Memorial on behalf of petitioner

TEAM CODE:

BEFORE THE STATE OF HIGH COURT

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S SHARAMA & SHARMA ….PETITIONER

VS.
MINOR ….RESPONDENT

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT

WRITTRN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Cousnsel for petitioner

1
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………….. III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………. IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………. X

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………….... XIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………. XIV

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………….. XV

ISSUE RESOLVED

. 1. WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN M/S. SHARMA AND SHARMA AND
MR. PINK FLOYD

II. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN MOHORI BIBEE V. DHARMODAS GHOSE NEEDS
RECONSIDERATION?

III. WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT OF BHARATPUR WAS CORRECT IN REJECTING THE PLEA OF
RESTITUTION?

2
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

PRAYER OF RELIEF…….........………………............................................

XXVI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION. EXPANSIONS

Abbreviations Expansion

AIR All India reporter

Anr Another

Art Constitutiona

Section Indian penal code

Hon'ble Hon'ble

Scc Supreme court case

Unsoundness Insanity

Pg Page

No Number

V Versus

3
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 CONSTITUTION
1. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WADHWA,
INDIA, 2007, 8TH EDITION, VOLUME I AND II
2. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXIS NEXIS, INDIA, 2009, 8TH
EDITION
3. D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXIS NEXIS, INDIA,
2009, 14TH EDITION
4. D.D. BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LEXIS NEXIS,
INDIA, 2008, 3RD EDITION
5. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WADHWA,
INDIA, 2007, 2ND EDITION, VOLUME I AND II
6. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA, UNIVERSAL
PUBLICATIONS, INDIA, 2004, 4TH EDITION, VOLUME I,II AND III
7. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA, EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY, INDIA, 2008, 11TH EDITION
8. D.J. DE, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ASIA LAW HOUSE,INDIA, 2008, 3RD
EDITION

4
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

1. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, THOMAS & WEST, U.S.A, 1990,

9TH EDITION
A. WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.lexisnexisacademic.com
2. www.vakilno1.com
3. www.manupatra.com
4. www.ncaer.org
5. www.wikipedia.org
6. www.oecd.org
7. www.undp.org.in
8. www.uncsd2012.org
9. www.environmental-mainstreaming.org

B Case laws.

1. RAJLUKHY DABEE V. BHOOTNATH MOOKERJEE (1900)

2. MOHORI BIBEE V. DHARMODAS GHOSE (1903)

3. BHAGWANDAS GOVERDHANDAS KEDIA V. M/S. GIRDHARILAL

PARSHOTTAMDAS & CO. (1966)

4. HARNARAIN DAS V. ALI RAZA (1975)

5. SATYABRATA GHOSE V. MUGNEERAM BANGUR & CO. (1954)

6. BANK OF BIHAR LTD. V. DAMODAR PRASAD

7. LACHHMAN DAS V. FIRM BHAGWAN DASS

8. RAJ RANI V. PREM ADIB

5
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble high court court has inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the
present case by virtue of article 226 :of constitution .1

1
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of
them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the
territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is
not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such
order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the
copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is
open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

6
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Pink Floyd, a sixteen-year prodigy, citizen of Bharatam, was the recipient of the "Best
Singer" award. He was an astounding singer, extremely talented in Rock and Jazz. He
wanted to develop his musical career by releasing fusion albums combining different genres
and by engaging himself on world music tours. So, he wanted a multi-purpose, ultra-modern
architectural marvel where he could have his recording studio, theatre for live musical
performances and a roof top pool for hosting parties. He misrepresented himself as a major
and put the task out to tender.

2. M/s. Sharma & Sharma was a leading building constructor and infrastructure provider.
They offered to do the entire work for Rs. 10,00,000/-. Both the parties knew that this was
an unrealistically low-price contract and the amount will be paid in installments in order of
the completion of different phases of the assigned work.

3. Pink Floyd accepted their offer and entered into a contract for construction of the multi-
purpose building and for providing all amenities therein. According to the contract, the
ground floor was for parking, the first floor was for the music theatre, the second floor was
for the recording studio and the last floor for the roof top pool.

7
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

4. M/s. Sharma & Sharma completed the construction of the ground floor and first floor and
ran out of money and materials for further construction. They informed Pink Floyd that they
could not complete the construction unless further capital was made available to them.

5. Pink Floyd had arranged a poolside party to which he had invited top music directors,
producers and other renowned individuals in the music industry whom he believed would
fund for his dream music albums and music tours. So he was desperate to have the
construction of the roof top pool completed as stipulated. He had requested for the
continuance of the construction work and further requested to spend the remaining amount
of Rs.7,00,000/- on the work out of their own funds and assured them that the money would
be paid to them as soon as his album is released.

6. The roof top pool was completed and the party was a success. Pink Floyd entered into a
contract with Rockstar Producers who agreed to fund for the fusion albums and world tours.
Pink Floyd told Ms. Asha Sharma, the Manager of M/s. Sharma & Sharma "Madam, you
have saved my career. Don't worry about Rs.7,00,000/-." Having this as a promise, M/s.
Sharma & Sharma started a new project. However, Pink Floyd's new fusion music album
was a disastrous flop. Social media enthusiasts and meme pages massively trolled him for
his raucous and bizarre fusion music. He then found himself unable to pay the amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- to M/s. Sharma & Sharma.

7. Ms. Asha Sharma compelled Pink Floyd to render a music performance in her daughter's
birthday party. Apart from relatives and friends she had also invited rich people, in order to
secure contracts regarding building, construction etc, and in return she agreed to release Pink
Floyd from paying the debts of Rs.7,00,000/-. Pink Floyd agreed on this point and was ready
for the musicperformance in the party. He also wanted to get back his lost his career afresh.
However, before the party, he suffered from a severe sore throat due over-repetition of
rehearsals.

8. Then he did not perform in Ms. Asha's party on the advice of his doctor.

8
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

9. On Pink Floyd's eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on grounds of humanity, decided to
alter the contract. Pink Floyd acknowledged the debt taken from M/s. Sharma & Sharma for
rendering past services and further both agreed on the same point that Pink Floyd would pay
the debt through easy monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs. 20,000/- per month till the
repayment of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.

10. Pink Floyd, later on, felt that the work done by M/s. Sharma & Sharma was not
performed as he had specified. He further pointed out that the material used for constructing
was substandard and not satisfactory. He estimated that this would have cost

Rs.3,00,000/- only. He claimed that he had paid the money already.11. Pink Floyd then
decided to dispose off his property, without paying a single dime to M/s.. Sharma & Sharma.
When all this foul play came to their knowledge, they tried to restrain him by putting
enormous pressure in order to recover their money amounting to a total sumof Rs.7,00,000/-
which they spent on the construction and amenities. Even after such prolonged period and
altered mode of payment, M/s. Sharma & Sharma could not recover the debt from Pink
Floyd. As a last resort, they sent him a legal notice, stating that the money shall be repaid
within 15 days. However, Pink Floyd did not send any correspondence or reply to the
saidnotice.

12. In this context, M/s. Sharma & Sharma finally decided to seek remedy from the Court of
Law in this regard. The suit was filed by M/s. Sharma & Sharma before the Civil Court of
Bharatpur, in the State of Bharatam on the ground that they had constructed the building as
per the terms of the contract and had taken all the diligent steps to recover the loan made
available to Pink Floyd for Rs.7,00,000/- but now he refused to pay the said amount and
alleged fraud against him. They also prayed for injunction restraining Pink Floyd from
selling the property until the suit was disposed off.

9
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

13. The Civil Court of Bharatpur heard the matter and held that a minor's contract is void ab
inito and thus set Pink Floyd free from all his liabilities towards M/s. Sharma & Sharma by
upholding the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. The plea of
restitution raised by the Plaintiff was rejected and injunction was not granted. 13. M/s.
Sharma & Sharma preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bharatpur. The High Court
granted. injunction and decided to hear the case on merits. The following are the issues
framed for consideration:

ISSUE RAISED

10
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

. 1. WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN M/S. SHARMA AND SHARMA AND
MR. PINK FLOYD

II. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN MOHORI BIBEE V. DHARMODAS GHOSE NEEDS
RECONSIDERATION?

III. WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT OF BHARATPUR WAS CORRECT IN REJECTING THE PLEA OF
RESTITUTION?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

. 1. WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN M/S. SHARMA AND SHARMA AND
MR. PINK FLOYD

The petitioner, M/s. Sharma & Sharma, asserts the existence of a valid contract with Mr.
Pink Floyd. They argue that both parties entered into an agreement wherein M/s. Sharma &
Sharma undertook the construction of the multi-purpose building, and Mr. Pink Floyd was
obligated to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- in installments upon completion of different construction

11
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

phases. M/s. Sharma & Sharma completed certain phases of the construction, fulfilling their
end of the contract. This completion signifies the execution of a binding agreement between
the parties, which Mr. Pink Floyd is obligated to honor. The completion of specific phases as
per the contract terms implies the validity of the contract entered into by both parties.

I II. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN MOHORI BIBEE V. DHARMODAS GHOSE NEEDS
RECONSIDERATION?

M/s. Sharma & Sharma contends that the judgment in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose,
which deems contracts with minors as void, requires reconsideration in this context. They
argue that Mr. Pink Floyd misrepresented himself as an adult during the contract formation,
leading M/s. Sharma & Sharma to believe they were contracting with a competent
individual. This misrepresentation was pivotal in the formation of the contract and misled
the petitioner. Hence, they emphasize the need for reconsideration of the legal precedent, as
the circumstances surrounding Mr. Pink Floyd's misrepresentation warrant a different
application of the law regarding contracts with minors.

III. WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT OF BHARATPUR WAS CORRECT IN REJECTING THE PLEA OF
RESTITUTION?

Moreover, the forensic examination report confirmed the presence of the accused's
fingerprints on the murder weapon, linking Rahul directly to the crime scene. The matching
DNA from the body parts found and Seema's confirmed without doubt that she was the
victim.Given the coherence and consistency of the evidence, the Hon'ble High Court
rightfully concluded that the accused was guilty under Section 302 of the IPC. The
conviction was a judicious application of legal principles to the facts presented and ensured
justice for the deceased victim, Seema Singh.Therefore, we respectfully submit that the High
Court's decision to convict the accused under Section 302 of the IPC was well-founded and
based on a thorough examination of the evidence.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

12
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

. 1. WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN M/S. SHARMA AND SHARMA AND
MR. PINK FLOYD

1.1. Assertion of Validity:

M/s. Sharma & Sharma contends that a valid contract exists between them and Mr. Pink
Floyd. They assert that both parties willingly entered into an agreement where M/s. Sharma
& Sharma would undertake the construction of a multi-purpose building, and Mr. Pink
Floyd would make payments totaling Rs. 10,00,000/- in installments upon the completion of
specific construction phases. The completion of certain phases by M/s. Sharma & Sharma
further solidifies the existence of a binding agreement between both parties. Their
completion of these phases, as per the agreed terms, indicates the existence of a contract that
obligates Mr. Pink Floyd to fulfill his financial commitments

M/s. Sharma & Sharma affirms the existence of a valid contract, as both parties willingly
engaged in a mutually agreed-upon arrangement. The contract encompassed specific terms
where M/s. Sharma & Sharma would execute the construction of the multi-purpose building
while Mr. Pink Floyd was obligated to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- in installments upon the
completion of different phases.

Their completion of certain phases signifies the execution of an enforceable agreement

between both parties. This completion underscores Mr. Pink Floyd's obligation to honor the
terms and fulfill the agreed-upon payments. Additionally, despite the contract's complexity,
it fulfilled the essential elements stipulated under Indian contract law, including mutual
consent, lawful consideration, and competent parties, further solidifying its validity. This
demonstrates a clear intent from both sides to enter a binding agreement, thereby
establishing the validity of the contract between M/s. Sharma & Sharma and Mr. Pink Floyd.

13
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

1.2. Legal Provisions:

In support of the claim of a valid contract, several legal provisions are pertinent. Sections 10,
13, and 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, establish the essentials of a valid contract,
emphasizing the presence of mutual consent, lawful consideration, and competency of the
contracting parties. These provisions underscore the necessity of agreement, lawful object,
and the parties' ability to contract, all of which, according to M/s. Sharma & Sharma, were
fulfilled in the agreement with Mr. Pink Floyd.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, under Sections 10, 13, and 14, lays down the fundamental
elements necessary for a valid contract:

Section 10:** It elucidates that agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent
of parties, for lawful consideration, with a lawful object, by competent parties, and are not
expressly declared to be void.

- Section 13:** This section defines consent, emphasizing that for a contract to be valid,
both parties must agree upon the same thing in the same sense, known as a 'meeting of
minds.'

- *Section 14:** It establishes competency to contract, stating that every person is

competent to contract if they are of the age of majority, sound mind, and not disqualified by
law.

In the case of M/s. Sharma & Sharma and Mr. Pink Floyd, these legal provisions highlight
the presence of mutual consent as both parties willingly agreed to the terms. Additionally,
lawful consideration, wherein services were provided by M/s. Sharma & Sharma and
payments were due from Mr. Pink Floyd, was an integral part of the contract. Moreover,
both parties, presumed competent, entered into this agreement without any legal
disqualifications. Thus, the contract fulfills the essential requisites outlined in the Indian
Contract Act, substantiating its validity.

14
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

1.3. Indian Case Laws:

M/s. Sharma & Sharma relies on several Indian case laws to reinforce the existence of a
valid contract:

1. Rajlukhy Dabee v. Bhootnath Mookerjee 2: This case highlights the significance of mutual
consent and lawful consideration in a contract, aligning with the circumstances of the
agreement between M/s. Sharma & Sharma and Mr. Pink Floyd.

2. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): 3* Although this case established that
contracts with minors are void, M/s. Sharma & Sharma asserts a distinction, emphasizing
Mr. Pink Floyd's misrepresentation as an adult, which misled them and thereby necessitates
reconsideration of the ruling in this specific scenario.

3. *Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. (1966):* 4

This case emphasizes the importance of lawful consideration and mutual consent, key
aspects upheld in the contract between M/s. Sharma & Sharma and Mr. Pink Floyd.

4. *Harnarain Das v. Ali Raza (1975 5):* Here, the court stressed the necessity of
contractual obligations and the fulfillment of these commitments, aligning with M/s. Sharma
& Sharma's contention that Mr. Pink Floyd is bound to honor the terms of the contract.These
Indian case laws provide precedents that support the presence of a valid contract between
M/s. Sharma & Sharma and Mr. Pink Floyd, emphasizing mutual consent, lawful
consideration, and the fulfillment of contractual obligations.

2
1990
3
1903] UKPC 12, (1903) LR 30 IA
4
1966 AIR 543, 1966 SCR (1) 656
5
18 January, 1932

15
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

I II. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN MOHORI BIBEE V. DHARMODAS GHOSE NEEDS
RECONSIDERATION?

1.1. Yes, It Needs More Consideration:

M/s. Sharma & Sharma contends that a reevaluation of the judgment in Mohori Bibee v.
Dharmodas Ghose is warranted due to the unique circumstances of the present case
involving Mr. Pink Floyd's misrepresentation. The judgment in the cited case declared
contracts with minors as void ab initio. However, in this instance, Mr. Pink Floyd
misrepresented himself as an adult, leading M/s. Sharma & Sharma to believe they were
contracting with a competent individual. This misrepresentation fundamentally influenced
the formation of the contract and was pivotal in establishing the contractual relationship.
Therefore, the circumstances surrounding the misrepresentation raise questions about the
strict application of the principle outlined in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose

M/s. Sharma & Sharma emphasizes that the circumstances of Mr. Pink Floyd's
misrepresentation as an adult during the contract formation require a more nuanced
examination of the Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose judgment. The misrepresentation
altered the perception of both parties involved in the contract, leading M/s. Sharma &
Sharma to reasonably believe they were contracting with a competent individual.

16
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

This misrepresentation, though initiated by a minor, fundamentally impacted the formation

of the contract. It raises questions regarding the straightforward application of the legal
principle that deems contracts with minors void, especially when the misrepresentation
significantly influences the contractual relationship. The misrepresentation acted as a crucial
factor in the parties' decision-making process and the establishment of contractual
obligations, suggesting a need for reconsideration of the precedent set by the Mohori Bibee
case.

1.2. About the Case:

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) involved a minor who mortgaged his property to
an adult. The court held the contract void as it was entered into by a minor without the
capacity to contract. The principle derived from this case stipulates that contracts made by
minors are void, and they cannot be held liable for obligations arising from such contracts.
However, in the present scenario, Mr. Pink Floyd, though a minor, represented himself as an
adult, which misled M/s. Sharma & Sharma during the contract formation. This
misrepresentation significantly impacted their decision-making process and the validity of
the contract.

The Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose judgment aimed to protect minors from being
bound by contracts they are not legally competent to enter. However, the case at hand
presents a different facet, wherein the misrepresentation of Mr. Pink Floyd played a crucial
role in influencing M/s. Sharma & Sharma's decision to engage in a contractual relationship.

17
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

This distinction merits a reevaluation of the strict application of the precedent set by the
Mohori Bibee case in the context of misrepresentation by a minor leading to a contract.
Therefore, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Pink Floyd's misrepresentation necessitate a
reconsideration of the established legal principle delineated in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas
Ghose.

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) centered on a minor entering into a mortgage
contract with an adult. The judgment pronounced contracts made by minors as void,
shielding them from liabilities arising from such contracts. However, the situation with Mr.
Pink Floyd diverges due to his misrepresentation as an adult, leading M/s. Sharma & Sharma
to enter the contract under the impression of dealing with a competent individual.

In the present context, the misrepresentation fundamentally impacted the formation and
execution of the contract. It poses a challenge to the blanket application of the Mohori Bibee
ruling, necessitating a more contextual examination when misrepresentation by a minor
substantially influences the contractual relationship. Hence, the unique circumstances
surrounding Mr. Pink Floyd's misrepresentation warrant a reassessment of the strict
adherence to the precedent established by Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose.

III. WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT OF BHARATPUR WAS CORRECT IN REJECTING THE PLEA OF
RESTITUTION?

3.1. Civil Court's Incorrect Rejection:

M/s. Sharma & Sharma vehemently contests the Civil Court's decision to dismiss their plea
for restitution. They firmly argue that the plea was crucial to rectify the imbalance caused by
Mr. Pink Floyd's failure to meet the payment obligations outlined in the contract. The
rejection of this plea disregarded the fundamental principle of fairness and equitable relief,
allowing Mr. Pink Floyd to benefit unjustly from the completion of construction phases
without adequate compensation. This denial perpetuated an unfair advantage for Mr. Pink
Floyd at the expense of M/s. Sharma & Sharma.

18
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

The refusal to acknowledge the plea for restitution by the Civil Court effectively disregarded
the essence of contractual obligations and fairness. It failed to rectify the situation where Mr.
Pink Floyd received the benefits of completed construction phases without fulfilling his
payment commitments, creating an unjust enrichment situation. This denial undermined the
principles of equity and fairness, deviating from the core principles of contract law aimed at
restoring parties to their original positions.

3.2. Legal Provisions in Support:

M/s. Sharma & Sharma anchors their plea for restitution in legal provisions:

- **Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:** This section emphasizes the principle of
restitution, stipulating that when an agreement becomes void, any person who has received
any advantage under such an agreement must restore it or compensate for it.

- *Doctrine of Restitution: This doctrine is rooted in equity, aiming to restore parties to

their original positions before the agreement's execution, thereby preventing unjust
enrichment and ensuring fairness.

These legal provisions underscore the need for restitution in situations where contracts
become void or incomplete. They highlight the obligation of the party benefiting from an
agreement to restore the advantages received or compensate for them. In the case of M/s.
Sharma & Sharma, the incomplete compensation for the services provided necessitates
restitution to rectify the imbalance created by Mr. Pink Floyd's non-payment.

3.3. Indian Case Laws:

19
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

M/s. Sharma & Sharma relies on several Indian case laws supporting the plea for restitution:

1. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954): T 6his case emphasized
restitution's importance when one party receives benefits under a void or rescinded contract,
aligning with the circumstances at hand.

2. Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Damodar Prasa 7d. The court upheld restitution to restore parties to
their original positions, highlighting its significance in rectifying imbalances caused by
incomplete contracts.

3. Lachhman Das v. Firm Bhagwan Dass:* T 8his case stressed the importance of restoring
parties to their original positions through restitution when a contract becomes void.

4. Raj Rani v. Prem Adib:* The court emphasized restitution as an essential principle to
rectify imbalances resulting from a void contract.These Indian case laws underscore the
significance of restitution in restoring parties to their original positions when contracts
become void or incomplete. They establish a precedent for invoking restitutionary principles
to rectify imbalances, thereby emphasizing the necessity of equity and fairness in contractual
matters, echoing M/s. Sharma & Sharma's plea for restitution in the present scenario.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6
1954 AIR 44 , 1954 SCR
7
1969 AIR 297, 1969 SCR
8
1963 AIR 222

20
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

On behalf of the petitioner, M/s. Sharma & Sharma, the prayer to the Court seeks justice and
redressal for the unfair situation arising from Mr. Pink Floyd's non-payment despite
benefiting from the completed construction phases. The petitioner earnestly requests the
Court to reconsider the rejection of their plea for restitution. They implore the Court to
acknowledge the imbalance created by Mr. Pink Floyd's failure to fulfill his payment
obligations and to grant the restitution sought, thereby restoring fairness and equity in the
contractual arrangement.

Furthermore, the petitioner fervently appeals for a reconsideration of the legal precedent set
by the Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose case. They urge the Court to re-examine the
application of this precedent in light of Mr. Pink Floyd's misrepresentation as an adult
during the contract formation. This reconsideration is sought to ensure that the law addresses
the unique circumstances of this case, where the misrepresentation significantly impacted
the formation and execution of the contract. The petitioner seeks a fair resolution that aligns
with the principles of equity, contractual obligations, and justice under the law.

Petitioner

21