moot memorial and one supreme court judgement, Cheat Sheet of Law

Download moot memorial and one supreme court judgement and more Cheat Sheet Law in PDF only on Docsity!

MOOT PROPOSITION 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr X is a resident of the state of Purva Pradesh in Indica. In the year 1981, Mr X, who was married, murdered his wife in a drunken rage at his house. The neighbours, who heard the screaming and shouting leading to her murder caught hold of Mr X and handed him to the police. Mr X was tried by the competent Sessions Court, convicted of offences punishable under S.302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984.
2. Mr X was sent to the central prison in Purva Pradesh, Charapanna Agrahara,to serve his sentence. While he was there, he became close friends with his cellmate, Mr Y. Mr Y was around 30 years older than Mr X. He had an unmarried daughter who was around the age of Mr X. With time, X and Y became friends and Y suggested that X marry his daughter. X agreed to the marriage.
3. In the year 1987, X and Y obtained parole from prison and the marriage between X and Y’s daughter was solemnised as per the rights and customs of their religion. Both X and Y returned to prison. For around 30 days a year, X would obtain parole and visit his wife in her village. In due course of time, X’s wife delivered twin baby boys.
4. However, by the year 1990, X had started suspecting the fidelity of his wife. This seemed to be a more acute problem to him since he was away in prison for most of the year. In October 1990, X obtained parole and visited his wife and two children.
5. One night while he was with his family, and extremely intoxicated with liquor, X was seized by rage and started quarrelling with his wife over his suspicions about her character and fidelity. Ultimately, he seized an agricultural implement and hacked his wife to death. He then proceeded to kill his two children who were sleeping in the house with the same weapon.
6. According to the neighbours who rushed in, X was trying to commit suicide by hanging himself when they discovered him and overpowered him. X was handed over to the police, who accused him of having committed the murders of his wife and children. X confessed in police custody that he had committed the murders.
7. However, when X was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, he refused to make any statement. He was remanded to custody while the investigation went on. Ultimately, he was charged with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 303 of the IPC.
8. X was represented by a government-appointed lawyer before the Court of Sessions where his trial commenced. The lawyer was disinterested in the case and did not cross-examine witnesses of the prosecution nor did he produce any evidence on behalf of the defence. X was convicted.
9. The Sessions Court sentenced X under S.302 and 303 of the IPC to death. The sentence was pronounced in the year 1994.
10. Upon the matter being sent to the High Court of Purva Pradesh for confirmation of the sentence, a Division Bench split on the quantum of sentence to be awarded. While one judge felt that a life sentence without the possibility of parole, commutation or remission would be sufficient, the other felt that only death would be an appropriate punishment since the convict was already under a

sentence of life imprisonment and some extra punishment had to be awarded for the new and ghastly crime committed by him.

11. The matter was referred to a third judge of the High Court who felt that there was no discretion in the matter given the provisions applied and the nature of the crime and confirmed the sentence of death.
12. Mr X’s Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of Indica was refused admission on grounds that it did not raise any issues of significant legal importance.
13. Mr X submitted a mercy petition to the President of Indica which came to be rejected in the year
14. Therefore, Mr X was due to be executed.
15. Due to oversight on behalf of the prison authorities, Mr X was not kept in the death row cells at the prison, but was allowed to remain in the cells with other ordinary criminals, it is only in the year 2011, that the same was discovered and the prisoner was sent to death row confinement.
16. On 01.01.2013, the black warrant for the execution of Mr X was issued by the appropriate court. The very next day, lawyers representing a human rights organisation filed a writ petition before the High Court of Purva Pradesh claiming that Mr X cannot be executed on the grounds that his trial is vitiated by illegality and his execution would violate several provisions of the Constitution of Indica. The state opposes the same and insists on execution.
17. The laws, case law and constitutional provisions of Indica are analogous to the ones in the Republic of India in the year 2015.
18. On behalf of both the State and the Petitioners, draft petitions and make oral arguments based on the above information.

MOOT PROPOSITION 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Krishna is a resident of Awadh in the State of Indistan. He is a student studying law at Awadh University, a renowned University in Indistan offering diverse courses. He is an active member of the student political body known as Awadh University Vidyarthi Parishad(AUVP) and has been elected as its President in the recently conducted elections. Waseem who is a resident of Kashmirpur, a State of Indistan, actively involved in the University politics, has been elected as its Vice-President. He is also an active member of Kashmirpur Azadi Sangh (KAS) ,a youth organisation formed in 1948, professing the ideology that Kashmirpur should not be an integral part of Indistan and should be separated as an independent sovereign state.
2. A cultural evening was organised by the Cultural Committee of the University, in which various competitions were held including a debate competition. In view of the atrocities taking place across the country against the Dalit community, Krishna and Waseem on the eve of the event gathered around 3000 students and started giving a speech on the atrocities against the Dalits and blamed the present Government for the same.
3. Krishna, who was a Dalit, in his speech said, “We’ve elected a Government full of donkeys and they won’t do anything to protect us. All the leaders are corrupt and are interested only in filling money in their pockets rather than working for the people. All these government leaders should be shot publicly.” He got a massive response and as a result of next day Krishna with his four friends namely Anindya, Raghav, Waseem and Sukarma decided to conduct a rally at a bigger scale almost ten thousand people including the students of Awadh University participated in the rally, which culminated near the Vidhan Sabha. They shouted slogans like “Azadi Chaiye Punjivad Se, Brahmanvad Se, Azadi Chaiye Bhrashtachar Se, Bhukmari Se, Azadi Hmara Haq Hai Ham Lekar Rahenge. Nahi Milegi Azadi jab tak ye Sarkar hai.”1 On the spur of the moment, even Waseem stood up and shouted slogans for a free Kashmirpur, like “Kashmirpur ki Azadi tak, Jang rahegi jari” and ran to one student who was holding Indistan National flag, lowered it down and unfurled the flag of Pokistan , although Krishna immediately handled the situation and took the flag from his hand News Channels covered it and constantly displayed the same. Krishna mentioned in his speech “We should revolt against the Government and destroy their fake policies until full attention is given to our community & our security is guaranteed, otherwise, we will wage war against this Government.” He also said, “Reservation policies for our community are less than what we actually require for appropriate representation in all the fields, Government should increase the reservation. But this government is doing nothing and we are treated like second-class citizens. Thus we should boycott all the policies and choose our leaders wisely next time.”
4. Krishna did not stop there and the next day with the help of his friend Omar, who is a student of Awadh University and also a cartoonist in Times of Indistan, printed a cartoon allegedly degrading the image of the Prime Minister, Parliament and the National Flag of Indistan. After the copies of Times of Indistan were sold the next day, Krantikari Yuva Morcha, the youth wing of the Krantikari Janta Party, which is the ruling party, started protesting in front of Vidhan Sabha and shouted that AUVP is an anti-national organisation

and such student body should be banned. Due to wide media coverage, this issue gained a lot of publicity and led to social disorder as students came out on the roads.

5. Police lodged an FIR due to public unrest against Krishna, Waseem and their three other friends and slapped charges against them under Sections 124A, 121, 120B, 34,153, 505 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. One separate FIR was also filed against Omar charging him under Sections 499 and 124A of IPC and also Section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act,
   1971. Soon the police reached the Awadh University to arrest Krishna, Waseem and their three friends but weren’t allowed to enter the campus by the student political body and there was a clash between both sides. Students started shouting slogans against the Government and made allegations that it is trying to suppress the voices of the students belonging to the lower caste. Thereafter police conducted a lathi charge to disperse and control the untruly mob and arrested Krishna, Waseem, Omar and three other accused. They were subsequently released on conditional bail, and criminal proceedings against them are still pending. A ban has also been imposed on the Times of Indistan on publishing such cartoons. The ban gave rise to major unrest in the media against the Government. However, AUVP is continuously conducting student rallies in order to defend their freedom of speech and expression.
6. The case came for hearing before the Sessions Court, but due to wide media coverage and public outrage, the High court of Awadh took cognizance of the matter and heard the case. The High Court of Awadh decided the case in favour of the state and held that the law under Section 124A of the IPC puts reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression and also held that the petitioners were involved in seditious activities and also upheld the charge against them. The High Court also ordered continuing the ban on the Times of Indistan against the publication of such cartoons. After this decision of the High Court, the petitioners were again arrested by the police.
7. One public spirited advocate agreed to represent the students’ body, AUVP and filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Indistan against the order of the Awadh High Court challenging the arrest of Krishna, Waseem, Omar and three others claiming violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19&21 of Constitution of Indistan and also challenging the constitutionality of the Section 124A of the IPC, arguing that it puts unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). In appeal, the ban against Times of Indistan is also challenged for its being violative of the freedom of the Press flowing from the aforesaid freedom. The appeal is presented before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on an urgent basis, and it has been listed for hearing on 23rd March 2017, in front of the Constitutional bench of five judges. The Attorney General of Indistan will be representing the state.
8. The petitioners claim that Section 124A is unconstitutional for imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19 (2) & violative of other fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Indistan and thus the charges under different Sections as filed in the FIR fall apart. If the aforesaid Section is saved from unconstitutionality their plea is that this case does not come within Section 124 A as a requisite intention to commit the crime of Sedition is wanting. The action of the state in restraining the media is also violative of the freedom of the Press implicit in Article 19(1) (a).

9. The respondents claim that the nature of the slogans, utterances, criticism and publication of the cartoon made by the accused all along intended to bring the Government into hatred, and contempt and to excite the feeling of disloyalty to a degree that it is seditious and punishable under Section 124A which has been held by the Apex Court to be consistent with the constitutional mandate in the form of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Note: The Constitution and all other laws of Indistan should be interpreted in pari materia with the Constitution and other laws of India. Awadh is a province in the State of Indistan. The position of Kashmirpur in Indistan is the same as that of Kashmir in India & relations between Pokistan and Indistan are similar to that of Pakistan and India

MOOT PROPOSITION 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A large-scale winter sale was organized on behalf of a renowned D-Company by its directors named John Ibrahim and Ajeet Kaskar in a shopping complex situated at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi from 25th Dec 2012 – 31st Dec 2012. It was required that entry into the premises will be only after buying a ticket and free water and lunch will be provided to all the people visiting the Sale. A target was assigned to all the sales managers till the last day of the sale. There was a huge rush on the last day of the sale i.e. 31st Dec 2012 to get a heavy discount on the branded apparel. Suddenly the rumours spread that a fire broke out on the premises. But the gatekeepers and supervisors on the instructions of the managers (who are under the direct control of the owner of the Company) said that nothing happened as such and the people may continue shopping as usual. After a few hours, the fire spread to the whole shopping complex. Noticing that the fire can’t be controlled in the absence of proper fire extinguishers, gatekeepers and managers fled away. By that time, the deadly fire took the life of 60 people and 150 people got seriously injured. Criminal and civil proceedings were initiated against the sale organizing company and the owner of the shopping complex. During the trial, evidence was led to the effect that both the accused were well aware of the fire incident and they did not take any active step to prevent the spreading of fire and they called the fire brigade only after securing their safety from fire. Due to the narrow passage of exit, people were not able to come out of the shopping complex. It was also pointed out that there were no emergency alarm systems or even emergency lights to keep exit signs illuminated. No one from the side of the Organizing Company was there to assist the people struck in the premises. The electronic records of the account book revealed that the company made a huge profit by organizing the sale. It was also brought to the knowledge of the trial court that the building design was quite faulty and the approval was given by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/ Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) without following due procedure. The trial Court also joined the erring officials of DDA/ MCD u/S. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused pleaded that reason for the fire spread is still unknown and is not proved by the prosecution and there is no complicity on the part of either of the accused in this regard. Hence they should not be convicted for any offence. Despite the plea of the accused of not having any criminal background and being a senior citizen, the trial court convicted the main accused u/S. 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and awarded 2 years rigorous imprisonment and also awarded Rs. 5 crore punitive damages to be recovered from the Organizing Company and the owner of the shopping complex for the rehabilitation of the victims of the fire accident. However, in an appeal before the High Court, the prosecution contended that the trial court erred in fixing the liability under Section 304-A and that the accused should be held liable under Section 304 part II. The High Court did not disturb the finding of the trial court but reduced the sentence to one year and awarded 1-year community service and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5 crores to 10 crores. The reduction of the sentence led to public outrage and special leave to appeal is filed in the Supreme Court raising several issues: The prosecution argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the community service for one year and showed undue sympathy to the accused in reducing the sentence u/S. 304- A, IPC, 1860. The prosecution pleaded in the alternative that if the accused can not be convicted u/S/ 304 part-II then the accused must be punished with a maximum punishment under Section 304-A, IPC in order to do complete justice in the exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to deter the offenders in future. The accused pleaded their innocence, advanced aged and non-criminal background and argued that their complicity is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the principle of vicarious liability cannot be stretched too far to fasten the criminal liability on them.

MOOT PROPOSITION 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ajay and Abhiram are good friends. While Ajay comes from economically weaker strata of society, Abhiram belongs to an elite class. Both have good family relations. On one occasion Ajay is in dire need of money and therefore makes a request to Abhiram to help him financially which Abhiram agrees easily and pays him Rs.1 lac. After a considerable period, when the money is not returned Abhiram requests his friend to return the money. However, Ajay expresses his inability to return the money. Abhiram thereafter reminds his friend on a number of occasions, however, Ajay does not take it seriously and on one occasion there is a heated exchange of words between the two and Ajay gives sudden and grave provocation to Abhiram by saying that he can do whatever he likes but he will not return the money and also challenges him physically. Abhiram gets enraged by such an attitude of Ajay and starts beating him. Ajay dies as a consequence of injuries inflicted upon him. F.I.R.is lodged against Abhiram for an offence, punishable under 302 of I.P.C. and he is tried by the Court of Session which finds him guilty not for an offence punishable under section 302, but for the offence, culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under sec. 304 and sentences him to ten years imprisonment. Abhiram prefers an appeal before the High Court of Swarashtra and during the pendency of the appeal High Court directs his release on bail. As a consequence of Ajay’s death, his family is now on the street as it has lost the sole earning member of the family. Ajay’s wife has taken a mental shock from the incident and has gone into a state of depression therefore there is nobody to take care of Ajay’s wife and his minor children. Abhiram is made aware of the financial problems of Ajay’s family and therefore he goes to the house of Ajay and starts helping them financially and morally. The matter comes up for hearing before the High Court of Swarashtra. Ajay s wife joins as an interpleader in the petition and makes a request to the High Court that in view of the change in circumstances and since Abhiram has taken the entire responsibility of Ajay’s family, she as a victim personally and on behalf of her minor children intends to compromise the matter and prays that Abhiram should be set at liberty. Hon’ble High Court observes that in view of the changed circumstances, this is a fit case which can lead to a compromise between the parties and gives the decision accordingly and sets Abhiram at liberty. The said judgment of the High Court has evoked a very very strong reaction. Activists and Lawyers alike are up in arms over an order that could have detrimental consequences. The State of Swarashtra prefers Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of Indiva challenging the order of the High Court of Swarashtra. The matter is now fixed for a final hearing before the Supreme Court of Indiva. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out the following issues for determination.

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of Indiva?
2. Whether the High Court can direct a compromise in respect of an offence which is non- compoundable as per Sec.320 of Cr.P.C.?

3. Whether the present case is such where liberty to compound a Non- Compoundable offence may be allowed by the Court in the light of the maxim, ”Salus populi est suprema lex”, which means the welfare of the people is the supreme law? 4)Whether the order passed by the learned High Court is bad in law and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside? 5)Whether the court should make a recommendation to the legislature to enlarge the scope of Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. to bring within its ambit the cases, not within its scope?

MOOT PROPOSITION 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

M/S Hirani trading company, the plaintiff in the present case, a dealer in almonds enter into a contract with the defendant and entrusted a consignment of 1000kg of almonds to the defendant company at its subordinate office in Lucknow to be delivered at Delhi. The defendant is a private limited company by the name M/S Kandelwal roadways carrying on the business of carrier and transporting goods on hire. It has its principal office in Bhopal and branch offices in various other places including Lucknow. The present suit was instituted by the councillor of Plaintiff Company who has been authorised by the board of resolution of the company. After the goods have been transported by the defendant and kept in the godown at Delhi the same got destroyed and damaged in a fire as a result where consignee refuse to take delivery. The present suit was instituted for damages in the court of civil judge Lucknow within whose territorial jurisdiction the subordinate office of the defendant company is situated alleging that the fire was due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the staff of the defendant. Councillor of the defendant company in his written statement averred that the jurisdiction of the court in Lucknow was ousted by the clause in the contract where the parties have agreed that jurisdiction to decide any dispute under the contract would be only with courts at Bhopal therefore the court at Lucknow lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain present suit. Further, admitting the facts the goods were lying in the warehouse when the fire broke out, the defendant categorically denied any negligence and carelessness on the part of the defendant. The councillor of the company got examined himself as PW 1 and his examination in chief reiterated the averments made in the plaint. PW 1 has produced a copy of the contracted exhibit as EX.CW1 A entered between the plaintiff and the defendant. PW1 also relied upon the document exhibit Ex.pw1v, to prove the price of 1000 kg almonds. Further PW 1 in his cross-examination voluntarily deposed that earlier also similar incident had taken place and a similar case was registered against the defendant company in which they were held liable. Pw1 has further produced the record of the previous case against the defendant company which was exhibited as Ex. pw1c. PW 1 remain uncontroverted in his cross-examination. The councillor of the defendant got examined himself as DW1. DW 1 relied upon the contract entered between the plaintiff and defendant to prove ousted of the jurisdiction of the civil court at Lucknow where the present suit is instituted. In his cross-examination, dw1 deposed that the defendant company has taken proper care and caution and this is the act of some third party due to which fire broke out and Defendant Company cannot be made liable for the same. However, DW1 admitted that earlier also a similar incident took place for which the defendant company was held liable.

1. Argue in favour of the plaintiff and defendant.
2. Mention the relevant provisions.
3. Support your arguments with the help of case laws.

MOOT PROPOSITION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The present appeal relates to a Petition filed under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 by Aarohi, the Petitioner's wife, praying that the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of the court. The parties to the dispute entered into a marital agreement on 01.04.2020. As per the contentions laid down by the Petitioner's wife, the Petitioner's wife resided in her matrimonial home for 5 days post the solemnization of marriage, but marriage between the parties was not consummated. The husband mistreated her, and they never shared the bed together. She returned to her parent’s home after 5 days. Following the cultural practice in Indian society, her parents sent her back to her matrimonial place explaining that with time passed, situations will get better and the husband’s approach towards the tie would improve. In spite of spending five years with the Respondent's husband, the situation remained the same with no sign of improvement. As per her submissions, the Respondent's husband would return home late at night in a drunken state and would physically, mentally and emotionally abuse her. He would beat her in a state of drunkenness. She extended efforts to persuade and convince him. However, all her attempts to mend ways were proved to be in vain. She also discovered that the Respondent's husband was a man of weak character. He was involved in extramarital relationships with multiple women, was an alcoholic and used to consume intoxicants. She moved out of her matrimonial residence in May 2006 and since then has been staying with her parents at her parent's place. The Respondent's husband replied to the contentions in a contradictory manner and stated that the Petitioner's wife was given a bona fide treatment during their stay together. He further stated that the Petitioner's wife was not interested in residing in the village and kept convincing him to move to the city. Perhaps, he was an unemployed man and could not afford city life, so the demand was totally absurd and unacceptable to him. Thereafter, the Petitioner's wife moved out of the matrimonial home without citing any reasonable and valid justification along with her personal belongings, including stridhan. He consistently made efforts to get her back to their matrimonial home, but she refused to return. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The court was pleased to grant his prayer. The said petition was neither contested by the wife nor did she return to her matrimonial home. All other material averments of the petition were denied, and it was prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.

1. Argue in favour of petitioner and respondent
2. Mention the relevant provisions.
3. Support your arguments with the help of case laws.