Download It's a Practical Journal and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity!
G. J. ADVANI LAW COLLEGE
Barrister HotchandGopaldas Advani Marg, off Linking road,
Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050.
Practical Training – IV
Sr.
No.
Particular Marks
Alloted
Marks
Obtained
Page
Nos.
1. Memorandum of Moot Court on Civil
Case
2. Memorandum of Moot Court on
Criminal Case
3. Memorandum of Moot Court on
Constitutional Case
4. Report on Observation of Civil Court
Visit
5. Report on Observation of Criminal
Court Visit
6. Report on Observation on
Lawyers Chamber Visit
7. Workshop/Seminar attended at
College
TOTAL MARKS
1. MEMORANDUM OF MOOT COURT ON CIIVL CASE
BEFORE THE HIGHCOURT AT MUMBAI
In the matter of
Mrs. Honey ...APPELLANT
( 202, TALWAR CHAWL,
BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI)
VS.
Mr. Ashok Lal …RESPONDENT
(810, LOHAR CHAWL, MALAD WES,MUMBAI)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
A. Acts/ Rules/ Regulations/ Books referred
- Special Marriage Act,
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
- Hindu Succession Act
- Surrogacy Bill 2016
- Indian Succession Act,
B. Websites referred
- https://www.Manputara.in
2. www.indiankanoon.com
C. Articles
- https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/191994/10/chapter%207.pdf
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The cause of action arose in Mumbai and both the parties are a resident of Mumbai City. Hence, the suit
is triable by the Honorable Court as it has jurisdiction.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the Adoption of Kranti was valid when marriage was solemnized under Special Marriage
Act 1954?
2. Whether the Kranti is entitled to the share of property of her adopted Father?
3. Whether same Rights are conferred on child born through surrogacy as are conferred on Natural
Child?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[FROM RESPONDENT SIDE]
1. Validity of Adoption of Kranti when marriage is solemnized under Special
Marriage Act:
a) The Special Marriage Act provide the form of marriage and does not disable the
applicability of the personal law to parties to the Marriage. However, it modifies
the applicability of personal law to some extent as described below:
Section 19. Effect of marriage on member of undivided family : The marriage solemnized under this Act of any member of an undivided family who professes the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion shall be deemed to effect his severance from such family.
Section 20. Rights and disabilities not affected by Act : Subject to the provisions of section 19, and person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act shall have the same rights and shall be subject to the same disabilities in regard to the right of succession to any property as a person to whom the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 applies.
Section 21. Succession to property of parties married under Act Notwithstanding any restrictions contained in the Indian Succession Act, 1925, with respect to its application to members of certain communities, succession to the property of any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act and to the property of the issue of such marriage shall be regulated by the provisions of the said Act and for the purposes of this section that Act shall have effect as if chapter III of Part V (special Rules for Parsi Intestates) had been omitted there from.
Section 21A. Special provision in certain cases: Where the marriage is solemnized under this Act of any person who professes the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion with a person who professes the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion, section 19 and section 21 shall not apply and so much of section 20 as creates a disability shall also not apply.
b) Mr. Swaroop is Hindu and is entitled to governed by personal law of Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act in relation to Adoption:
The Act applies to any person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj, to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.
purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family. b) Section 15 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act states Valid adoption not to be cancelled.—No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth. c) The Marriage was solemnized under Special Marriage Act between the parties professing different religion. Mr. Swaroop being Hindu adopted the Kranti under the personal law governing the Hindu. Mr. Swaroop thus is the adoptive father of the Kranti. However, Mrs. Honey professing the Christian religion which does not permit adoption can only become the guardian of the Kranti under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. d) Mr. Swaroop has died interstate and thus his property shall devolve as per the Hindu Succession Act except the any property succession to which is regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by reason of the provisions contained in section 21& 21A of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. e) The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter—(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule which includes Widow, Surviving son and daughter. f) The child who is being adopted by the adoptive family is the natural child of the adoptive family having all the rights and obligations as that of a natural born child.Hindu laws, there is no difference between biological children and adopted children, such child or children will be entitled to succession as Class I heirs in the proportion as set out under the Hindu law of succession.
From the above facts and law, the respondent state that Kranti the adopted child
was entitled to have share in the property to which her adoptive father Mr.
Swaroop is entitled. Thus, the District court rightly held that Kranti was entitled
to have the share in Mr. Swaroop’s property.
3. Entitlement in property to the Child born out ofSurrogacy:
Personal Law governing Hindu and Christian does not recognize the child born out of the surrogacy as legitimate child nor does it accord the status of the adopted child as the requirements for adoption under Hindu law does not satisfied and other personal law does not recognize the adoption.
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed by the Respondent submit and prays beforethis Hon‘ble Court that:
- The claim of the Appellant is illegal and not enforceable in law.
- For Permanent Injunction, order that Kranti is a legal (rightful) heir of Mr. Swaroop‘s property and James is not entitled to a share in Swaroop‘s property.
- For Interim and ad-interim reliefs in form of prayer be granted.
- And all other reliefs as the case may called for be provided
- The cost of suit be provided.
a) Critical Appraisal of The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 states provide that the child born out of surrogacy procedure as a deemed biological child of the intending couple. The James was born out of surrogacy which has been legally carried out and for all purposes he is the biological child of me and my husband Swaroop. b) Further, Indian Succession Act, 1925, it would be clear that only the child born to a wife, who is artificially inseminated with the sperms of her husband or embryo created with her eggs and sperms of her husband, shall be their legitimate child. James is conceived with my egg and my husband Swaroop‘s sperm and hence shall be accorded the status of our legitimate son and shall be entitled to the property of the Swaroop
Thus, James is considered to be biological son for all purpose.
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed by the Appellant submit and prays before this Hon‘ble Court that:
- Respondent failed to defend the claims made by the Appellant.
- For Permanent Injunction, order that James is a legal (rightful) heir of Mr. Swaroop‘s property and Kranti is not entitled to a share in Swaroop‘s property.
- For Interim and ad-interim reliefs in form of prayer be granted.
- And all other reliefs as the case may called for be provided
- The cost of suit be provided.
2. MEMORANDUM OF MOOT COURT ON CRIMINAL CASE (case no 12)
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
CR.A.______
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
State of Assam ...APPELLANT
vs
Sanjay Sharma …RESPONDENT
Mahesh Yadav …RESPONDENT
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Acts/ Rules/ Regulations/ Books referred
- Indian Penal code
- Criminal Code of Procedure
- Indian Evidence Act
Abbreviations
Sec. Section Eg. Example u/s Under Section r/w Read with AIR All India reporter i.e That is Art. Article U/A Under article Vs. Versus SC Supreme Court
Articles
- https://www.barandbench.com/columns/criminal-conspiracy-law-applicability
- http://www.harjindersingh.in/sentencing-in-a-rape-case
- https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminology/evidentiary-value-of-an-approvers-testimony- law-essay.php
- https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7381&context=ylj
Cases Referred
- Ankur Narayanlal Panwar vs. State Of Maharashtra on 12 June, 2019
- State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002
- Raj Rani vs State [Along With Criminal Appeal ... on 2 August, 2007
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Sanjay the Respondent no.1 , aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement, appealed before the High Court seeking acquittal from the charges. Under the circumstances of the case, the sessions court had wrongly held Sanjay liable under Sec. 326 B IPC, by invoking sec.34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of acid attack under sec. 236 B could be proved. Whereas, the state also filed an appeal against the decision of the sessions Court, for demanding death penalty as the case in one of the 'rarest of rare cases'.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the accused conspired to commit the said crimes and in pursuance of this conspiracy they
carried out the criminal acts as charged by the prosecution?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the common intention of the accused by
bringing on record that the said acts were committed by several persons in furtherance of their
common intention?
3. Whether any other charge be tried?
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1. Whether the judgement of Sessions Court is correct?
The sessions court after conducting the trial and investigating the matter held that Sanjay could not explain the scars which he had suffered as few drops of Sulphuric Acid fell on his hands while attacking Seema. The sessions court convicted Sanjay for the offences punishable under section 302 and 326 B of Indian Penal Code,1860. The court awarded Sanjay life imprisonment for the same. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. While Mahesh absconded and was declared as proclaimed offender. The state challenged the order of the sessions court and appealed against it , the state considered this as a ‗rarest of rae case' and demanded that death penalty should be given to Sanjay. On the other hand Sanjay appealed before the High court seeking acquittal from the charges, under the circumstances of the case , the sessions court wrongly held Sanjay liable for sec 326 B of IPC, by invoking Section 34 of IPC,1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of acid attack under sec. 326 B could be proved.
2. Whether the punishment given by Sessions Court to Sanjay (accused no. 1) u/s 326 B of IPC
by invoking Section 34 IPC is correct? The sessions court after investigating the whole matter found out bottle of Sulphuric Acid in possession of Sanjay which was taken into possession and kept as an evidence.
The sessions court also came across the fact that Sanjay had scars on his hands which were caused from the same sulphuric acid which he had used on Seema , as Sanjay was unable to prove the cause of the scars on his hands the court held him guilty under sec.326 B of IPC,1860 invoking sec. 34 of IPC awarded Sanjay with life imprisonment.
The Section 326 B in the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for attempted acid attacks. The minimum punishment is 5 years' imprisonment. It can extend up to 7 years' imprisonment with fine. Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Therefore the order given by Sessions Court is correct in regards to the punishment but as per the defendant, Sanjay the order is incorrect as no common intention to commit the offence of the acid attack could be proved.
3. Whether the case is fit to be considered as rarest of rare?
Life imprisonment is a rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisoned seems to be an inadequate punishment having regards to the revelant circumstances of the crime.
