TEAM CODE: 27

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF TIANZHU

S.L.P. NO: / 2024

(Under Art.136 &
Under Art.32 )

SANGAMITRA APPELLANT

Vs

UNION OF TIANZHU RESPONDENT

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF TIANZHU AND

HON’BLE COMPANION JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT OF TIANZHU

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT CLUBBED THOSE PETITION TO HEAR UNDER

ARTICLE 136 & ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF TIANZHU, SINCE THE
QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVE BOTH PETITION RAISED FROM THE SAME
CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNSEAL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

S.No. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg.No.
1. List of Abbreviation
2. Index of Authorities
a) Statutes 4
b) Conventions 4
c) Case Laws and Citation 4
d) Legal Databases 5
e) Books 6
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 7
4. Statement of Facts 8
5. Issues Raised 9
6. Summary of Arguments 10
7. Arguments Advanced 12 – 26

I .Whether the appeal is maintainable or not? 12

II. Whether Sangamitra’s conviction under section 406 and

section 420 of the penal code violates Article 20 of the 19
constitution of Tianzhu ?

23
III. Whether Sangamitra entitled to damages and
compensation or the vexation caused by the failure of
the“Tianzhu women leader -2021” scheme and her wrongful
conviction?

8. Prayer 27

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No. Short Form Abbreviation

1. SCC Supreme Court Cases
2. AIR All India Report
3. Art. Article
4. @ Alias
5. & And
6. CBI Cental bureau of investigation
7. COT Constitution of Tianzhu

8. NCT National capital territory

9. CR.L.J Criminal law journal
10. CRPC Criminal procedure code
11. LTD Limited
12. SLP Special leave petition
13. u/s Under section
14. GOVT
Government
15. HC High court
16. NIA Negotiable Instrument Act,1881
17. HON’BLE Honourable
18. i.e That is
19. TPC Tianzhu penal code
20. LTD Limited
21. SC
Supreme court
22. Assn Assoociation

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.No. STATUTES
1. Constitution of Tianzhu.
2. Negotiable instrument Act,1881
3.
4.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

4
LEGAL DATABASES: -
1. www.livelaw.in
2. www.indiankanoon.in

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

5
S.No. BOOKS
1.
2. J.N. Pandey, “Constitution of India”, 56th Edition
3. M.P. Jain, “Constitution of India”, Eighth Edition, 2018
4.
5.
6.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

6
 STATEMENT OF
JUSRIDICTION

THE APPELLANT HAVE APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

BY INVOKING UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF WRIT PETITION FOR THE VIOLATION
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER
1
ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF TIANZHU, 1950 AND AGAINST THE
ORDER ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF SILICONNAGARA.

ATICLE 32
Right to Constitutional Remedies
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this
Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any
of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the
Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
1
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court: -
(1) Not withstanding 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 India.
(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.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

7
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

Union of Tianzhu was a prosperous country in Asia. The republic party of Tianzhu came to power
in the union. The republic party, introduced the election manifesto that is “Tianzhu women leader –
2021”,would grant the loan with minimal levy of interest for encouragement of women entrepreneurs.
Sangamithra is master in administrative law. The said scheme was attribute to grant of Rs.1,00,00,000
to desiring business women. Sangamithra, who engaged in ethnic clothes having pan-Tianzhu.
Sangamithra meticulously submitted all paperwork to the competent authority to seek a grand. The
competent authority sanctioned the grant time of its policies and procedures.

Time of its policies and procedures its allowed on the election manifesto promise in relation to
“Tianzhu women leader-2021”. The post date of cheques were given to various applicant who had
been granted aids including sangamithra, being confident that the said cheques would be honored on
the due dates sought to purchase various linens etc,. Sangamithra had fond hope , she would be able to
buy goods from Ms.Devipriya. On the payment based on the cheque of “Tianzhu women leader-
2021” scheme. She purchase said good from Mr.Devipriya amounting Rs.50,00,000 – Tianzhu was
unable to keep its promise of grants.

Meanwhile, the cheque given by sangamithra to Ms.Devipriya was also not honored due to
“insufficient funds” in sangamithra account. Albert, the business of Ms.Devipriya suffered losses
vendors were not paid and insolvency proceedings were filed, the business of devipriya was closed in
order to pay all the vendors. Ms.Devipriya filed the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable
Instument Act,1881 and another under auspices of section 406 and 420 of the penal
code,1860.Sangamithra convicted under section 138 of Negotiable Insrtument Act, 1881 and was
order to pay Rs.75,00,000- in terms of the said law including compensation and in default to undergo
imprisonment for 2 years. Sangamithra failed to comply with said order and underwent imprisonement
for 2 years.

After, her release, the trial in section 406 and 420 of penal code,1860. She was convicted
accordingly and ordered to undergo imprisonment for seven years. Aggrieved by the said order of
conviction, she preferred writ petition to the High court of sileconnagara, passing the order of
conviction under penal code was double jeo party. The High court the conviction was upheld.
Sangamithra aggrieved by the said orders, preferred special leave petition for justice for their
wrongfull conviction and also filed writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution of Tianzhu for the
violation of the fundamental rights Article 14 and Article 20 and also claiming damages and
compensation in relation to vexation due to “Tianzhu womens leader scheme-2021”. Hon’ble court
admitted the same and has issued notice to the union of Tianzhu and Ms.Devipriya.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

8
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE – 01

Whether Sangamitra’s appeal is maintainable or not ?

ISSUE – 02

Whether Sangamitra’s conviction under section 406 and section 420 of the Penal Code violates the
principles of Double JeoPardy ?

ISSUE – 03

Whether Sangamitra is entitled to damages and compensation for the vexation caused by the
Failure of the “ Tianzhu Women Leader – 2021 ” scheme and her wrongful conviction .

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

ISSUE – 01

WHETHER SANGAMITRA’S APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted that,the appeal is maintainable .Its has been filed before this hon’ble
court under article 136 1 of the constitution of Tianzhu,which grants supreme court discretionary
power to hear appeal against judgement or order from any tribunal or the court in the territory of
Tianzhu.And meanwhile filed writ petition against the violation of fundamental right.supreme court
has been constituted as the defender and guarantor of the fundamental right of the citizens.so,the both
petition is maintainable on the supreme court of Tianzhu.

ISSUE – 02

WHETHER SANGAMITRA’S CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 406 AND SECTION 420

OF PENAL CODE VIOLATES THE PINCIPLES OF DOULE JEO PARTY ?

It is most humbly submitted that the , The principle of double jeopardy prohibits
subjecting an individual to multiple punishments for the same offense. The Appellant has already
been convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonor of a
cheque due to insufficient funds. The subsequent conviction under sections 406 and 420 of the
Penal Code, 1860 for offenses related to the same transaction constitutes double jeopardy. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Tianzhu has consistently upheld the principle of non bis in idem,
ensuring that an individual is not punished twice for the same offense.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

10
 ISSUE – 03

WHETHER SANGAMITRA IS ENTITTLED TO DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION FOR

THE VEXATION CAUSED B Y THE FAILURE OF THE “TIANZHU WOMEN LEADER –
2021 ” SCHEME AND HER WRONGFUL CONVICTION .

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the ,Sangamitra is entitled to
damages and compensation for the hardships endured due to the failure of the “Tianzhu Women
Leader-2021” scheme and her wrongful conviction. The financial losses incurred and the mental
anguish suffered necessitate redressal through monetary compensation.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE – 01

WHETHER SANGAMITRA’S APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?

It is humbly submitted as follows-That the,special leave petition filed by the

appellant is maintainable by virtue of Article 136 of the constitution of india .
Article 136 of the constitution of Tianzhu read as follows-
1
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court: -
(1) Not withstanding 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 India.
(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.
Appeal by special leave:-
The supreme court is authorized to grant in its discretion special leave to appeal from any judgement
in any matter passed by any court or tribunal in the country.This provision contains the four aspects as
under:
(i)It is a discretionary power and hence,cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
(ii)It can be granted in any judgement whether final or interlocutory.
(iii)It may be related to any matter – constitutional,civil,criminal,income-
tax,labour,revenue,advocates,etc .
(iv)It can be granted against any court or tribunal and not necessarily against a high court.

 It is pertinent to note that the scope of Art.134 providing appeals to the supereme court in
crime (Placeholder1)final matter is limited whereas that of Art.136 is very wide &confers
discretion on the court to hear “in any cause or matter”.Therefore,criminal appeals may be
brought to the supreme court under Art.136 when these are not covered by Art.1341.
 In Delhi judicial service Assn v state of Gujarat 2,sc has held that under Art.136 of the sc has
wide power to interfere and correct the judgement and order passed by any court or tribunal in
Tianzhu.In addition to the appellate power ,the court has special residuary power to entertain
appeal against any order of any court.
 Further,it has been duly observed by the sc,that if the appellant proves that concurrent decision
of two or more courts or tribunals are manifestly unjust,it is not only the right but the duty of
this court to remedy the injustice.3

1.sadhu singh vs pepsu,AIR 194 SC 271

2.(1991) 4 scc 406
3.M/S.Variety emporium R.M.Mohd.Ibrahim Naina,AIR 19 SC 207

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

12
Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution.
It is clear that the supreme court has been constituted as the defender and guarantor
of the fundamental right of the citizens.The purpose of Article 32 is to provide a
guaranteed,effective,expedious,inexpensive and summary remedy for the protection of the
fundamental rights.Only the fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution can be enforced under
Article 32 and not any other right like non-fundamental constitutional rights ,statutory
rights,customary right and so on .The violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non for the
exercise of the right conferred by Article 32.since,the right guaranteed by Article 32 is in itself a
fundamental right,the availability of alternate remedy is no bar to relief under Article 32. So, the writ
petition of the present case is maintainable against the violation of fundamental right .

In some cases, both types of petitions can be filed simultaneously if they are addressing different
aspects of the same issue or if there are multiple legal remedies available. However, the Supreme
Court may choose to consolidate or hear them separately based on its discretion and the specific
circumstances of the case.

In India, the Supreme Court has held that filing a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is
maintainable alongside a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in certain circumstances. The Supreme Court,
in its discretion, may allow both remedies to proceed concurrently or may choose to consolidate them
into a single proceeding.

One such case that illustrates this principle is the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad
Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703). In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a Writ
Petition under Article 32 was maintainable alongside an SLP filed against the same judgment. The
Court held that both remedies could be pursued simultaneously if they involved different aspects of the
case or if there were exceptional circumstances warranting such action.
The Court emphasized that while the power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is wide and
discretionary, it should be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of process or multiplicity of
proceedings. The Court further stated that it may choose to consolidate both remedies into a single
proceeding to ensure expeditious and effective adjudication of the matter.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

13
In summary, based on the principles established in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim
case, a Writ Petition under Article 32 may be maintainable alongside a Special Leave Petition,
depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the discretion of the Supreme Court.
However, it is essential to ensure that both remedies are pursued judiciously to avoid duplication or
delay in the legal process.so,both the petition is maintainable.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

14
 ISSUE 02

WHETHER SANGAMITRA’S CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 406 AND SECTION 420 OF

THE PENAL CODE VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY ?

Yes,sangamitras conviction under section 406 and 420 of penal code violates the principle of double
Jeopardy .Because on the basis of fact of the case,sangamitra already convicted under section 138 of
NI Act underwent punishement for two years.so,double punishment for same offence which violates
the Article 20(2) of the constitution of Tianzhu.

Definitions:
Section 405 talks about,criminal breach of trust ,
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property,
dishonestly misappropritrates or converts to his own use that property , or dishonestly uses or disposes
of that property in violation of any direction of the law prescribing the mode in which such trust his to
be discharged ,or of any legal contracts or express or implied ,which he has made touching discharge
of such trust,or willfully suffers any other person shows to do ,commits “criminal breach of trust”
Section 406 talks about,punishment for criminal beach of tust.
Whoever commit criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years,or with fine ,or with both.
Elements of criminal breach of trust;
Fraudulent and dishonest intention must exit to commit a crime in this section .These two
elements must be there at the time of commission of the offence.
Section 420 talks about ,cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:-
Whoever cheats and therby dishonestly induces the person deceived to delivery any property
to any person , or to make ,alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security , or anything
which is signed or sealed and which is capale of being converted into a valuable security,shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine .
Ingredients of cheating ;-

i. Fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist to commit a crime in this section .These
two elements must be there at the time of commission of the offence.
Dr.Lakshman v state of Karnataka ,(2019) 9 SCC 677
ii. “Mere breach of trust or agreement will not by itself amount to a criminal offence
under section 420 Penal Code” ;
Abdul hakkem v. state of kerala,2019 SCC Online Ker 974;

So, description of above both section 406 and 420 ingredients must exist two elements .That is
fraudulent and dishonest intention .In the present case, sangamitra don’t know about the insufficient
funds on the cheque .so,sangamitra don’t have any mes rea like fraudulent and dishonest intention.
And in the section 420 ingredients also defines that, “Mere breach of trust or agreement will not by
itself amount to a criminal offence under section 420 Penal Code” ;

According to both section clearly states that,without mens rea not an offence. So, sangamitra cannot
be convicted under this section.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

15
Double jeopardy(Article 20(2))
No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(Article 20(2))-Double jeopardy –Appellant already convicted under section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act-
cannot again be tried on punished on same facts u/s 420 or any other provisions of penal code or any other
statute-section 300(1)crpc is wider than article 20(2) of constitution .

Section 138 and section 420 of penal code –once prosecuted u/s 138 NI Act ,the accused cannot be
prosecuted further u/s 420 penal code.

In the case of ,G.Sagar suri v. State of UP.,2000 BBCJ(SC)144|2000 1 Scale 271.

Once an accused has been prosecuted u/s 138 N.I.Act ,the he should not be prosecuted further u/s 420
IPC as he has to face the consequences in former prosecution.

Section 300(1) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.

(1)A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or
acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried
again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the
one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have
been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.

In the case,koola veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkatishwar Rao &Anr .AIR 2011 Supreme court 641,
where the appellant was already convicted under section 138 NI Act he could not again be tried on punished on
the same facts under section 420 IPC or any other provision of IPC or any other statute .Although the offence
are different but facts are same.Hence,3000(1) cr.pc appilied.cosequently,prosecution under section 420,IPC
was barred by section 300(1) of Cr.p.c.

THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT,1897,

SECTION 26 , PROVISION AS TO OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER TWO OR MORE
ENACTMENTS;
States that,where an act or omission constitute an offence under two or more enactments ,then the
offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments ,but
shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

So,sangamitra cannot be convicted twice for the same offence u/s 138 NI and the another act u/s 406
and 420 of penal code.

Beyond that,As a legal principle, prevents an individual from being tried or punished again for the
same offense after a final judgment has been reached. In India, Article 20(2) of the Constitution
explicitly prohibits double jeopardy. It states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the
same offense more than once.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

16
The case law in India regarding double jeopardy often revolves around interpretations of Article
20(2) and its application in various legal scenarios. One landmark case that addressed the principle
of double jeopardy is:
K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605): This case dealt with the issue of
whether a retrial was permissible after an acquittal. The Supreme Court held that retrial after
acquittal was not permissible under Article 20(2), thus reinforcing the principle of double jeopardy.
Additionally, various other cases have touched upon the principle of double jeopardy, providing
further clarification on its scope and application in Indian jurisprudence.
These include:
M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (AIR 1954 SC 397): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a
person could not be punished twice for the same offense under different enactments.
Raj Pal Singh v. State of Haryana (2007) 1 SCC 457: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of
double jeopardy and emphasized that a person cannot be tried and punished twice for the same
offense.It's essential to consider the specific circumstances and legal nuances of each case when
analyzing its application to a particular situation.

Here,above all the definitions and case laws clearly states that sangamitra conviction u/s 406 and 420
of penal code surely violates the article 20(2)- double jeopardy of the constitution of Tianzhu.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

17
 ISSUE 03
WHETHER SANGAMITRA IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION FOR THE
VEXATION CAUSED BY THE FAILURE OF THE “ TIANZHU WOMEN LEADER – 2021 ”
SCHEME AND HER WRONGFUL CONVICTION?

Yes,sangamitra is entitled to damages for vexation caused by the failure of the “Tianzhu women
leader -2021” scheme and her wrongful conviction.

Tianzhu contract act 1872 , as defined the term contract “ section (2h) An agreement enforceable by
law is contract”.
Thus for the formation of a contract there must be-(1) an agreement, (2) the agreement should be
enforceable by law.
Agreement: “ Agreement” is defined in section 2(e) as “ every promise and every set of promise
forming the consideration for each other”. And a promise is defined as an accepted proposal. Section
2(b) says: “A proposal, when accepted, become a promise”. This is another way of saying that an
agreement is an accepted proposal. The process of definitions comes down to this: A contract is an
agreement; an agreement is a promise is an accepted proposal. Thus every agreement, in its ultimate
analysis, is the result of a proposal from one side and its acceptance by the order.

Here in the above definition its optly merged with the present case. In the present case Union of
Tianzhu proposed offer the scheme in the name of “Tianzhu womens leader -2021” , which grants
Rs.1,00,00,000 to deserving business women. Sangamithra also accepted and submitted all
paperworks to the competent authority. The competent authority sanctioned the grant in terms of its
policy and procedures. It dawned on the republic party of the Tianzhu that in order to keep up with it
election manifesto promise in election to “Tianzhu women leaders -2021”. So we consider it as a
agreement and its enforceable by law.

An agreement becomes a contract when the following conditions are satisfied;

1. There is some consideration or it.
2. The parties are competent to contract.
3. Their consent is free.
4. Their object is lawful.
In the present case above all the conditions are fulfilled. It recognized as a contract.

Breach of contract: “A breach of contract occurs when a party thereto renounce his liability under it,
or by his own act makes it impossible that he should perform his obligation under it or totally or
partially fails to perform such obligation.”
In this case the union of Tianzhu failed to perform such obligation , it’s a breach of contract.

Damages for breach ;

A contract is not a property.It is only a promise supported by some consideration upon which
either the remedy of specific performance or that of damages is available.the party who injured by the
breach of a contract may bring an action for damages. “Damages” means compensation in terms of
money or the loss suffered by the injured party.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

18
Section 73.compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract;
When a contract has been broken ,the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive
from the party who has broken the contract,compensation for any loss or damage caused to him
thereby,which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach,or which the parties
knew,when they made the contract ,to be likely to result from the breach of it.

Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling these created by contract;

When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been
discharged ,any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same
compensation from the party in default ,as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken
his contract.
Explanation ;-In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, means which
existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken
into account.

Case: Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

Facts: The case involved a mill owner, Hadley, whose crankshaft broke. He needed a replacement
urgently and contracted with Baxendale, a carrier, to deliver the broken crankshaft to the
manufacturers to have a new one made. Hadley informed Baxendale that time was of the essence.
However, Baxendale delayed the delivery by several days, causing Hadley's mill to remain inactive
during that time.

Issue: The main issue was whether Baxendale was liable for the loss of profits suffered by Hadley due
to the delayed delivery, which were not communicated to Baxendale at the time of contracting.

Decision: The court held that Baxendale was only liable for the direct losses that were foreseeable at
the time of contracting. Since Hadley did not communicate the specific circumstances of the urgency
or the potential loss of profits to Baxendale when they entered into the contract, Baxendale could not
be held liable for those damages.

Reasoning: The court established the principle of foreseeability of damages. It stated that damages that
naturally arise from the breach and were in the contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting
are recoverable. However, damages that are remote and not foreseeable are not recoverable. Since
Baxendale was not aware of the special circumstances and the potential loss of profits, those damages
were considered too remote to be recoverable.

Outcome: Hadley was only awarded damages for the reasonable costs of replacing the crankshaft and
the loss of use of the mill during the delay. The loss of profits was considered too remote and not
recoverable.

This case illustrates the importance of communicating specific circumstances and potential damages to
the other party at the time of contracting. It also highlights the principle of foreseeability in
determining breach of contract compensation related to specific damages.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

19
SO,the case law describes about specific damages. specific damages means ,It was happened
unusually of unfortunetly .so they cannot fulfill the obligation .In the union of tianzhu played specific
damages.so they are liable to compensate the sangamitra for thier loss.

Here ,based on the above definitions and case laws clearly states about ,breach of contract occurred by
the union of tianzhu which is failure to fulfill the prescribed obligation of the scheme of “Tianzhu
women leader-2021” .Here,its is considered as the breach of contract on specific performance.

Compensation for the violation of fundamental right;

In the present case, sangamitra fundamental rights Article 20 violated.so,she have

right to claim compensation for their violation.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to travel abroad is included in the
right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that
any law depriving a person of this right must be just, fair, and reasonable. It established that the
procedure established by law for depriving a person of his or her personal liberty must be reasonable,
not arbitrary, and must conform to the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it emphasized the
importance of providing compensation for violations of fundamental rights.

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963):

In this case, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutionality of certain provisions of the
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, which allowed for police surveillance and domiciliary visits without
a warrant. The court held that the right to privacy is a part of the right to personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21. Although compensation was not directly awarded in this case, it emphasized the
importance of safeguarding fundamental rights against arbitrary state action.

In Ravi Kant Patil’s case ;-

High Court‟s order awarding compensation for violation of fundamental right under Article 21 of an
undertrial prisoner, who was handcuffed and taken through streets in a procession by the police during
investigation, was upheld by the Supreme Court.

In Rahul vs state of bihar ;-

Sah’s case interim compensation was awarded as a “palliative” without impairing the
petitioner‟s right to claim damages for wrongful detention under ordinary law of torts, as
State was responsible for wrongs done by its officer.

It was in Nilabati’s case,that the Supreme Court felt the need for clearly spelling out the true
basis and nature of State‟s responsibility to pay compensation for violation of fundamental
rights of the citizen by their officers.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

20
Allof the above precedent cases ,gave the compensation to the victims based on the fundamental rights
violation .so, for the above consideration sangamitra have the right to get the compensation for
violation of fundamental right and the emotional vexation ,financial loss.

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

21
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Tianzhu that it may be benevolently pleased to
 Declare,that the conviction under penal code violates the double jeopardy of the constitution of
tianzhu and also she is entittled to get the damages from the union of Tianzhu for failure of the
scheme.

And

Also pass any other order that this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the interests of
Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the APPELLANT shall be duty-bound forever to pray.

All of which is humbly prayed,

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

22
 Counsels appearing on the behalf of APPELLANT(S)

MEMORIAL on behalf of APPELLANT

23