1971). 26
Pritam Singh v. The State , A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 169. 18
ProCD v. Mathew Zeidenberg, 86 F 3d 1447 (7th Cir 1996). 23
Pyrene Co v. ScIndux Navigation Co., (1954) 2 Q.B. 402 23
R.Rajagopal v. State of T.N,1995 A.I.R 264. 29

COMPETITION 2016
Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram Choudhary, A.I.R. 1978 Del 1. 25
Ramesh v. Gendalal Motilal Patni, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1445. 21
Sakraida v. AG Pro Inc., 47 L Ed 2d 784: 425 U.S. 273 (1976). 27
Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 715. 18
Sarda v. Dharmpal,1998 (8) S.C.C. 296. 32
Seymour v. Osborne, 20 L Ed 33: 78 US 516 (1870). 28
Sirpur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1520 19
Spruling (J,) Ltd. v. Brandshaw, (1956) 1 W.L.R 461. 24
SSIH Equipments S.A. v. United States International Trade Commission, 718 F 2d 765: 218
U.S.P.Q. 678 (Fed Cir 1983). 26
Thorntmon v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd., (1971) 2 Q.B. 163, 172. 23
Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. v. Theramx (P) Ltd., 1988 P.T.C. 213. 26
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. http://www.lexisnexisacademic.com (last acessed on 28th Aug,2016)
2. http:// www.Induxkanoon.org (last accessed on 29th Aug, 2016)
3. http://www.manupatra.com(last accessed on 29th Aug, 2016)
4. http://www.scconlince.com(last accessed on 29th Aug, 2016)
5. http://www.jstor.org(last accessed on 28th Aug, 2016)
6. http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Light-Emitting-Diode-LED.html( last accessed

on 29th Aug, 2016).
7.http://www.akamarketing.com/click-wrap-shrink-wrap-contracts.html(last accessed
on 29th Aug,2016)
8. http://www.niu.edu/rcrportal/datamanagement/dhtopic.html.
9.http://ico.org.uk//for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection-rule-5-retention/.

COMPETITION 2016
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Special Leap Petition /2016 have been field by the respondent at the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Indux under Article 1361 of the Constitution of Indux.
1
Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of Indux.
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

COMPETITION 2016
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I.WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY BAPG IS MAINTAINABLE?

II. WHETHER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN “NGE” AND COSTUMER IS A
STANDARD FORM OF CONTRACT?
III. THE PATENT ON BULB TECH WAS VALIDLY GRANTED TO NGE?
IV.WHETHER THE DISPOSAL OF DATA LEADS TO INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO
PRIVACY?

COMPETITION 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. BACKGROUND
1. The material case arises from a SLP filed by BAPG being aggrieved by the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of Channel. The High Court of channel had rejected the pleas of BAPG
by taking into consideration the arguments of NGE.
II. NGE A FOREIGN COMPANY
2. NGE is a foreign company having its registered office in the state of Germanzi and
ventured in state of Indux recently. They were doing well in its technological inventions and
they introduced various new technologies in the state of Indux. Almost the whole country
was using the technologies that were introduced by NGE because of their promise to reduce
the average spending of the common population on electronic items by 50%.
III. NGE & BULB TECH
3. NGE came up with an energy efficient technology, LED bulb that could work for 100
years without getting fused or spoilt named “Bulb Tech”. In manufacturing of this bulb, NGE
used definite quantity of Barium Arsenide Phosphide (“BAP”) which they considered as a
novel step as BAP was not a commonly used semiconductor in relation to LED. To increase
the longevity of the bulb they heated BAP at a particular temperature and added certain
quantity of nitrogen as impurity. Moreover, they used LED driver devices manufactured by
Monolever Limited (“ML”) of Indux. The Bulb Tech got patent protection in Indux.
IV. BULB TECH WORKING
4. The main circuit of the Bulb was connected to the main server at Germanzi. Bulb Tech was
sold on EMI and this EMI was to be paid in 15 months and on the default to pay any
instalment, the circuit of the bulb got disconnected from the main operating system in
Germanzi. The bulb came with a shrink-wrap contract, the moment the costumer tore open
the wrapper of the bulb box, they become bind by the contract with NGE. At the time of the
purchase, the costumer need to pay the first instalment and also need to provide his credit
card details which were transferred to NGEs main operating centre in Germanzi. However,
for privacy purpose, they followed data practices prescribed under the law of Germanzi and
not IS/ISO/IEC 27001standards.
V. NGE-REALTION WITH INDUX
5. energy consumption in domestic sector of Indux accounts for almost 50% of total
consumption and lightning is key component.NGE provided a projection to the Government

COMPETITION 2016
of Indux and publicised in all forms of media in Indux about their energy efficient bulb that
could reduce energy consumption of Indux by 88%(as compared to ordinary bulb) in the
long run and 50% (as compared to CFLs). The Ministry of Power in the government was
pleased with idea and approached NGE for manufacturing Bulb Tech in Indux by availing
them subsidies under the ‘make in Indux’ initiative. They also showed interest for promoting
and selling the Bulb Tech though government shops and electricity departments. NGE agreed
to the proposal and signed MOU and as a first step, Government of Indux started selling Bulb
Tech through Government shops and electricity department. People of Indux bought Bulb
tech bulb in large quantities and became popular.
VI. THE DISPUTE
6. The costumers who failed to pay the required subsequent instalments, faced disconnection
of bulb. Apart from this, they started getting promotional/solicitation calls for purchasing
products of Germanzi and for investing in financial products through the Liberalised
Remittance Scheme (“LRS”) in International Commercial Banks of Germanzi. These banks
are not approved by Reserve Bank of Indux under the LRS for solicitation of investments. On
enquiry, Mr. Ashok Ganguly who is a costumer of NGE, found out that all the credit card
details of costumers were disposed of when the costumers fails to pay the instalments and the
contract was breached. On further enquiry, he also realised that there was an indemnity clause
in the shrink-wrap contract and it was mentioned that, once the contract is breached, NGE
takes absolutely no responsibility of any data provided by the customer and the data may be
disposed of in a manner that the company deems fit. Mr. Ganguly filed a writ in the Hon’ble
High Court of Channel (a state of Indux) against the Government of Indux and NGE, after
finding his privacy rights breached. Later on, he was joined by other aggrieved customers,
including ML. They were collectively referred in writ petition as ‘BulbTech aggrieved parties
group’(“BAPG”).
VII. THE RESULTANT LITIGATION
8. The High Court of Channel rejected the pleas of BAPG by taking into consideration the
arguments of NGE that the shrink-wrap contract was a valid contract, the patent on BulbTech
was validly granted to NGE, the concerned data privacy laws of Indux did not apply to NGE
and, in any circumstances the customer had already contracted out of any privacy
requirements. Therefore, aggrieved by the decision of High court of Channel, BAPG filed a
petition on the special leave Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Channel.

COMPETITION 2016
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I.THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY BAPG IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that SLP is not maintainable as there is no
substantial question of Law emerging and also that public interest is not involved in that
petition. Also BAPG has other remedies which bar them before filing SLP in Supreme Court
of Indux.
II. THE CONTRACT BETWEEN “NGE” AND COSTUMER IS A STANDARD
FORM OF CONTRACT.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court, that the shrink-wrap contract between
N.G.E and its customers of Indux, is valid by fulfilling every essential criteria of a valid
contract and at the same time giving one’s credit card detail is in his own hand, whether he
want to disclose itor not, it is in the customer’s hand and only after accepting the terms and
conditions, customers are filling the first EMI in advance and giving their credit card details
in return, the company N.G.E. is giving them more electricity efficient bulb. There is also a
signed on the indemnity bond by the customers, which laid says that, in case of default in
payment company will not take responsibility of keeping the secret detail of credit card with
themselves.
III. THE PATENT ON BULB TECH WAS VALIDLY GRANTED TO NGE.
The patent on Bulb Tech was validly granted to NGE as the requirements of an invention to
be patentable, has been fulfilled by the Bulb Tech. It is contented that the patent on Bulb
Tech cannot be invoked as the use of BAP as a semiconductor was a novel step and also there
is an inventive step in the invention as the combination gives an improved and advanced
result which was a long-felt need of Indux. To this end, it is argued that 3.1] The use of
Barium Arsenide Phosphide (“BAP”) as a semi-conductor is a novel step. 3.2] The impugned
invention has an inventive step.
IV. THE DISPOSAL OF DATA DOESN’T LEADS TO INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT

TO PRIVACY.
The disposal of data doesn’t leads to infringement of Right to privacy. As the people have
signed out of their will on the shrink wrap contract in which indemnity clause has mentioned
that NGE takes absolutely no responsibility of any data provided once the contract is
breached. The data may be disposed of in any manner as company may deems fit. As the

COMPETITION 2016
contract got breached by failing to pay the subsequent instalment and once the contract is
breached the NGE can dispose the data as it may deems fit. Here the company can’t be said
to be violation of data privacy laws of Indux because it was clearly mentioned in the contract
that the laws of Indux wouldn’t apply there instead they would be govern by the laws of
Germanzi. Also the people here contracted out of their privacy requirement.

COMPETITION 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY BAPG IN THE HON’BLE

COURT OF INDUX IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
1. The Respondent humbly contends the maintainability of Special Leave petition Filed by
BAPG on the ground that the petitioner lacks locus standi. It is noteworthy that Locus Standi
i.e. the legal capacity to challenge an action or decision2 is the most essential requirement for
the maintainability of a writ petition.3 The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, may grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal”4
2. The scope of Article 136 was considered by the Supreme Court of Indux in various cases.5
The powers given by article 136 of the Constitution are in the nature of special or residuary
powers which are exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law.6 The power under 136 is
to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The Court would not grant special
leave unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and
grave in justice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient
gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.7 By Article 136, the S.C. has
been given overriding power to grant special leave petition to appeal against orders of Courts
and tribunals which go against the principles of natural justice and lead to grave miscarriage
of justice.8 The Special Leave Petition can be granted when the order violets the natural
justice9 and grave injustice10 has been done.
3. The Supreme Court has referred the question of the interpretation of Article 136 to a
Constitution Bench and observed that, we feel it incumbent on us to reiterate that Article 136
was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section 100
2
V.G.Ramachandran, Law Of Writs 26 (6th Ed. 2006): Asim Pandya,Writs And Other Const.Remedy 290 (1st ed.
2009).
3
D.D.Basu, Commentary on The Constitution of Indux 3822 (8th ed. 2008).
4
Induxn Constitution, Art. 136.
5
Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 188.
6
Durga Shankar v. Raghu Raj, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 520.
7
Pritam Singh v. The State, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 169.
8
Justice B. P. Banerjee, Writ Remedies (4th Ed. 2008).
9
Amulya v. Union of Indux, (1991) 1 U.J.S.C. 181.
10
Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 715.

COMPETITION 2016
C.P.C. Under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last court in the country in ordinary
cases was meant to be the High Court. The Supreme Court as the Apex Court in the country
was meant to deal with important issues like constitutional questions, questions of law of
general importance or where grave injustice had been done. After all, the Supreme Court has
limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute. 11 It is
submitted that, the petition under Article 136 should not be allowed under the following
grounds: 1.1] The petition does not include any substantial question of law. 1.2] The public
interest in not valid in this case.
1.1. THAT THE PRESENT ETITION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION OF LAW.
4. An aggrieved party from the judgment or decree of high court cannot claim special leave to
appeal as a right but it is privilege which Supreme Court of Indux is vested with and this
leave can be granted by it only12. There is no uniform standard regarding excepting the
special leave petition under Art.136 and the only most generally excepted criteria is of
‘special circumstances’, which must exist in the case.13 Leave under Art.136 is also granted
when some “special or peculiar” circumstances exist.14 There are some ground on which
special leave petition can be granted. First, where the judgment is tainted with some serious
legal infirmities, or is founded on a legal construction which is wrong.15 Second, petition for
leave can be granted where approach of the court whose judgment is under appeal is wrong in
Law.16 Every error, even of law, does not justify interference under Article 136.17
5. The High Court of Channel has decided in favour of NGE18 by pronouncing that the
petitioner had already waived off themselves of any privacy requirement by agreeing to the
terms and conditions of the shrink-wrap contract. In the light of the above, it is submitted
that, no such substantial question of law arises, to attract Art.136. Rather, the High Court of
Channel has delivered judgment in the true spirit of justice. NGE being a foreign ventured
11
Mathai v. George, (2010) 4 S.C.C. 358.
12
Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 355.
13
Supra Footnote 7.
14
Sirpur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1520.
15
Balakrishna v. Matha, (1991) Cr L.J. 691: (1991) 2 S.C.C. 203: (1991).
16
Munisami v. Ranganathan, (1991) 2 S.C.C. 139: A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 492.
17
Nazuk Jahan v. ADJ (1980) 4 SCC 595.
18
Factsheet ¶ 7.

COMPETITION 2016
company19 cannot be subjected to the rules and regulations as ordained under the laws of
Indux. Since it was clearly mentioned in the contract clause the for data security purposes ,the
data privacy laws of Germanzi would apply. Since the infringement of fundamental right of
any person does not exist, so no substantial question of law arises.
1.2 THAT PUBLIC INTEREST IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE.
6. Interests of society are a ground for Special Leave Petition.20 The Black’s Law dictionary
defines public interest as something in which the public or the common community at large
has some pecuniary interest, some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected.21 In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary “public interest” has been defined as a matter of
public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a
love of information or amusement but that in which a class of a community have common
interest, have a pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected.
7. It was clearly stated that company would dispose the data in any manner it deems it. 22
There was no infringement of right to privacy as disposal of data means to render the data
ineffective. It clearly states that disposal of data doesn’t lead to any infringement of right of
privacy in any manner. Also If company could have used the data themselves for other
wrongful use but here company is disposing the data as it deems fit .Here the consumer also
have consented out of there will on the shrink wrap contracted in which it was clearly stated
that the company will take no responsibility after the breach of contract. Here there was no
infringement of any rights. So the petition can’t appeal to the public interest.
1.3. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY BARS THE PRESENT PETITION.

8. Before invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 136, the aggrieved party must
exhaust any remedy which may be available under the law before the lower appellate
authority or the High Court.23The petitioner should first bring certificate for appeal to the SC
under Art 134 A and then after the concerned party should have approached the SC under Art
19
Factsheet ¶ 1.
20
Mahendra Lal v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2989.
21
Bryan A.Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary 1350 (9th ed. 2009): Janta Dal v. H.S Chaudhury, (1992) 2
S.C.C. 116.
22
Factsheet ¶ 6.
23
Nirma Ltd. v. Lurgi Lentges Energietechnik Gmbh., (2002) 5 S.C.C. 520.

COMPETITION 2016
132 of Indux constitution. Art 132 deals with the appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in constitutional case.24 The scope of Article 132 is broader and covers all matters.25
9. The SC in various judgments has pronounced that the power in article 136 should be
exercised for determining substantial questions of law and not redeeming injustice in
individual cases.26If the element of emotional subjectivity in what constitutes an “injustice”
would be allowed then it will necessarily result in greater uncertainty in the outcome of a
proceeding before the Supreme Court.27 It is submitted that, the above petition does not fulfil
the criterion mentioned for a SLP petition. Thus, this petition should not be allowed on the
“emotional assessment of injustice”. Therefore, the petition should be rejected.
2. THAT THE CONTRACT BETWEEN “NGE” AND THE CUSTOMERS IS OF

STANDARD FORM.
1. Shrink-wrap Contract comes under the purview of electronic Contract which is not based
on paper rather in electronic form, which is born out of the need of speed, convenience and to
save time. The Shrink-wrap, gets its name from packages (usually of retail software) covered
in plastic or cellophane ‘shrink-wrap’ having written licenses, mostly unsigned, which state
that acceptance on the part of the to the terms of the license is indicated by opening the
shrink-wrap packaging or other packaging of the software, by use of the software or by any
other specified means, the license is direct Contract between the Producer of that specific
product and the buyer of the product.28 In light of the above it is submitted that the company
was selling ‘Bulbtech’ in large quantities and it became quite popular29, the company have to
deal thousands of customers daily and thus it’s not possible for them to form a contract with
everyone individually, hence they opted for the shrink-wrap form of contract.
2- There are certain Essentials of a valid Contract under Indux Contract Act 187230.
(i) There has to be lawful consideration- In the instant case, the company N.G.E. are giving
energy efficient LED bulb which is termed as “Bulbtech” which is highly electric efficient as
compared to L.E.D and a normal Bulb and having life-span of 100 years. In reciprocity, the
24
The Indux Constitution, Art.132.
25
Ramesh v. Gendalal Motilal Patni, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1445.
26
Jamshedji Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 S.C.C. 214, 244.
27
MP Jain, Induxn Constitutional Law 240, (6th ed. Lexis Nexis 2013).
28
Pollock and Mulla, The Induxn Contract and Specific Relief Acts 1872 124 (14th ed. Lexis Nexis 2016).
29
Factsheet ¶ 5.
30
Pollock and Mulla, The Induxn Contract and Specific Relief Acts 1872 301(14thed. Lexis Nexis 2016).

COMPETITION 2016
customers are bound by the agreement to pay EMI in advance by the use of their credit cards
and avail themselves the services of Bulb Tech. Hence, there exists lawful consideration on
behalf of both the parties.
(ii) There has to be an intention to create legal relations- In existing case, there is intention of
creating legal relationship is present as NGE- a foreign ventured company having its
registered office in State of Germnazi signed an MOU with the Government of Indux owing
to the fact that the Ministry of Power in the Government of Indux was pleased with idea of
such energy saving technique.
(iii)The parties must be competent to contract- In the instant case,NGE is competent as it has
duly received the permission for sale of Bulb Tech on the grounds that a MOU has been
signed between the Government of Indux and NGE. The MOU has availed them the facility
to sell Bulb Tech through Government shops and electricity department
(iv) There must be free and genuine consent- In the instant case, there exists free and genuine
consent on behalf of both the parties. NGE has been accorded consent by the Government of
Indux to sell Bulb Tech as per the terms and conditions of the Company. Moreover, the
customer are not forced by any means to enter into the agreement to purchase Bulb Tech. The
Company has never forced or used any unfair means to lure customers into buying Bulb
Tech.
(v)The object of the contract must be lawful- In the instant case, the innovative product Bulb
Tech was promoted owing to its high longevity and reduced energy consumption. The object
of the contract was to render benefits of the innovative product to the people of Indux which
are overburdened with high electricity costs.
(vi) There must be certainty and possibility of performance-In the instant case, the Company
has promised to provide the much desired services of Bulb Tech only on the condition that
the customers shall pay EMI continuously for 15 months, failing which the bulb will stop
functioning.
3. MELLISH LJ, pointed out that if plaintiff “knew there was writing on the ticket, but he did
not know or believe that writing contained terms and conditions nevertheless he would be
bound”31In one of the case it was held that“the terms of a hardware sales agreement sales
31
Parker v. South Eastern Railway Co., (1877) 2 C.P.D. 416.

COMPETITION 2016
agreement not provided at the time of the sale were binding upon the buyers of the
computer’s hardware, although buyers could not review the terms kept inside the computer’s
shipping box until the computer had arrived. The court expressly rejects buyer’s suggestion
that the court limit the ProCD holding to the context of software license”32
4. Then also this contract is valid.In one of the case the court found it as a fact that the
supplier had made no effort to bring the sweeping exemption term to the notice of Mrs. L,
even so the court held: ’Where a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the
absence of fraud, misrepresentation, the party signing is bound, and it is wholly immaterial
whether he has read the documents or not.33Where a person is entitled to the benefits of a
contract he would have to accept its burden.34In the case of where a photocopy machine was
taken on the lease. The machine was supposed to contain a particular feature. The machine
which was actually supplied did not have that feature. The lease excluded liability
representations, if any made about the machine.35It was held that the exclusion clause was
unreasonable. It became overridden by the representations made by the copier salesman.
5. In another case with similar facts the House of Lords observed that the plaintiff could not
be said to have accepted a term which he has not seen, of which he knew nothing, and which
is not in any way ostensibly connected with that which is printed and written otherwise if
word like, “For conditions see back”.36In a case when a particular condition relied on
involves a sort of restriction which is not usual in that class of contracts, a defendant must
show that his intension to attach an unusual condition of that particular nature was fairly
brought to the notice of the other party.37In the case where the contract was of form of shrink
wrap, it was held that, inside a package of software bind consumers who use the software
after an opportunity to read the terms and reject the product.38It was held that, inside a
package of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the
terms and reject the product.
6. In the case of an e-ticket for contract of carriage of passengers, there is the possibility of
the passenger not having read the contract or not demanding a copy of the contract and even
32
Hill v. Gateway 2000 Inc., 105 F 3d 1147 (7th Cir 1997).
33
L’Estrange v. F. Graucob Ltd., (1934) 2 K.B. 394.
34
Pyrene Co v. ScIndux Navigation Co., (1954) 2 Q.B. 402.
35
Lease Management Services v. Purnell Secretarial Services Ltd., (1994) 13 Tr L.R. 337 (C.A.).
36
Henderson v. Stevenson, (1875) 2 Sc & Div 470: (1875) 32 L.T. 709 (H.L.).
37
Thorntmon v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd., (1971) 2 Q.B. 163, 172.
38
ProCD v. Mathew Zeidenberg, 86 F 3d 1447 (7th Cir 1996).

COMPETITION 2016
if a particular term is not within the knowledge of the passenger, it could not be ignored. The
passenger would be bound by the terms of the contract.39It was held that40, to the effect that,
‘the more sterling a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given for it. Some clauses
would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be
held to be sufficient. In a case, ,41 it was held that reasonableness depends upon the unfairness
of the terms in the light of above the circumstances which ought to have been either known or
to be have either known or to be in the completion of the parties.In our case, it was already
mentioned in the terms and conditions of the contract that one have to give his credit card
detail and also an indemnity clause was signed that in case of default, the company may
dispose the data of a customer’s credit card in the manner they deems fit. Therefore the
customers are already aware of it and it is reasonable.
7. Similarly in our case also it is mentioned in the facts that, every customer was bound by
N.G.E,’s terms and conditions, the moment they tore open the wrapper of the bulb box, here
Mr. Ganguly knew that he will bound by the terms and conditions, so there is proper
knowledge on his part, and company cannot be held liable, hence there is no fault on the part
of N.G.E.Further in our case, once the terms and conditions accepted by the customer, he
becomes bound to it, it is not relevant whether he knows terms and conditions or not, the
responsibility to company is to not conceal any terms and conditions, which is not a case over
here in this contract. Hence any customer becomes bound to the contracts and moreover there
exist no such fraud, misrepresentation and any other element which can make it invalid. In
the instant case, the buyers are availing the services of the product after signing the contract
and as they are aware about the terms and conditions that they have subjected to themselves,
hence they bear the responsibility to pay the EMIs, and if they breached the terms of the
contract, they have to bear the consequences arising.
8. Here in the instant case, the similar situation finds itself in the picture, even if the
customers are unaware of the terms and conditions, no such prudent and rationale man would
give his credit card details without having a look at the terms and conditions entailed with the
contract. Moreover, in the instant case the company finds itself embroiled in the dispute on a
wrong note owing to the fact that it has not kept anything conceal in the contract and there
exist no such dispute or controversies apart from the clause incorporating the disposal of
39
Inter-globe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Sachidanad, (2011) 7 S.C.C. 463.
40
Spruling (J,) Ltd. v. Brandshaw, (1956) 1 W.L.R 461.
41
Daviel v. Parry, (1980) 20 ESTATE Gazatte 92.: 1988 C.L.Y. 435.

COMPETITION 2016
credit card details in case a customer fails in the payment of EMIs. In the instant case, a
customer of prudence and rationale will definitely read the terms and conditions of the
contract before giving away the details of the credit card. Moreover in the instant case, the
customer is free to return the box in case he finds any term or condition unacceptable as per
his notions. Moreover, if the customer has surrendered details of his credit card for availing
the services of the product, it is implied that he is bound by the terms and conditions of the
contract.
3. THAT THE PATENT ON “BULB TECH” WAS VALIDLY GRANTED TO NGE.
1. An invention to be patentable in Indux should satisfy patentability requirements. These

requirements are: (i) Patentable Subject matter; (ii) Industrial Applicability; (iii) Novelty; (iv)
Inventive Step; and (v) Specification.42 Patent eligible subject-matter is granted a patent if the
subject-matter is novel, non-obvious and is capable of industrial application. In case of
patents, the courts must see whether there was novelty in the process, whether the subject-
matter of patent is proper and whether there is utility.43 It is humbly submitted that the patent
on Bulb Tech was validly granted to NGE on grounds that: 3.1] The use of Barium Arsenide
Phosphide (“BAP”) as a semi-conductor is a novel step. 3.2] The impugned invention has an
inventive step.
3.1. THAT THE USE OF DEFINITE QUANTITY OF BARIUM ARSENIDE

PHOSPHIDE (“BAP”) AS A SEMICONDUCTOR IS A NOVEL STEP.
2. The concept of novelty in intellectual property jurisprudence lays down that only what is
new at the time of the filing of the application for patent is patentable. An invention will be
patentable only if it is novel or new in the light of prior art, or is not anticipated by the prior
art.44 “Invention” means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of
industrial application.45 Every simple invention that is claimed, so long as it is something
which is novel or new, it would be an invention.46 Patentability always depends on novelty.47
Novelty is always ascertained in the light of a single prior art reference, and various art
42
Kalyan C. Kankanala, Arun K. Narasani, Vinita Radhakrishnan, Induxn Patent law and Practice 17 (Oxford
University Press 2010).
43
Bombay Agarwal Co. v. Ramchand Diwanchand , A.I.R. 1953 Nag. 154.
44
45
Indux Patents Act, 1970, S. 2(j).
46
Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram Choudhary, A.I.R. 1978 Del 1.
47
AT & T Knowledge Ventures LP , re , 2009 E.W.H.C. 343 (Pat.).

COMPETITION 2016
references cannot be combined.48 In order to anticipate an invention, all elements of the

invention must be present in a single prior art reference. Prior art includes all information and
knowledge relating to the invention that was available on the date of the patent application.49
3. Anticipation is a two-step analysis. i.) Construction of the claim of the patent at issue; ii.)
Claims are compared to the prior art. A patent is not anticipated when its elements are
distributed among several prior publications and devices.50 To be an anticipating reference,
an item must disclose each and every element of the claimed invention. The test is to
determine the elements of the claimed invention with that of the reference in issue. 51 For a
prior publication to be sufficient to defeat a patent, it must exhibit substantial representation
of the invention in such full, clear, and exact terms that one skilled in the art may make,
construct and practice the invention without having to depend on either the patent or his own
inventive skill.52 Anticipation is judged by considering how a prior publication would be
construed by a person skilled in the art.53 An improvement over the existing art is considered
as importing novelty in an invention.54
4. NGE used a definite quantity of Barium Arsenide Phosphide (“BAP”) as a semiconductor

for the manufacturing of BulbTech.55 Since, Bulb Tech is an energy efficient LED.56 Thus,
definite quantity of Barium Arsenide Phosphide (“BAP”) as a semi-conductor was used in the
manufacturing of LED. Also, BAP was not a commonly used semiconductor in relation to
LED.57 The semiconductor commonly used to manufacture LEDs are Gallium
Arsenide(GaAs), Gallium Phosphide(GaP) or Gallium Arsenide Phosphide (GaAsP). 58 In the
light of the above, it is submitted that the prior art process and the process used in the
invention is different as the use of Barium Arsenide Phosphide (“BAP”) is not present in any
48
49
50
Paeco Inc. v. Applied Moldings Inc. 562 F 2d 570: 194 U.S.P.Q. 353 (3rd Cir 1977).
51
SSIH Equipments S.A. v. United States International Trade Commission, 718 F 2d 765: 218 U.S.P.Q. 678
(Fed Cir 1983).
52
Philips Electrical & Pharmaceutical Industries Corpn. v. Thermal & Electronic Industries Inc. , 450 F 2d
1164, 1169 ( 3rd Cir 1971).
53
Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. v. Theramx (P) Ltd., 1988 P.T.C. 213.
54
Supra footnote 2.
55
Factsheet, ¶ 3.
56
Factsheet, ¶ 3.
57
Factsheet, ¶ 3.
58
Light Emitting diode, How products are made (Aug. 7, 2013),available at http://www.madehow.com/Volume-
1/Light-Emitting-Diode-LED.html.

COMPETITION 2016
of the prior art, in the prior art Gallium Arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) was used. Moreover, the
BulbTech has more efficiency than the existing LEDs and also their longevity is increased 59,
which shows the improvement. Therefore, the use of Barium Arsenide Phosphide (“BAP”) as
semiconductor is a novel step.
3.2. THAT THE IMPUGNED INVENTION HAS AN INVENTIVE STEP.
5. In order to constitute an inventive step, a feature of the invention should involve technical
advance as compared to the existing knowledge or have an economic significance or both and
should also make the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.60 An invention will
have inventive step only if it satisfies two conditions. i.) the invention should be technically
advanced in the light of the prior art or should have economic significance; ii.) the invention
should be non-obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art in the light of the prior art.
Test for obviousness involves three steps i.) The scope and content of the prior art; ii.) The
difference between the prior art and the claimed invention; iii.) The level of ordinary skill in
the pertinent art.61
6. A patentable invention evidences more ingenuity and skill than that possessed by an
ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business. The essential element of every invention is a
degree of skill and ingenuity.62 Every combination invention must have a synergistic effect to
be patentable.63 The synergism can be found where one element functions differently in
combination than the sum of the several parts taken separately. A patent may be saved from a
finding of obviousness if a combination otherwise obvious has some unexpected advantages,
and in particular advantages caused by unpredictable co-operation between the elements of
the combination.64
7. Secondary considerations include evidence of factors tending to show non-obviousness,

such as commercial success of the invention, satisfying a long-felt need, failure of others to
find a solution to the problem at hand, and occupying the invention by others.65 If an
invention fulfils a long-felt want, this is evidence of non-obviousness, even if the prior art is
59
Factsheet, ¶ 3, 5.
60
Indux patents Act, 1970, S.2 (ja); Patents Amendment Act, 2005, S.2.
61
Graham v. John Deere Co., 15 L Ed 2d 545: 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
62
Hotickness v. Greenwood, 13 L Ed 683: 52U.S. 248 (1851).
63
Sakraida v. AG Pro Inc., 47 L Ed 2d 784: 425 U.S. 273 (1976).
64
Glaxo Group Ltd.’s Patent, 2004 R.P.C. 43.
65
Panduit Corpn. v. Denninson Mfg. Co., 810 F 2d 1561 (Fed Cir 1987).

COMPETITION 2016
old.66 Even if the invention is commercially success, that success is relevant in the
obviousness context only if there is a proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique
characteristics of the claimed invention. A nexus is required between the sales and the merit
of the claimed invention.67
8. What must be found obvious to defeat the patent, is the claimed combination. Focusing on
the obviousness of substitution and difference, instead of on the invention as a whole, is a
legally improper way to simplify the often difficult determination of obviousness.68 A
combination of or improvement upon old elements was patentable if it produces a new and
useful result.69If a combination of known elements produce a new and beneficial result, never
attainted before, it is evidence of invention.70
9. NGE heated the BAP at a particular temperature and added certain quantity of nitrogen as
a impurity to increase the longevity.71 NGE used LED driver devices manufactured by
Monolever Limited (“ML”) of Indux to achieve optimum longevity.72 Energy Consumption
in domestic sector accounts for almost 50% of the total energy consumption in Indux and
lightining is a key component of the same.73 In the light of above, it is submitted that, though
the heating of a semiconductor at a particular temperature and adding impurity is a common
process and one skilled in the art can discern. Generally, LED driver devices are used in
LEDs because they responds to the changing needs of the LED by providing a constant
power to LED as its electrical properties changes with the temperature. Without proper driver
LED may become too hot and unstable, causing poor performance and failure.74 Which driver
device will give the optimum longevity is a matter of ingenuity. Thus, the use of LED Driver
device manufactured by ML adds ingenuity. Moreover, The combination of the heating of
Barium Arsenide phosphide at a particular temperature and adding certain quantity of
nitrogen as impurity and use of LED driver devices manufactured by ML, all these
combination produced a new and useful result i.e. the resultant product could work for 100
years without getting fused or spoilt and it was energy efficient as it reduced the energy
consumption as compared to that of the ordinary bulb. The energy consumption in domestic
66
Brugger v. Medic Aid Ltd., 1996 R.P.C. 635.
67
Cable electrics Products v. Genmark Inc., 770 F 2d 1051 (Fed Cir 1985).
68
Gillette Co. v. S.C Johnson & Son Inc., 919 F 2d 720 (Fed Cir 1990).
69
Seymour v. Osborne, 20 L Ed 33: 78 US 516 (1870).
70
Loom Co. v. Higgins, 26 L Ed 1177: 105 US 580 (1881).
71
Factsheet ¶ 3.
72
Factsheet ¶ 3.
73
Factsheet ¶5.
74
Supra Footnote 17.

COMPETITION 2016
sector of Indux accounts for almost 50% of the total energy consumption shows that there
was a long-felt need for the bulb which will reduce the energy consumption i the household
sector this shows that the invention was non-obvious. Also, people in Indux bought large the
invention product in large quantities75 which shows the commercial success of the invention.
This, commercial success of the BulbTech was because of its energy efficient quality and
also because of its longevity so that by buying BulbTech once they will not have to buy it
again and again and also it will reduce their energy consumption. Thus, the invention of
BulbTech has an inventive step.
4. THAT THE DISPOSAL OF DATA DOESN’T LEADS TO INFRINGEMENT OF

RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
1. The validity of contracts formed through electronic means, where in a contract formation,
the communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, the revocations of proposals
and acceptance, as the case may be, are expressed in the electronic form or by means of
electronic record, such contract shall not be deemed to be unenforceable solely on the ground
that such electronic form or means was used for that purpose76. Thus, contracts formed
electronically are legally valid and binding under law. Shrink-wrap Contract is a license
agreement or other terms and conditions of a contractual nature which are considered read
and accepted by the consumer by opening the product. Shrink-wrap contract usually read “By
opening the packaging on this box you agree to the terms and conditions of the license. 77
2. There exist a right to privacy within the scope of Article 21.78That the right to life consists
of much more than the right to, continue a mere animal existence79. The Court reaffirmed that
there did exist a right to privacy under the Induxn Constitution but also held that it could be
done away with, if it is complied with the phrase “procedure established by law’’ as
mentioned under Article 21.80 While the right to privacy originated in common law tort
theories, in recent times in Indux it had acquired Constitutional status.81 The laws which are
75
Factsheet ¶ 5.
76
Section 10-A of the IT Act, 2000.
77
David Callan, How click –wrap contracts benefit over shrink-wrap contract (October 13th,
2011),http://www.akamarketing.com/click-wrap-shrink-wrap-contracts.html.
78
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295.
79
Munn v Illinosis, 94 U.S. 113.
80
Gobind v. state of M.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1378.
81
R.Rajagopal v. State of T.N, 1995 A.I.R 264.

COMPETITION 2016
presently dealing with the subject of data protection are "The Induxn Contracts Act" and "The
Information Technology Act.82
3. In a similar case, shrink-wrap Contract has been formed by a Customer in Rhode Island.
AOL’s decided to switch pricing models from a set free for a limited time to unlimited
internet access for a higher monthly fee. The plaintiff charged that this violated the Rhode
Island Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Act. Here AOL moved to dismiss the suit from
the Rhode Island as selection clause in the parties mandated that the suit be brought in
Virginia, where AOL’s base of operation was located. The Court agreed and dismissed the
suit.83 In the light of the above ,it is submitted that, here similar in that case there was
indemnity clause which clearly mentioned that for the data privacy purposes the Law of
Germanzi would be applicable and the data details would be transferred to the NGE’s main
operating centre in Germanzi.
4.1. THAT DISPOSAL OF DATA MEANS DESTRUCTION OF DATA.
4. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that disposal of data can’t leads to the
infringement of right to privacy as once the requirement to abstain data is exhausted, so there
is no need to sustain the data and also it was clearly mentioned in the indemnity clause that
company may dispose the data as it may deems fit. Data handling is the process of ensuring
that research data is stored, archived or disposed off in a safe and secure manner during and
after the conclusion of a research project. Data handling procedures that describe how long
the data should be kept, and when, how, and who should handle data for storage, sharing,
archival, retrieval and disposal purposes.84
4.2. DESTRUCTION OF DATA CAN’T LEADS TO INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT

TO PRIVACY.
5. Privacy involves the right to control one’s personal information and the ability to
determine if and how that information should be obtained and used. The guidelines, which
may be generally taken as accepted, have been framed by a European organization, named
the organization for economic Co-operation and Development,85in 1980.The principles are as
82
Vaibhavi pandey, Data protection laws in Indux: Singh and associates, The Road Ahead (1st July,2015).
83
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
84
Responsible conduct in data management, available at
http://www.niu.edu/rcrportal/datamanagement/dhtopic.html.
85
Hereinafter,’’the OECD’’.

COMPETITION 2016
follows: i.) collection of personal data should be done with the consent of the person and
lawfully; ii.) The data should be pertinent to the subject under investigation; iii.) The purpose
as to collection ought to be clearly specified; iv.) Such data should be further used except
without express consent of the subject and under the sanction of the law; v.) There ought to
be adequate security safeguards so as to prevent leakage of data into the hand of unauthorized
persons or the destruction of classified material; vi.) There ought to be a high degree of
accountability detailing the persons who are in charge of the process of collection and this is
linked with the next point, which deals with the individual’s participation in the process of
data collection.
6. Once the requirement of retaining data is absolved, the companies needs to o following
things86:
i. review the length of time you keep personal data;

ii. consider the purpose or purposes you hold the information for in deciding whether
(and for how long) to retain it;
iii. securely delete information that is no longer needed for this purpose or these
purposes; and
iv. update, archive or securely delete information if it goes out of date
7. It is submitted that, NGE is disposing the data after the contract is getting breached. Here
all the companies are in obligatory responsibility of disposing the data as it doesn’t leads to
disclosure of data which may then leads to violation of section 43-A and section 72 of
Information Technology Act,2000.
Right to privacy is not merely a weapon to ensure confidentiality in human affairs.

Confidentiality is, no doubt, one element in the panorama of rights covered by the right to
privacy, but it is just that, one element. It must not be forgotten that right to confidentiality
only arises after the information regarding human transaction or affairs have reached third
parties. It has to be recognized that the right to privacy extends over the entire gamut of
collection, retention, use and disclosure of information.87Retention of information is defined
as the body corporate or any person on its behalf holding sensitive personal data or
information must not retain that information for longer than is required for the purposes for
86
Retaining of personal data (Sept. 10, 2015) available at http://ico.org.uk//for-organisations/guide-to-data-
protection-rule-5-retention/.
87
Nandan Kamath, Law relating to Computers Internet &E-commerce 287(5th ed. Universal Law publishing
2012).

COMPETITION 2016
which the information may lawfully be used or is otherwise required under any other law for
the time being in force.88Sensitive personal data or information of a person means such
personal information89which consists of information relating to: i)password; ii)financial
information such as Bank account or credit card or debit card or other payment instrument
details; iii) physical; physiological and mental health condition; iv)sexual orientations; v
)medical records and history; vi) biometric information; vii)any detail relating to the above
clauses as provided to body corporate for providing service; and viii) any of the information
received under above clauses by body corporate for processing, stored or processed under
lawful contract or otherwise.90
4.3. IF DISPOSAL OF DATA LEADS TO DISCLOSURE THEN ALSO IT

WOULDN’T LEAD TO INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVACY.
8. Data privacy laws in Indux, deals with,IT Act, 2000 of Section 43(A) and
73(A).Information Technology (Reasonable security Practices and procedures and Sensitive
Personal Data or Information). Section 72-A91of the IT Act,2000 will make the service
providers liable for imprisonment to two years and fine to Rs.5 lakhs for disclosing personal
Information of their subscriber’s without the subscriber’s consent and with the intent to cause
injury or wrongful to the subscriber. It is submitted that, in the instant case, subscribers have
consented out of their will by tearing the wrapper of the bulb as the bulb came with a shrink
wrap contract. Government can’t be held irresponsible for the infringement of right to
privacy. Right to privacy is not an absolute right.92 The Madras High Court held that ‘right to
privacy’ is not absolute and it is subservient to the ‘right to information’ and larger public
88
Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or
Information) Rules, 2011, Rule 5(4).
89
The term ‘personal information’ in turn, is defined in the Rule 2(i) ‘any information that relates to a natural
person, which, either directly or indirectly, in combination with other information available or likely to be
available with a body corporate, is capable of identifying such person.’
90
Information Technology (Reasonable Security Pratices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or
Information) Rules, 2011, Rule 3.
91
Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract-Save as otherwise provided in this Act
or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services
under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal Information about
another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain
discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract such material to any
other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years,or with fine
which may to 5 lakh rupess or both.
92
Sarda v Dharmpal, 1998 (8) S.C.C. 296.

COMPETITION 2016
interest. 93
Here the Government can’t be blamed because the government is acting on the
larger public interest of providing electricity at low rate to each and every household.
93
Mr. K.J.Doraisamy v The Assistant Manager, State Bank of Indux and others, [2007] 136 Comp Cases 568
(Mad).

COMPETITION 2016
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the Special Leave Petition filed by BAPG is not maintainable.

2. That the contract between NGE and the customer is of standard form.
3. That the patent on Bulb Tech was validly granted to NGE.
4. That the disposable of data doesn’t leads to infringement of Right to privacy.
And pass any such appropriate order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and
proper, for this the Respondent shall duty bound pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

Memorial Respondent SLS Hyd Full and Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial Respondent SLS Hyd Full and Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1ST SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDUX

:IN THE MATTER OF:

Special Leave Petition No. /2016

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUX)

BAPG (BULB TECH AGGRIEVED PARTY GROUP) ......PETITIONER

NGE (NOT SO GENERAL ELECTRONICS) .......RESPONDENT(S)

SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 04-05

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 06-09

STATEMENT OF FACTS 12-13

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 14-15

1. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY BAPG IN THE HON’BLE

4.1 THAT DISPOSAL OF DATA MEANS DESTRUCTION OF DATA. 28

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

4.2. DESTRUCTION OF DATA CAN’T LEADS TO INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO

4.3. IF DISPOSAL OF DATA LEADS TO DISCLOSURE THEN ALSO IT WOULDN’T

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

S.C Supreme Court

A.I.R All Indux Report

EWHC England and Wales High Court

USPQ United Nations Patent Quartely

P.T.C Patent, Trademark and Copyright

U.S United States

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

R.P.C Report of Patent Cases

C.P.D Common Pleas Divisons

K.B King’s Bench

Q.B Queen’s Bench

W.L.R Weakly Law Report

Sc. Session Court

L.T Law Times

All ER ALL England Law Report

S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

C.P.D Common Pleas Divisons

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

BOOKS, ARTICLES & TREATIES

 KALYAN C. KANKANALA & ARUN K. NARASANI & VINITA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

 VAIBHAVI PANDEY, DATA PROTECTION LAWS IN INDUX, SINGH AND

Amulya v. Union of Indux, (1991) 1 U.J.S.C. 181. 18

AT & T Knowledge Ventures LP , re , 2009 E.W.H.C. 343 (Pat.). 25

Balakrishna v. Matha, (1991) Cr L.J. 691: (1991) 2 S.C.C. 203: (1991). 19

Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 188. 18

Bombay Agarwal Co. v. Ramchand Diwanchand , A.I.R. 1953 Nag. 154. 18

Brugger v. Medic Aid Ltd., 1996 R.P.C. 635. 28

Daviel v. Parry, (1980) 20 ESTATE Gazatte 92.: 1988 C.L.Y. 435. 24

Durga Shankar v. Raghu Raj, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 520. 18

Glaxo Group Ltd.’s Patent, 2004 R.P.C. 43. 27

Gobind v. state of M.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1378. 29

Graham v. John Deere Co., 15 L Ed 2d 545: 383 U.S. 1 (1966). 27

Hill v. Gateway 2000 Inc., 105 F 3d 1147 (7th Cir 1997). 23

Hotickness v. Greenwood, 13 L Ed 683: 52U.S. 248 (1851). 27

Inter-globe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Sachidanad, (2011) 7 S.C.C. 463. 21

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

Janta Dal v. H.S Chaudhury, (1992) 2 S.C.C. 116. 20

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295. 29

L’Estrange v. F. Graucob Ltd., (1934) 2 K.B. 394.

Loom Co. v. Higgins, 26 L Ed 1177: 105 US 580 (1881). 28

Mahendra Lal v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2989. 20