The Moot Court Competition 2022, Summaries of Law

Download The Moot Court Competition 2022 and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!

THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

Before

THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT OF

ATLANTIS

IN

TERITORIAL JURISDICTION No.

____/

Mr. Charlie X’mas

…. Plaintiff

-versus-

The Government of Atlantis

…. Defendant

(Filed under Article 300 of the Constitution of

Atlantis)

WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

210D

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE RESPONDANT IS LIABLE FOR

THE DAMAGES.

2) IT IS NOT A SOVEREIGN FUNCTION FOR THE STATE TO CONSTRUCT THE CANAL IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE

CONSENT.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONS

The Constitution of Atlantis, 1950

STATUTES

SR. NO. NAME OF STATUE YEAR

1 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 2 Vicarious Liability of State 3 Negligence CASES REFFERED’ SR.NO NAME OF THE CASE PG.NO

1. State of Punjab vs Modern Cultivators, Ladwa

2. vohra sadikbhai rajakshai and others vs state of gujrat and others

3. Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd vs The State of Gujarat

4. Smith V The London and South Western Railway Company L.R. 6 C.P.14 (1870)

5. District Board of Manbhum vs Shyamapada Sarkar and Others on 20 July.

6. Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jay

7. Bhagat ram vs state of Himachal Pradesh

8. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v/s. Uttar Pradesh

9. Donoghue v Stevenson.

10. State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati,[1] A

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. Atlantis is an island nation in the Northern Ocean.
2. The petitioner is Mr. Charlie X’ Mas who is a common man.

THE IMPUNG IRRIGATION PANEL CONSTRUCTION

1) The issue arose out of a panel constructed by the government of Atlantis,

The irrigation panel was build 7 feet deep that passed through the

orchard of Mr. Charlie X’ mas.

2) After a year of construction of the panel, the water was let out due to

which there was a rise in the sub- soil water level.

3) Due to the increase in the level, there was excessive absorption of water

by the tress that was belonging to Mr. Charlie X’ mas, which cause huge

damages to him.

THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

1. The case was filled under the territorial jurisdiction by the appellant as his

property was damaged due to excessive absorption of water.

STATMENT OF ISSUES

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CAN ESCAPE FROM

THE LIABILTY AS THEY EXERCISE THE

SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE STATE?

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTIS IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted under the territorial jurisdiction that the government has

performed vicarious liability of state which makes them liable for the damages.

Firstly, if the canal had been cemented or lined at the floor level, no damage

would have been caused to the plaintiff’s orchard. Secondly, when the water

was let out after a year there was a rise in the sub-soil level which caused

excessive absorption by the plants which caused massive damage. Finally, there

was an act of Negligence on part of the Defendant.

It is humbly submitted that the plaintiff can claim damages for the loss. Firstly,

Government built a Chanel that was 7 foot deep due which when the water was

let out there was an increase in the sub-soil level that caused damages to 300

trees owned by the plaintiff. Secondly, it passed through orchard owned by the

plaintiff without his due consent, The defendant should be held liable because

they are performing their acts crossing the power of sovereign function. Finally,

Under the Article 300 of the Constitution of Atlantis the defendant can sue the

government for the damages caused.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE RESPONDANT IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES.

A. The canal that was constructed through the appellants orchard.

I. Humbly submitted that the right to approach this Honourable Court in case of violation of fundamental rights enshrined in Article 300 of the constitution of Atlantis. This Honourable Court, on building the channel 7 foot deep into Mr Charlie X’mas orchard, there was a rise in the level of water due to which there was excessive absorption of water by the tress that affected the plaintiff with high damages. According to Smith V The London and South Western Railway Company L.R. 6 C.P.14 (1870) , The court held that the railway authority was negligent in leaving the grass hedges near the railway line and the plaintiff was entitled to claim compensation for the loss suffered. II. Furthermore, The right under Article 300 is absolute and cannot by impaired on any grounds as held in the case of State of Punjab vs Modern Cultivators, Ladwa, where the modern cultivators suffered a loss due to flooding of its lands, for which state of Punjab was held liable. According to vohra sadikbhai rajakshai and others vs state of gujrat and others ,this honourable court also allowed the petition where issues were raised against the government on flooding the lands of vohra sadikbhai.

B. After a year the water was let out of the channel which resulted in

rise of the water in the sub- soil level.

I. It is humbly submitted, 300 tress was destroyed due to excessive absorption by the roots. According to Article 36, The government has the responsibility to promote the welfare of the people. II. T he Honourable court observed the criteria of determining whether the government was liable to pay the damages in the case of District Board of Manbhum vs Shyamapada Sarkar and Others on 20 July. III. It is humbly submitted that According to Article 120 Mr X’mas can sue the Government of Atlantis, in the Lower Court of Atlantis claiming Rs 1,00,00,000 for the damages.

C. The canal was negligently built that caused massive damage to Mr

Charlie X’ Mas Orchard.

I. It is humbly submitted , If the canal had been cemented or lined at the floor level, no damage would have been caused to the plaintiff’s orchard. According to Article 120 of the constitution of Atlantis, Mr Charlie X’mas has the right to approach to the court as it was a negligent act on part of the defendant.

II. It is therefore Humbly submitted, due to this negligent act Mr X’ mas can sue the respondent under the territorial jurisdiction Article 226 (2), For the damages suffered.

2. IT IS NOT A SOVEREIGN FUNCTION FOR THE STATE TO

CONSTRUCT THE CANAL IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY

WITHOUT DUE CONSENT.

A. The canal was built 7 foot deep.

1. It is humbly submitted to the Honourable lower court of Atlantis, Atlantis is a liberal, Socialist nation it strives to promote the welfare of the people under Article 36 of the constitution of Atlantis. This right has been protected and upheld by the upper court in several instances. In this case that the canal was built 7 foot deep which rooted into plaintiff’s orchard and also due to the high depth of the canal, when the water was let out , it rose the sub- soil level which damaged 300 trees of the plaintiff. The court in the case of Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd vs The State of Gujarat , where The Hon’ble Court not only held the state liable for its negligent acts but also held liable for the mistake and defective planning.

2. Furthermore, According to Article 36 the state it maintains social and economic justice. The court in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jay ,
3. It is humbly submitted that sovereignty is an essential features of any democratic liberal- socialist-democratic republic. Government of Atlantis is responsible to govern such negligent act with more care which causes economic loss to the common people. B. The canal was going through the orchard owned by the plaintiff.
4. It is humbly submitted that without the consent of the plaintiff the canal was built in a private property, as seen in the case Bhagat ram vs state of Himachal Pradesh, where the tree fell on the plaintiff which injured and they got in the concept of private ownership and the Court in such circumstances proceeded to make an appropriate order by awarding compensation for the damages.
5. Furthermore, neighbour principle which says you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can. reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. In this case the defendant did not abide the neighbour principle which caused damages to the plaintiff. According to Subramaniam & Another v/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation & Others The court held that enough care by the defendant should have been taken and the moral value of neighbour principle was missing which caused damages to the plaintiff.
6. Furthermore, In this case there was a breach of duty of care which says, someone is injured because of the action of another person when it was reasonably foreseeable that the action could cause injury, and a reasonable person in the same position would not have acted that way. In this case the defendant did not take enough measures to stop. The damage happening and there was an act of negligence which results in the breach of duty of care. According to Donoghue v Stevenson The defendant was negligent while packing the ginger beer bottle due to which the plaintiff had faced health issues and according to this there was breach of duty of care and the court held that the defendant is liable for the negligent preparation of food.

C. POWER OF SOVEREINGTY DOES NOT INCLUDE INTRUSION

TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

1. It is humbly submitted that The government is liable even if they

exercising sovereign power because in this case the defendant built

the canal 7 foot deep that was passing through the orchard of the

defendant which is not a part of sovereign function as it is a private

property and there was no due consent taken. According to Article 36

the state shall strive to look for welfare of the people so the plaintiff

should be granted the compensation for the damages.

2. Furthermore, negligent act done by the defendant doesn’t not

constitute to be a part of the sovereign function. According to State of

Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati,[1] A, the court held that the State would be

liable for the tortious acts committed by its servant. The distinction of

sovereign and non-sovereign acts was not considered. Court stated

that the State would not be held liable for its act within the ambit of

Article 300 of the Constitution.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that;

1. THE THIS CASE UNDER THE TERITORIAL JURRISDICTION IS MAINTAINABLE;
2. THE PLAINTIFF NEEDS TO GET THE DAMAGES DUE TO THE NEGLIGENT ACT PERFORMED BY THE DEFENDANT.
3. And issue any other order it deems fit in the instant circumstances and in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience. All of which is humbly prayed 210D Counsel for the Plaintiff