RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
TC 06

RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023-24

Before

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PALLET TOWN

Under

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

In Appeal No…… of 2023

CARELESS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.

V.
GOBI AND GOBI FINANCE & FEDERAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF ELDIA

AND

GOBI AND GOBI FINANCE

V.

PAPPU AANDHI

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

-0-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. - 1 -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... - 2 -

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................................... - 3 -

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................................. - 4 -

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................................... - 5 -

ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................................... - 7 -

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................................. - 8 -

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................................... - 10 -

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CARELESS AND G&G IS

NON-EST? .............................................................................................................................................. - 10 -

ISSUE II .................................................................................................................................................. - 12 -

WHETHER BINDI HAS BREACHED ITS CONTRACTUAL TERMS ............................................. - 12 -

OR............................................................................................................................................................ - 12 -

WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE EPC CONTRACT ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AGAINST FHAE?
................................................................................................................................................................. - 12 -

A. TERMS OF THE STANDARIZED EPC CONTRACT .................................................................. - 12 -

ISSUE III ................................................................................................................................................. - 15 -

WHETHER MR. AANDHI’S POST HAS CAUSED DEFAMATION TO GOBI & GOBI FINANCE? ... -
15 -

A. AUTHORITY OF G&G TO FILE FOR DEFAMATION .............................................................. - 15 -

B. G&G AS AN IDENTIFIABLE GROUP OF PERSONS ............................................................... - 16 -

C. INTENTION TO DEFAME IS IRRELEVANT .............................................................................. - 16 -

PRAYER ..................................................................................................................................................... - 18 -

-1-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

& and

§ Section
¶ Paragraph
A/c Account
AIR All India Report
Annex. Annexure
anr. Another
art. Article
Bhalu Bhalu Constructions
Bindia Bindia LLP
Careless Careless Constructions
Co. Company
CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
EPC Engineering, Procurement, and Construction
Etc. etcetera

FHAE Federal Highway Authority of Eldia

G&G Gobi and Gobi Finance
i.e. That is
ICA Indian Contract Act, 1872
LLP Limited Liability Partnership
Ltd. Limited
NBFC Non-Banking Financial Company
NHDP National Highway Development Project
Prop. Proposition
QAP Quality Assurance Plan
Sec. Section
u/s Under Section
v. Versus

-2-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

1. 220 F. Supp. 598, 1963 ................................................................................................................... - 16 -

2. Abdul Haq v. Das Mal AIR 1946 All 200 1910 ............................................................................. - 15 -
3. AIR 1961 Ker 180 1960 .................................................................................................................. - 15 -
4. AIR 2609, 1971: SCR (2) 40 197 .................................................................................................. - 15 -
5. C.C. Das v. Raghunath Singh 1956 Cr LJ 1006 : AIR 1959 Orissa 141. ....................................... - 17 -
6. Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd., (1929) 2 KB 331 ......................................................... - 16 -
7. Jainarain Singh V. Emperor AIR 1941 Pat 9 : 41 Cr LJ 84. ........................................................... - 17 -
8. LW 19 470: AIR 1924 PC 60 1924. ............................................................................................... - 10 -
9. Pao On v Lao Yiu Long, WLR 3 435 1979. .................................................................................... - 10 -
10. Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi and Ors. SLP 8644 2023 ........................................... - 16 -
11. Santosh Kumar Chatterjee v. Radhika Ranjan Ghoshal, 66 CWN 24. ........................................... - 15 -
12. SCC 4 116 2022. ............................................................................................................................. - 13 -
13. Shrimati v Sudhakar R. Bhatkar, AIR 1998 Bom 12 1997. ............................................................ - 10 -
14. T.V. Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A. Mohindeen.................................................................................. - 16 -
15. Union bank of India v. Khader international construction & ors. .................................................. - 15 -

B. STATUTES

1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ............................................................................................................ - 15 -

2. Indian Contract Act 1872………………………………………………..………………...……..10,11-

C. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS

1. Standard Form EPC Contract………………………………………………………………....12,13,14-

-3-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Defendants have appeared before the Hon’ble High Court of pallet Town,
Eldia, in response to the plaints filed by the Plaintiffs.

Sub-section 4.2 under Clause 4 of the Facility Agreement between “Careless” and “G&G” as well as Section
28 of the EPC Contract between “Careless” and FHAE, unambiguously stipulate the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Hon'ble High Court of Pallet Town, Eldia, to adjudge upon any matters arising therein. Therefore, we, the
counsels on behalf of the Defendants, humbly submit to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Pallet
Town, Eldia. For the final issue regarding the allegation of defamation, since all parties reside in Pallet Town
and since the alleged defamatory statements were published online, sourced from Pallet Town, it fulfils the
conditions stipulated u/s 19 of the CPC, 1908, and accordingly makes the High Court of Pallet Town, Eldia,
the sole authority on the matter.

While the cause of action in the two cases differs significantly, it has been mutually agreed upon by all parties
that they be consolidated for the sake of judicial efficiency. Accordingly, for the initial three issues, the
Plaintiffs will comprise "Careless" and Mr. Aandhi, and the Defendants will constitute of FHAE, along with
Gobi & Gobi. In the final issue, the roles will be reversed, with Mr. Aandhi assuming the position of the
Defendant, and G&G that of Plaintiff.

-4-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Eldia is one of the largest democratic nations in the world with Mr. Parminder
Bhai Gobi as its Prime Minister for the last 15 years. Pallet Town is the Capital of Eldia.

PARTIES INVOLVED

2. Careless Constructions Ltd. [Hereinafter “Careless”] is a public limited company incorporated in 2011
under the Eldia Companies Act, 1956. The Director of Careless is Mr. Pappu Aandhi.

3. Gobi & Gobi Finance is an NBFC registered with the Reserve Bank of Eldia. Mr. Dharmendra Gobi
and Mr. Samit Gobi are directors of Gobi & Gobi. It is funded mainly by international investors routed
through Adaniland, Ambanidesh, and other countries.

4. In 2021, the FHAE, operating under the Ministry of Highways and Road Transport, launched its
National Highway Development Project to develop 11456 km of highways in Eldia.

5. Bindia LLP [hereinafter “Bindia”] is the name of the partnership formed in June of 2021, between
“Careless” and Bhalu Construction Ltd.[hereinafter “Bhalu”], that is registered under the NHDP, for
the purposes of fulfilling the conditions set to become a contractor for the construction of the Konoha-
Namek Project under the NHDP.

EVENTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT CASE

6. In October of 2021, Bindia was the EPC Contract for four-laning of a 60 km section of road connecting
Konoha to Namek. To secure funding for the project, Careless sought Mr. Bhalu’s help, who
introduced “Careless” to Defendant. In January 2022, Careless and G&G began negotiating funding
for this project. During the negotiations, Careless provided G&G with the details of all of Careless’
finances.

7. On 27th January, 2022 G&G informed Careless that the total amount sought would be released in
tranches and also could not promise a timely release of tranches. Furthermore, G&G asked that there

-5-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

be no penalty for delayed payment nor a strict timeline decided. These stipulations were irregular and
not common business practices. Thereupon, Mr. Dharmendra Gobi had a telephonic conversation with
Careless (6th February, 2022) and convinced Careless that these conditions were non-negotiable.

8. In the following weeks, G&G presented two other non-negotiable terms. Careless was prohibited from
approaching any other lender in the market for funding. The other condition stipulated that in the event
of a delay in the Project, Careless would be divested from the partnership, i.e. Bindia. It had become
impossible to negotiate with a new entity so far into the negotiations. Finally, on 14th February 2022,
both parties entered into a facility agreement under which G&G would provide Careless with a total
sum of Rs. 900 crores.

9. The initial mobilization funds of Rs. 100 crores were timely released by G&G. However, the first
tranche was delayed despite Careless meeting all the stipulated conditions. In order to keep the FHAE
project in accordance with the timelines as per the EPC Contract, Careless invested all its resources
into the project. The second tranche was also delayed and by this time, Careless was already in a
liquidity crunch.

10. Separately, Bindia submitted a demand order to FHAE on 30th November 2022 for the release of
payment for the successful completion of the first phase of the project. However, FHAE in a reply on
2nd December 2022, refused the demand on account of an alleged breach of the terms of the EPC
Contract by Bindia. Owing to such breach they served a notice of termination of the EPC Contract.
Post this Careless, on behalf of Bindia, filed a suit in the Hon’ble High Court of Pallet Town demanding
the release of payment. On 5th December 2022, G&G issued a thirty days’ divestment notice along
with a reconstitution deed to Bindia.

11. On 1st December,2022 a scam of 2023 crore was unveiled in the country of Eldia. There were various
allegations of the involvement of P.M. Parminder Bhai Gobi in this scam by the public of Eldia. Mr.
Aandhi took to his social media, on account on ‘whY’ and posted “Gali mein shor hain, saare Gobi
Chor hain” (It’s well known that all Gobis are thieves) on 7th December, 2022. G&G filed a
defamation suit of Rs. 223 crores in the Hon’ble High Court of Pallet Town against Mr. Aandhi.

-6-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I
Whether the contractual arrangement between Careless and G&G is non-est?

ISSUE II

Whether Bindia has breached its contractual obligations

or

Whether the terms of the EPC Contract are to be interpreted against FHAE?

ISSUE III

Whether Mr. Aandhi’s post has caused defamation to Gobi & Gobi Finance?

-7-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I:
WHETHER THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CARELESS AND G&G IS NON-
EST?

It is humbly submitted that the defence of non-est cannot be pled against performance of the contractual
agreement between Carless and G&G as there was no absence of consensus ad idem between the
parties, and the consent of Careless was freely obtained. The counsel of Defendant contends that
provisions u/s 16 (3) of ICA, 1872 are not attracted because the essentials for the same are not met.
Although in a position to dominate the will of Careless, the terms stipulated by G&G are not
unconscionable because it is within reason to secure principal lent and protect business interests under
commercial contracts in consonance with prevailing market practices and economic conditions.
Secondly, there was no enrichment under the contract at the cost of Careless. Thirdly, specified terms
prevent creation of principal-agent relationship that could lead to unjust transfer of risk to be borne by
Careless to G&G.

ISSUE II
WHETHER BINDI HAS BREACHED ITS CONTRACTUAL TERMS
OR
WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE EPC CONTRACT ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AGAINST
FHAE?

It is respectfully submitted that Bindia LLP, and by extension, Careless, is patently in breach of the
terms articulated within the EPC contract mutually assented to by both contracting parties. Firstly, it
is important to underscore that both the emails exchanged between FHAE and the Appellant, as well
as the explicit provisions within the terms of the EPC contract that was signed, conspicuously
stipulated that Bindia bore the onus of obtaining the requisite permissions for the materials intended
for employment in the construction activities prior to the project's commencement. Secondly, it is
imperative to consider the elementary principles of rationality and plain logic, as one would reasonably
anticipate from any prudent individual. It is axiomatic that the approval of materials intended for use
in a construction project can only be sensibly sought before the actual initiation of the construction
endeavour, not after. In light of the foregoing, it is unassailably concluded that Bindia has indisputably

-8-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

and incontrovertibly transgressed its contractual commitments and obligations as enshrined within the
EPC contract.

ISSUE III
WHETHER MR. AANDHI’S POST HAS CAUSED DEFAMATION TO GOBI & GOBI FINANCE?

The counsel acting on behalf of the Plaintiff vehemently contends that the content of the 'whY' post
made by Mr. Aandhi is of an undeniably defamatory character, thereby tarnishing the reputation of the
Plaintiff. In this regard, the words employed by Mr. Aandhi, specifically labelling all "Gobis" as
thieves, have had the egregious consequence of inflicting substantial harm upon the Plaintiff. This
damage to the Plaintiff's reputation, in turn, culminated in a reduction in the value of its shares, leading
to a substantial financial loss.
It is paramount to highlight that the Plaintiff, as a separate legal entity, is vested with the full
complement of legal rights to institute a comprehensive legal action against Mr. Aandhi, as a whole.
The nature of the post's defamation is rooted in its characterization of "Gobi" as a collective identity,
and it is irrefutably established that Mr. Aandhi must bear the responsibility for the damages
engendered by his statement. The intent behind Mr. Aandhi's statement is not a matter subject to
contention, as it is not relevant in this context. The injuries sustained, irrespective of Mr. Aandhi's
intent, have resulted in substantial harm, and it is incumbent upon him to provide adequate
compensation commensurate with the extent of this harm.

-9-
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CARELESS AND G&G

IS NON-EST?

1. The Counsel for the Defendant respectfully submits that terms outlined under Facility Agreement
signed 14th February 2022 by G&G and Careless are enforceable, and defence of non-est factum cannot
be pled in the present case. Although the Counsel recognizes G&G to be in a position to dominate the
will of Careless at the time of contracting, it is humbly contended that this position was not used to
obtain any unfair advantage. Further, the stipulations signed are not unconscionable.

2. It is humbly submitted that it was held in Raghunath Prasad Sahu v Sarju Prasad Sahu1, that an
urgent need of money is no distress, and mere commercial pressure does not amount to economic
duress2. Under these circumstances, the inequality in bargaining power is only as much as every
commercial transaction entails. Further, in defence of exerting influence when assuaging Careless’s
concerns, it was held in Shrimati v Sudhakar R. Bhatka3 that influence in the eyes of the law must
be contradistinguished from persuasion. Every persuasion is not the same thing as influence. One may
by his acts and conduct convince and persuade the other party to do a particular act and if the other
party does such an act freely and out of own volition, may be to his prejudice or disadvantage or peril,
it cannot be said that such an act was influenced by the other.

3. It is respectfully submitted that all clauses introduced in the facility agreement were with the intention
of protecting business interests in consonance with usual market practices. Releasing the contracted
amount in tranches ensured sustainability of the loan by allowing for greater adaptation to changing
economic conditions.4 Discharge of liability under flexible disbursement schedule is reasonably
proportionate to G&G’s control considerations taking into cognizance the fluctuation in market
conditions at the time of contracting. Non-solicitation clause protects G&G’s right to receive returns
against encroachment by third party. In case of breach of the EPC contract, the divestment clause
ensures that liquidated damages are routed to G&G directly, thus ensuring maximum recovery of
principal lent.

1
LW 19 470: AIR 1924 PC 60 1924.
2
Pao On v Lao Yiu Long, WLR 3 435 1979.
3
Shrimati v Sudhakar R. Bhatkar, AIR 1998 Bom 12 1997.
4
Annexure III, Moot Prop.

- 10 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Further, the Counsel for the Defendant would like to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that no
enrichment was received by G&G at the cost of Careless as a consequence of the contract, to the
contrary, G&G risks loss of the principal lent by them in case the EPC contract is terminated.

5. Operations undertaken by Carless are funded by G&G. In the absence of the proposed clauses, their
relationship would resemble that of an Agent and a Principal, wherein G&G would be compelled to
bear the financial risk. These clauses ensure that G&G is paying for the transactions entered into by
Careless, and not bearing the actual cost of it, i.e., the commercial risk attached to the aforementioned
transactions should not be transferred to or borne by G&G.

- 11 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE II
WHETHER BINDI HAS BREACHED ITS CONTRACTUAL TERMS
OR
WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE EPC CONTRACT ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AGAINST
FHAE?

1. The present issue concerns a matter of contention between the involved parties with respect to the
requisite sequence for procuring approval in the context of the Konoha-Namek project. In addressing
the same, the Counsels on behalf of the Defendant respectfully submit before this Hon’ble High Court
that Bindia, pursuant to the executed EPC contract, bore the obligation of obtaining prior authorization
for the materials deployed in the Konoha-Namek Program NHDP project.

2. In the emails exchanged5 between the Defendant 2 and the Appellant, Point 4 clearly states that “The
Contractor is required to obtain permissions from the Authority before commencing with the
construction of the Project”. Despite this clear instruction, Bindia did not produce any materials for
approval from the authority and commenced with the construction, in clear breach of the terms agreed
upon.

A. TERMS OF THE STANDARIZED EPC CONTRACT

3. In the agreed upon EPC contract it is readily discerned from Section 17 that
“The Contractor is required to obtain written approvals from the Authority on the materials being used
for the Project.” Further the “Standard EPC Agreement for National Highways and Centrally
Sponsored road works proposed to be implemented on Engineering Procurement and construction
(EPC) mode of Contract”6, lays down the obligations, that Bindia was to fulfil, as humbly submitted
below.

4. Article 11, u/s 11.2 7 of the standardized EPC contract it delineates the obligation of the Contractor to
establish a comprehensive quality control mechanism, the Quality Assurance Plan (hereinafter
"QAP"). This QAP is required to be sent for approval to FAHE's designated "Authority Engineer"8
prior to the commencement of the project.9

5
Annex. I, Moot Prop.
6
IV, EPA SECTION, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 4, 2019.
7
Ibid. Art.11, Sec.11.2.
8
Ibid. Art.18, Sec. 18.1
9
Ibid. Art. 11, Sec. 11.2, (ii)

- 12 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The QAP includes the necessity for approval concerning the quality control mechanism, which in itself
is inclusive of the sampling and testing of materials.10
Section 11.311 of the aforementioned Article 11 of the EPC contract addresses the procedural
methodology that the Contractor is bound to adhere to. Pursuant to this provision, the Contractor bears
the responsibility of presenting, for the review and consent of the Authority's Engineer, the proposed
methodology intended for the execution of the Works. The submission is expected to include the
particulars concerning the equipment to be employed, the strategies for traffic management, and the
materials intended for utilization in the construction process.

5. Submission of the QAP is inclusive of the defined Methodology12. The stipulated timeline for
submission of the Methodology and the QAP was within 30 days from the predetermined
commencement date for Phase I construction, specifically, March of 2022.13
It is important to take note that Bindia, having been conferred the EPC contract in October of 2021,
possessed a substantial span of time to fulfil the obligation of submitting the QAP.
As further established in UHL Power Co. Ltd. V. state of H.P. 14
“the period of performance was to commence only after certain clearances were obtained by promisee,
as stipulated in the contract”. Bindia was to start construction only after gaining the requisite approvals
from the Authority. They elected to disregard the contractual provisions and proceeded with the
construction of the highway. This blatant contravention of the contractual terms by Careless is
manifest, rendering FHAE exempt from any obligation to adhere to the demand order pertaining to
Phase I construction.

6. Article 10 of the standardized EPC contract establishes the framework for the Design and Construction
of the Project. Notably, Section 10.1 delineates the obligations incumbent upon the Contractor prior to
the initiation of the Works. Specifically, it underscores the Contractor's duty pertaining to the
acquisition of prior approvals from the Authority.15 The section stipulates that the Contractor shall
engage in and carry out all essential tasks as may be necessitated, in strict accordance with the terms
and conditions enshrined within the contract. It is imperative to observe that Bindia LLP failed to

10
Ibid. Art.11, Sec. 11.2, (ii), (b).
11
Ibid. Art.11, Sec. 11.3.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid. Art.11, Sec. 11.2, (ii).
14
SCC 4 116 2022.
15
Ibid. Art. 10, Sec.10.1, (i), (c).

- 13 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

furnish the requisite documentation for approval and proceeded with the execution of the project
without obtaining authorisation from any Authority within FHAE.

7. Article 4 of the contract elucidates the multiple obligations of the Contractor. Section 4.1,16 explicitly
mandates that the Contractor, here, Bindia, must procure, as required, the appropriate proprietary
rights, licences, agreements and permissions for Materials, methods, processes and systems used or
incorporated into the Project. As has been established already, Bindia failed to initiate the requisite
proceedings for approval from FHAE. Consequently, FHAE is absolved of any liability to remunerate
the construction costs associated with the First Phase of the Konoha-Namek project.

8. Section 18.3 of Article 18 within the EPC contract, 17 explicitly affirms that any failure of the
Authority’s Engineer to disapprove any work, Plant or Materials shall not constitute approval, and
shall, therefore, not impede the Authority's prerogative to subsequently reject the work. Consequently,
FHAE retains full and unimpaired rights to repudiate the payment obligation for the First Phase of the
Konoha-Namek project.

16
Ibid. Art.4. Sec. 4.1, (vii), (b).
17
Ibid. Art.18. Sec.18.1, (ii)

- 14 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE III
WHETHER MR. AANDHI’S POST HAS CAUSED DEFAMATION TO GOBI & GOBI FINANCE?

1. On the 1st of December 2022, the incident known as the "Gobi Scam" came to light. Subsequent to the
initiation of legal proceedings against the Defendant's company by G&G, the Defendant published a
post on the 5th day of December in the same year, making use of the 'whY' platform. In this ‘whY’
post18, the Defendant made a statement as follows: “Gali Gali mein shor hain, saare Gobi Chor hain”
(It is well known that all Gobis are thieves.)19 This particular statement, by virtue of its dissemination,
precipitated a significant decline in the public perception of G&G and consequently had a detrimental
impact on the market valuation of its shares. The Plaintiff, thus initiated a civil suit of defamation u/s
19 of the CPC, 190820, seeking damages in the form of a monetary claim of 223 crores.

A. AUTHORITY OF G&G TO FILE FOR DEFAMATION

2. G&G, in common with all NBFCs21, is duly acknowledged as a juridical entity, and, in consequence,
hold the status of an artificial person.22 As held in Mathew v. Kerala United Corporation Ltd.23
“Suits under the Code of Civil Procedure can be instituted not only by natural human beings but also
by artificial persons such as a corporation.”
Therefore, G&G is vested with the legal entitlement to initiate a defamation lawsuit. This legal
principle was also firmly established in the precedent set forth by the case of Abdul Haq v. Das Mal24,
wherein it was established that any juristic person, including corporations and entities of a quasi-legal
nature, is qualified to maintain a legal action.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff in this matter has taken the necessary legal recourse by filing a suit for
compensatory damages pursuant to Section 19 of the CPC. This provision of the CPC empowers the
Plaintiff to seek reparation for the harm suffered as a consequence of the alleged defamation, thereby
upholding the essential principles of justice and legal redress as enshrined in the laws of this
jurisdiction.

18
Annex. IX, Moot Prop.
19
Clause 17, Ibid.
20
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
21
Clause 3, Ibid.
22
Union bank of India v. Khader international construction & ors.
23
AIR 1961 Ker 180 1960.
24
Abdul Haq v. Das Mal AIR 1946 All 200 1910.

- 15 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

B. G&G AS AN IDENTIFIABLE GROUP OF PERSONS

3. It can now be reasonably concluded that a defamatory imputation against a collection of person falls
within the definition of defamation, as publication of an imputation affecting character or reputation
of a company or association, lowers the moral character of the members of the association
collectively.25
In G. Narasimhan & Ors. v. T.V. Chokappa26, the SC held that an imputation concerning a company
or an association or collection of persons may amount to defamation, but such a collection of person
must be an identifiable body, so that, it is possible to say with definiteness that a group of particular
persons, is distinguished from the rest, of the community, was defamed.
Here, simply the use of the name “Gobi”27 in the ‘whY’ post identifies Gobi & Gobi Finance as a
determinable group. Thus, in this context, the term "Gobi" as mentioned in the post distinctly
represents an identifiable class of persons.28

4. Subsequent to the posting of the aforementioned statement on the 7th of December 2022, the market
witnessed a significant decline in G&G's stock value, placing G&G under substantial selling pressure,
resulting in a precipitous drop in share prices. Experts have attributed this decline to the Defendant's
'whY' post, thereby establishing the causal link between the post and the damages incurred. The
defendant, being a prominent political figure, should have been cognizant of the wide-reaching impact
of his statements and exercised prudence in his expressions.

C. INTENTION TO DEFAME IS IRRELEVANT

5. It is imperative to emphasize that liability for defamation does not hinge on the defendant's intention
to defame, but rather on whether the statement made by the defendant was, in fact, defamatory. 2930
This legal principle finds resonance in the landmark case of Newstead v. London Express Newspapers
Ltd.
In this precedent, the defendants published an article asserting that "Harold Newstead, a Camberwell
man," had been convicted of bigamy. While the statement was accurate in reference to Harold
Newstead, a Camberwell barman, the action for defamation was instigated by another Harold

25
Santosh Kumar Chatterjee v. Radhika Ranjan Ghoshal, 66 CWN 24.
26
AIR 2609, 1971: SCR (2) 40 1973
27
Clause 17, Annex. IX, Moot Proposition
28
Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi and Ors. SLP 8644 2023
29
Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd., (1929) 2 KB 331
30
T.V. Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A. Mohindeen

- 16 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Newstead, who was also, coincidently, a Camberwell barber. Since the words were reasonably seen as
referring to the plaintiff, the defendants were held liable.

In the landmark case of Hulton and Co. v. Jones31, the House of Lords held that
“acting in good faith and without any intention to defame the plaintiff is no defence.”
The intention of the writer is immaterial in deciding whether the matter written is defamatory or not,
hence, the Defendant is to be held liable for the damages caused, regardless of his intention.

6. In light of the recent developments stemming from the lawsuit filed by the Defendant against G&G,
the presence of contempt is indisputable. It is then reasonably plausible that the Defendant's post was
crafted with full awareness of the harm32, whether actual or indirect, that it would inflict upon G&G.
The background or the context of the dispute between the parties is also to be considered. 33

7. Real and actual damage was caused to G&G, severely injuring its reputation as well as lowering their
image in the eyes of the public. The defendant’s ‘whY’ post labelled all “Gobis” as thieves and in
doing so, from such a large platform, he has caused grievous harm to the company’s reputation. In a
business where the reputation of a company which is entirely reliant on how many people will buy
shares or invest, a tarnished reputation is as good as a death penalty.

31
220 F. Supp. 598, 1963
32
Jainarain Singh V. Emperor AIR 1941 Pat 9 : 41 Cr LJ 84.
33
C.C. Das v. Raghunath Singh 1956 Cr LJ 1006 : AIR 1959 Orissa 141.

- 17 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]
 RGNUL INTRA FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

PRAYER

Wherefore, may it please the Hon'ble High Court, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, issues
raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Appellant prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to adjudge, rule upon and determine the following:

1. To dismiss the stay on the divestment notice.

2. To declare that Bindia breached its contractual obligations.

3. To compel Mr. Aandhi to pay damages amounting to ₹223 Cr.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most respectfully prayed and humbly submitted

By the Counsels on behalf of the Defendants.

- 18 -
[MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANTS]