-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
1/27
This is to inform the students that moot shall be held on 13th
October
2012. The submission of Memorial is on 11th October 2012.
FOURTH YEAR MOOT GROUPS
BUSINESS LAW GROUP
Group 1 402 v 404 405 v. 406
Group 2 408 v. 410 414 v. 415
Group 3 418 v. 421 423 v. 425
Group 4 426 v. 428 430 v. 431
Group 5 432 v. 434 435 v. 436
Group 6 437 v. 439 440 v. 442
Group 7 443 v. 444 445 v. 446
Group 8 447 v. 448 449 v. 450Group 9 452 v. 453 457 v. 459
Group 10 468 v. 471 473 v. 474
Group 11 475 v. 476 480 v. 481
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW GROUP
Group 12 401 v. 412 417 v. 420
Group 13 427 v. 433 455 v. 470
CRIMINAL LAW GROUP
Group 14 403 v. 411 413 v. 416
Group 15 409 v. 419 424 v. 438
Group 16 441 v. 454 456 v. 461
Group 17 462 v. 464 466 v. 467
Group 18 469 v. 472 477 v. 422
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
2/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 1
402 v. 404
405 v. 406
BUSINESS LAW
Copybooks put limited is a privately owned firm of three
partners namely Rajiv Thakur,
Krishna Desai and Kapil Verma. They are into publishing business
of books from more them
two decades.
They publish mainly the biographies of famous personalities from
all over the world, from
different walks of life, be it sports, drama, politics, etc.
There agents get into contracts with
people to get their publication rights and once it is done then
the writers would have regular
meetings with the personalities and get their inputs on various
events of their lines. The
events were recorded and then edited and printed in the book
form.
Raju was incharge of the contract formation, drafting and
execution, Krishna of meeting the
personalities and recording and formatting the drafts of the
books and Kapil was incharge of
publication and marketing.
Along with publication business, Kapil stores a segment on the
publication houses website,
where by public could read the abstract of the books and also of
the forthcoming books and
also started a research segment where by e-books related to the
times of eminent personalities
were uploaded, this was especially meant for the students to
read.
The publisher body opposed this action and called this a
violation of the copyrights and
rested with them. A man suit of infringement and in junction on
all of the works of
copybooks Pvt. Ltd. Was filed against specifically a book to be
released by Kapil, which the
website mentions is meant for the student alone as a research
guide into the life of the
personality and contained many un-read and un-sent events and
memories of their lives,
which were not part of their biographies even.
Argue the case.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
3/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 2
408 v. 410
414 v. 415
BUSINESS LAW
1. ABC Ltd.- a European Company entered into a joint venture
cum-technology transferagreement (JV-A) with XYZ (P) Ltd - ABC
Ltd.'s Indian import partner, in January 2007.
JV-A was initially entered into for an experimental period of
one year, with an option of
renewal for further periods, either on the same or modified
terms, as may be determined by
mutual consent According to JV-A, both partners owned 50% shares
in the new entity, Prime
Parts P. Ltd, which was incorporated in February 2007. The
Indo-European partnership
proved to be a huge success from the word go and it was evident
mat the relationship would
continue beyond the initial period (which expired on December
31, 2007). However,
confirmation of renewal of JV-A on the same terms till 2010
could be executed by both
parties only by April 2008, without, however, at any point
interfering with or causing
disruption of the business of the Prime Parts P Ltd.
2. In mid-2009 however, differences arose between JV-A's
partners. This was magnified bythe fact that ABC Ltd. was being
approached by other Indian companies with tempting offers
of partnership for technical assistance. One such offerer was
Vanshika Manufacturing Co.
(P) Ltd., a company incorporated in the year 2000 under the
Companies Act, 1956 in the state
of Maharashtra. By the end of 2009, an agreement between ABC
Ltd. and Vanshika
Manufacturing (P) Ltd. (JV-B) was executed resulting in the
incorporation of Heavy
Machinery Parts P. Ltd with a 25-75-shareholding in favour of
the Indian partner. It was
understood between the JV-B parties that ABC Ltd. will gradually
withdraw from & exit JV-
A when it comes up for renewal aid infuse additional capital
into Heavy Machinery Parts P.
Ltd by such time.
3. The beginning of 2011 there arose a huge demand for parts and
accessories. Accordingly
a proposal to issue further capital (to be subscribed by both
partners of JV-B) was mooted in
the Board Meeting of Heavy Machinery Parts Pvt. Ltd on
24.04.2011. However, the
European camp on the Board was unwilling to commit to an
investment at that stage and no
decision could be reached due to Section 8.1 of the JV-B
agreement. As per the said section
(as well as Article 21 of the Articles of Association), all
decisions or actions taken by the
Board required the affirmative majority vote of the Directors
present at the meeting, provided
that any decision on certain specified matters could be taken
only on the affirmative votes of
two directors, one nominated by each JV-B partner resulting in a
total of 2 affirmative votes
(1 from each side), apart from the majority.
And among the specified matters, clause (c) read as follows:
"(c) the authorization, creation, allotment or issuance of any
shares, or classes or series of
shares, in the capital of the Company or any securities or
debentures of the Company, the
issuance or grant of any option over the unissued share capital
of the Company, or any
change in the capital structure of the Company or the rights,
preferences and privileges of
any shares, or classes or series of shares, in the capital of
the Company;"
4. At the next Board Meeting held on 16.06.2011, the resolution
could once again not bepassed due to the persistent refusal of ABC
Ltd. nominee directors to consent to the
contribution of additional capital. In a subsequent Board
Meeting on 01.08.2011, the
ABC Ltd. representative sought leave of absence and a change of
nomination for thepurpose of Section 8.1 of JV-B could not be made
in time. In the meantime, the global
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
4/27
FOURTH YEAR
financial crisis broke out. In the wake of the crisis, the
European partner refused to
participate in any talks of fresh investment. With the Indian
domestic market for their
products almost isolated from the impact of the crisis, Vanshika
continued to nurse
hopes of a revival and possible further expansion. On 30.9.2011,
the Board of
Directors convened an extraordinary general meeting at which
meeting, (held on
21.10.2011), a resolution to allot further shares to the tune of
2 crores to Vanshikawas passed along with special resolutions for
altering several provisions in the
Articles of Association which originally incorporated sections
in JV-B.
5. Aggrieved by this unilateral action, ABC Ltd. filed a
petition before the CompanyLaw Board, Chennai under Section 397/398
of the Companies Act, 1956 for
oppression and mismanagement against Heavy Machinery Parts P.
Ltd and Vanshika
Manufacturing P.Ltd. It was contended by ABC Ltd. that the
shareholders usurping
the powers of the Board of allotment of shares at the general
meeting is a clear
violation of the demarcation of the powers of the Board of
Directors and Shareholders
under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Furthermore,
ABC Ltd. claimed
that the Allotment of additional share capital to the exclusion
of the Petitioners
particularly when there was no impending need for the same and
consequentAlteration of the Articles in breach of the joint venture
agreement between the parties
(JV-B). The foreign company (ABC Ltd.) also contended that there
was complete
standstill in the business of the company with no new
projects/contracts since the
beginning of 2011 and that all these facts amounted to acts of
oppression and
mismanagement and that they are entitled to relief under Section
397 and 398 of the
Companies Act, 1956.
6. Vanshika, on the other hand, contended that the so-called
standstill in businesscontended by ABC Ltd. was only temporary and
that too, due to the financial crunch
faced by the company, which in turn, was ABC Ltd.'s own default
as neither did the
Euorpean partner agree to contribute funds nor did it allow its
Indian counterpart to
do so. This, according to Vanshika, was evidenced by the
deadlock in the Board at
consecutive meetings, which compelled the shareholders to
exercise the power
delegated to the Board in the interests of the company. It was
further argued that the
alteration in me Articles of Association was perfectly justified
in view of the fact mat
JV-B was void ab initio by virtue of Press Note 1/2008 issued by
the Department of
Industrial Policy and Promotion (Secretariat for Industrial
Assistance), that required
prior government approval in case the foreign investor had an
existing JV i.e. JV-A in
India as on the date of the Press note. Furthermore section 2.3
of JV-B provided that
JV-B shall be conditional upon and shall become effective as
between parties subject
to the procuring of all the necessary approvals of the
Government of India and/or its
regulatory agencies such as the Reserve Bank of India, FIPB
etc.7. In response to the argument regarding validity of JV-B, ABC
Ltd. took the stand thatno existing JV was in place as on 12.1.2008
within the meaning of Press Note 1/2008
read with Press Note 3/2008. Section 6.11 of JV-B provided for
Deadlock and
remedies therefore, it read as under :
Deadlock and Remedy
6.11.1 "Deadlock" shall mean that:
- at two consecutive meetings of the Board a formal vote of the
Directors is taken and
that the vote taken on each such occasion is 2-2 or less than
the required number of
votes to pass such a decision, or
- at two consecutive shareholder meetings a formal vote of the
shareholders of the
Company is taken to approve matters, is less than the required
majority to carry theresolution as passed.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
5/27
FOURTH YEAR
6.11.2 In the event of any Deadlock, then, unless each party
expressly waives its
rights under this Section within thirty (30) days after the vote
resulting in such
Deadlock:
(a) The Company shall be dissolved, and the parties, in their
capacities as
shareholders of the Company shall promptly take all such actions
as may be required
to cause the Company to expeditiously wind up their affairs and
dissolve8. The very maintainability of a petition under Section
397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956
was also challenged by Vanshika on the ground that JV-B provided
for the resolution of any
dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement to be
resolved by arbitration
according to the rules of Arbitration of the International
Chamber of Commerce.
Argue the case.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
6/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 3
408 v. 421
423 v. 425
BUSINESS LAW
Mr. Peter is the Managing Director and Mr. Rajan Masih is the
director of the companyknown as "M/s. ABC Agro Products Private
Limited", which was incorporated on 21-7-
1993. In the complaint filed by the Registrar, it is alleged
that the complainant observed from
the balance sheet as at 31st March, 2009 and 31st March, 2010,
that the company has under
the guise of sheep units and through other schemes invited and
accepted deposits from the
public and the amounts outstanding under the above heads in the
balance sheet as at 31-3-
2009 and 31-3-2010 are Rs.10.51 crores and Rs.10.44 crores
respectively. Registrar of
Companies claims that the aforesaid amounts were accepted by the
said company without
complying the requirements of limits as stipulated under Section
58A (1) & (2) of the Act.
The Company did not comply with the Rules of the Companies
(Acceptance of Deposits)
Rules, 1975 which stipulate the requirements of maintenance of
liquid assets, the limits up to
which the deposits can be invited and accepted, filing of text
of advertisement/statement inlieu of advertisement, maintenance of
deposits and filing of return of deposits etc.
The Registrar of the Companies issued a show cause notice to
Peter and Rajan Masih on
17-11-2011 as to why legal action should not be initiated for
the said contravention. In the
meanwhile High Court appointed official liquidator by an order
dated 24-7-2011. Mr. Peter
sent a reply stating that the proceedings under the Act have to
come to an end consequent
upon the orders of the High Court dated 24-7-2011 resulting in
the appointment of the official
liquidator as provisional liquidator.
It is the case of the ROC that the default pertains prior to
liquidation proceedings and,
therefore, the plea taken by the first petitioner is not tenable
in law. In the circumstances, theROC filed a complaint under
Section 58A (6) of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Rules
against Mr. Peter and Rajan Masih for contravention of the
provisions of Section 58A (1) &
(2) of the Act and Rule 3. 3A, 3 (2) (i), 3 (2) (ii), 4/4a, 7, 8
& 10 of the Rules. It is pertinent
to mention that the complaint has been filed only against Mr.
Peter and Rajan Masih and
company has not been impleaded.
Argue on behalf of ROC and Respondents, Peter and Rajan
Masih
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
7/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 4
426 v. 428
430 v. 431
BUSINESS LAW
The Pursharti Ltd. consisted of four directors and seventy five
shareholders. Four directorswere namely Mr. Karunesh and Ms. Divya
belonging to majority group and Mr. Bhuvnesh
and Mr. Kamal belonging to minority group. The effective
management and control was in
the hands of majority group as the managing director was Mr.
Karunesh.
Although the directors were an expert in the commercial field
but still due to some
commercial misjudgments which caused loss to the company, there
was a short term
diminution in shares. Due to this, the majority group started a
competing business with that of
Pursharthi Ltd. which further worsened the situation. The
conflict between the two groups
came to the forefront when majority group called a meeting of
the shareholders. The notice of
this meeting was served at the local address of Mr. Bhuvnesh and
Mr. Kamal where as they
settled out of India. However, the notice was sent under postal
certificate and the meetingagenda was attached to it. In this
meeting an additional director was appointed on the ground
that Mr. Bhuvnesh and Mr. Kamal were staying out of India and
were not taking interest in
companys affairs. Some other resolutions which were passed in
the meeting are as follows:
1. Power to issue further shares with pre-emption right to
majority group.
2. Release of bank guarantee given by the company in favor of
majority group.
3. Redemption of shares held by minority group.
When the minority group came to know about this meeting and
various resolutions passed in
it, they agitated and served a legal notice calling the company
to quash the meeting and the
resolutions taken in it. This notice was not replied by the
majority group.Now, the minority group is filing a petition under
appropriate section(s) of the Companies
Act to get relief on the following issue:
Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the conduct of
majority group is oppressive
in nature. Argue for or against the issue.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
8/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 5
432 v. 434
435 v. 436
BUSINESS LAW
The Trinamool Ltd. was a small company which consisted of five
directors in the board. Four
directors belonged to Group A which was the majority group and
one director belonged to
Group B which was the minority group as the company followed the
procedure of
proportionate representation. Mr. Kamal belonging to the
minority group was the managing
director of the company. Everything was running smoothly till
January 2010 when Mr.
Kamal was charged with misappropriation of companies assets. It
was alleged by a
whistleblower in the company that Mr. Kamal had purchased
certain machinery at a
manipulated price but failed to prove the same which led to
discharge of Mr. Kamal.
However, the majority group taking a cue from this incident
tried to replace him from the
post of managing director which was resisted by the minority
group. One day when Mr.
Kamal reached his office after a short visit from Singapore, he
found that Mr. Manohar hadbeen appointed the Managing Director of
the company. A preliminary probe revealed that he
had been removed from the post of directorship by a meeting of
board of directors held on
March 23, 2010. Mr. Manohar was a chartered accountant by
profession and earlier been an
independent director of the company.
Further, the company had also called a meeting of the
shareholders in which Mr. Kamal had
been removed from the directorship. This minutes of this meeting
revealed the presence of
Mr. Kamal in this meeting where as he was away to Singapore at
that time. New members
had also been inducted in the company after this meeting which
reduced the number of
minority shareholders to a marginal limit in which they were
unable to have even one director
on board. On a petition filed by Mr. Kamal, the company court of
first instance orderedwinding up of the company on the presumption
that there was a complete deadlock in the
management. Now, the parties are in appeal on following
issues:
1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case winding up
order was justified.
2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case any other
order or relief can be
provided.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
9/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 6
437 v. 439
440 v. 442
BUSINESS LAW
Mr. Akhilesh was a wealthy man who had to under go a major
surgery for some infirmity.While entering the operation theatre he
made some disclosure of untaxed income lying in
form to unaccounted gold to the tune of rupees one crore at his
house to the persons present
there. Further, he expressed his desire to give this gold to Mr.
Saurabh who was his younger
son in case he failed to survive in that operation. Out of
anonymity, Mr. Brij, the elder son of
Mr. Akhilesh gave this information to the Income Tax Department.
A raid was conducted at
the premises of Mr. Akhilesh and the information was found to be
correct. Apart from this
unaccounted gold, the raiding team recovered a diary in which
entries regarding unaccounted
cash to the tune of Rupees ten lakhs were also there. A diamond
ring costing around rupees
ninety lakhs was also found. The assessing officer served a
notice on Mr. Akhilesh and made
an addition of all the items mentioned above on the following
grounds:
1. The statement at the time of operation was an admission and
no further proof was required
2. The assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of
income from which the ring was
purchased.
3. The entries in diary were adequate evidence and the assessee
himself had agreed to
surrender the said amount.
However, the assessee had tried to explain his part of the case
by alleging:
1. That the gold and the diamond ring were gifted to him at the
time of his marriage which
took place around forty years back. As far as ring was
concerned, an old bill from a gold
smith at the time of his marriage was placed on record but he
failed to bring anycorroborative material for gold but he simply
alleged it to be accounted.
2. That the surrender was made under coercion and an affidavit
by Mr. Saurabh that the diary
belonged to him was produced on record.
Now the assessee has filed an appeal before the first appellate
authority challenging the
aforementioned assessment and praying for appropriate relief.
Argue on the following issue:
1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case addition on
account of gold is called for.
2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case addition on
account of diamond ring is
called for.
3. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case addition on
account of entries in diary is
called for.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
10/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 7
443 v. 444
445 v. 446
BUSINESS LAW
It has been reported by a Regional Manager Sales South 2 of
commercial vehicles that he
has detected that a dealer based in Madurai has issued a forged
bank guarantee of Rs. 7 Cr to
the Company.
According to the R M, Mr Satyawan Singh is a Director of Honest
Motors Ltd., Madurai, an
authorized dealer of Comml. Vehicles Tata Motors Ltd., in
Madurai. In the course of
business as an authorized dealer they had to furnish a Bank
guarantee to Tata Motors Ltd., as
a security, as per their estimated yearly turnover of sales. The
Dealer on behalf of Honest
Motors Ltd., furnished a Bank Guarantee for Rs.1.5 Cr initially
which was a Bank guarantee
of UCO Bank, from Madurai. Thereafter, they furnished another
bank guarantee for Rs.2 Cr
from the same bank. Thereafter since their sales had increased
they furnished yet anotherbank guarantee of Rs.5 Cr of the same
bank and asked for return of bank guarantees for Rs
1.5 Cr and 2 Cr submitted earlier.
Tata Motors, in the regular course of business, wrote a letter
to the UCO Bank and inquired
about the genuineness of the Bank Guarantees. The UCO Bank, to
our surprise, informed that
the Bank Guarantees for Rs.2 Cr as well as the one for Rs.5 Cr
were forged documents and
the Bank had never issued the said Guarantees. We were further
informed by UCO Bank that
the original bank guarantee for Rs.1.5 Cr had been returned to
them by Honest Motors Ltd.,
and the same had been cancelled, which in effect, meant that the
Company had no security
on hand at all. The total outstanding of M/s. Honest Motors
Ltd., in the books of Tata Motors
Ltd., on date was to the tune of Rs.6.15 Cr.
During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Mr
Satyawan Singh, in collusion
with his partners had procured and issued the said forged bank
guarantees to the Company.
The Police was informed of the entire episode along with
documents and bank
correspondence by TML.
In the meanwhile Mr Satyawan Singh got a whiff of the actions
taken by the Company from
somebody in the UCO Bank and reported to the police that some
documents have been stolen
from his dealership and he suspects that the Regional Accounts
Manager of TML who had
visited them for a stock taking may be the suspect. The dealer
has also leveled serious
allegations against the Regional Service Manager of having
transferred some of his plant and
machinery and parts from his dealership to other dealerships in
the area without their consent.
He has also complained that the Head of the Passenger car
business who had visited him last
week had leveled serious allegations of dishonesty on Mr
Satyawan Singh and had used un-
parliamentary language and had called him a cheat in front of
all dealership staff. He had also
threatened in the presence of all that he would ruin Mr Satyawan
Singh. He has sought
criminal action against all the managers above for conspiracy,
cheating, breach of trust and
criminal defamation etc.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
11/27
FOURTH YEAR
The Local Police Staion In Charge has just called the RM that he
has Warrants of Arrest for
the Regional Accounts Manager, Regional Service Manager, Head of
the Passenger Car
business of TML by name.
Given the seriousness of the situation the Legal Manager is
called upon to decide the next
course of action. The Regional Manager is concerned that while
most of the allegations areverbal in nature, but the fact that the
Finance Manager accepted the bank guarantees and had
not verified the bank guarantee of Rs.2 Cr for six months is on
record and there is no valid
justification for the same. The Dealer is very influential and
could stoop to any length.
1. What are the options open to the Legal Manager to ensure
personal liberty of theManagers named by the dealership in the FIR?
Discuss the Law and the Tactics
recommended.
2. What are the steps that the Legal Manager must take to
recover the fundsmisappropriated by the dealership? Discuss the
Documents required and the Tactics
recommended.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
12/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 8
447 v. 448
449 v. 450
BUSINESS LAWS
(A) Background Information
Reunited Brewery Limited (RBL) is a public limited company with
its registered office in Chennai,Tamil Nadu. It was incorporated on
January 27, 1968 under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956(the Companies Act). RBL is one of the largest brewers which
owns and manages leading portfolios ofliquor brands. It is also one
of Indias leading brewers in terms of sales volume and
profitability.
Ronnie-Walker Private Limited (Ronnie-Walker) is a private
limited company with its registered officein Pune, Maharashtra,
India. It was incorporated on August 16, 2008 under the provisions
of theCompanies Act. Ronnie-Walker is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Ronnie-Walker Plc., which is one of the
world's largest brewers with brewing interests or distribution
agreements in several countries. In India,Ronnie-Walker produces
and markets beer all over India, including Tamil Nadu.
(B) Mr. Shameer Kallyas Employment
RBL and Mr. Shameer Kallya entered into an employment agreement
dated December 3, 2005 (theEmployment Agreement) pursuant to which
Mr. Shameer was appointed as a senior personnel in theresearch and
development division of RBL for a duration of at least three (3)
years which period could beextended and/or renewed as mutually
agreed between the parties (the Employment Period).
Clause 3 of the Employment Agreement provided for a
non-competition obligation as follows:
Mr. Shameer hereby agrees and undertakes that until the
Employment Period, and for a further
period of one year from the date of termination of his
employment, Mr. Shameer shall not, directly or
indirectly, engage and/or develop in the business of brewery and
manufacturing and distribution of
brewery products anywhere in the world, including India or
assist any other person or entity (whether
as an executive, employee, advisor or otherwise) to engage
and/or develop in such business anywhere
in the world, including India.
In addition, Clause 8 of the Employment Agreement provided for a
non-disclosure obligation to thefollowing effect:
Mr. Shameer shall not use for himself or others, or divulge to
others, any Proprietary Information
obtained by him as a result of his employment, unless authorized
by RBL. Mr. Shameers obligations
under this Clause 8 shall remain in full force and effect, and
Mr. Shameer shall perform such
obligations through the end of the Employment Period, and
thereafter in perpetuity and such
obligations shall not terminate purely from the passage of
time.
For the purposes of this Clause 8, the term Proprietary
Information shall mean all confidential or
proprietary information of RBL which is known to Mr. Shameer and
is related to specific matters,
including trade secrets, marketing programs, customers, pricing
and credit techniques, know-how,
research and development activities, as they may exist from time
to time.
(C) Tulsi5000
Analyzing the fact that Indian liquor consumers have witnessed
beers of different tastes and flavors forseveral decades, as a
strategic business initiative/alternative, RBL proposed to launch a
low-alcohol beer.
Accordingly, under the supervision of Mr. Shameer, RBL commenced
research and developed theappropriate composition required for a
low-alcohol beer. In addition, RBL also evolved an exclusiveformula
with a special brewing process in connection with such a
low-alcohol beer.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
13/27
FOURTH YEAR
Based on such extensive research and development, in April 2008,
RBL introduced Tulsi 5000, a low-alcohol beer (marketed as being
first of its kind in the Indian market). Given that Tulsi 5000
offered itsconsumers a young, rich and vibrant alternative to the
conventional beers, it became an instant successand garnered
significant market share.
(D) Termination of Mr. Shameers employment
However, subsequent to the launch of Tulsi5000, certain
misunderstandings arose between RBL and Mr.Shameer in connection
with revenue sharing, denial of promotion and the like. As a result
of which, RBL
was not desirous of extending and/or renewing the Employment
Agreement and the same, therefore,terminated as of December 3, 2008
by efflux of time. Acceding to the pressure of several
non-governmental organizations and as a matter of public policy,
the Government of Tamil Nadu wasconsidering to impose restrictions
on manufacturing and sale of alcohol.
Later in March, 2009, Mr. Shameer was approached by
Ronnie-Walker and was offered a position in itsresearch and
development division. While accepting Ronnie-Walkers offer of
employment, Mr. Shameeralso convinced two members of the RBLs
research and development division, to join Ronnie-Walkeralong with
him. Sometime in July, 2009 Ronnie-Walker issued a press release
and announced that it would
also be launching a low-alcohol beer to boost its beer portfolio
in the Indian market.
(E) Issues for consideration
In view of the above, RBL filed a suit before the Honble High
Court of Madras (the High Court). TheHigh Court has admitted RBLs
suit and the following issues are before the High Court for
itsconsideration:
1) Whether Mr. Shameer has breached Clause 3 of the Employment
Agreement by acceptingemployment with Ronnie-Walker;
2) Whether Mr. Shameer has breached Clause 8 of the Employment
Agreement, as alleged by RBL
by divulging the Proprietary Information to Ronnie-Walker;
3) Whether an interim injunction can be issued restricting
Ronnie-Walker from launching a low-alcohol beer under its brand
name; and
4) Subject to determination of Issues (1), (2) & (3), is RBL
entitled to claim for any damages.
Please be advised that RBL has also requested the High Court to
grant any further relief which the HighCourt may deem fit in the
interests of justice.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
14/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 9
452 v. 453
457 v. 459
BUSINESS LAW
M/s. Comfort Cars is a small proprietorship concern providing
tour operator services. Its head office
is at Agra and branch offices are at Delhi, Khajuraho and &
Varanasi. Being a tour operator within the
meaning of Sec 65(115) of the Finance Act, it regularly files
its service tax returns from its head
office at Agra. Under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act as
originally introduced, tour operator
service was defined as:
Tour Operator means any person engaged in the business of
operating tours in a tourist vehicle
covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehilces Act, 1988
(59 of 1988) or the rules made
thereunder.
Subsequently, from 10.9.2004, the definition of word tour
operator was amended by Finance Act
No.2 of 2004 to read as under:-
Tour Operator means any person engaged in the business of
planning, scheduling, organizing or
arranging tours (which may include arrangements for
accommodation, sightseeing or other similar
services) by any mode of transport and includes any person
engaged in the business of operating tours
in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 (59 of 1988) or
the rules made there-under.
The taxable service for tour operators as per Section 65(105)
has always remained unamended. It
reads as under:
Taxable service means any service provided to any person, by a
tour operator in relation to a tour.
The business of tour operatorship functions in such a way that
there are large operators in cities suchas Delhi, Mumbai,
Bangalore, Hyderabad etc. Comfort Cars has an agreement with these
large
operators to provide vehicles etc. to the guests/tourists who
visit India from abroad. The guests enter
into a package tour with big tour operators and pay a lump-sum
package charge to the large operators.
These large operators, also known as principal tour operators
(PTOs), have the necessary
infrastructure and marketing skills to attract foreign tourists
to India. The PTOs then arrange with
smaller entities such as Comfort Cars to cater to the needs to
tourists who desire to visit places such as
Agra, Varanasi, Khajuraho etc.
The PTOs pay service tax on the entire amount received by them
from the tourists. Comfort Cars
provides their guests primarily with vehicle services in cities
such as Agra, Varanasi and Khajuraho
etc. Comfort Cars pays service tax on the value of the vehicle
services provided by it.
Sometimes, Comfort Cars also provides certain services known as
supplementary services to the
guests. These supplementary services include arranging for
tickets for visiting the monuments,
providing porter services, guides, arranging for food etc. These
supplementary services are provided
on reimbursement basis. Comfort Cars bills the PTOs the actual
expenses incurred by it for providing
the supplementary services and gets reimbursed from the PTOs.
The cost of these supplementary
services is already included in the total cost of the package
tour that has been paid by the foreign
tourists. Comfort Cars does not pay any service tax on this
amount of reimbursement.
In January 2007, service tax officials carried out a survey at
the premises of Comfort Cars. In October
2007, a show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner,
Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur
proposing to levy service tax and penalty on Comfort Cars in
respect of the value of various
supplementary services provided by it for the period 1.4.2002 to
31.3.2007. The total value of
proposed service tax came to Rs. 1 crores. A penalty of Rs. 25
lakhs was also proposed.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
15/27
FOURTH YEAR
M/s. Comfort Cars filed a reply to the show cause notice and
contested the proposed levy. It
cooperated in all the proceedings and provided the officials
with all the material demanded by them. It
also contended that the extended period of limitation could not
be invoked for assessing M/s Comfort
Cars to service tax and pleaded its bona fides. However, the
Commissioner, Central Excise and
Service Tax, Kanpur, passed the order confirming the demand of
service tax and penalty on the
petitioner.
CESTAT dismissed further appeal preferred by Comfort Cars by
relying upon the definition of
taxable service in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act (quoted
above) and a Circular, dated 22.8.2007,
issued by the Tax Research Unit of the Central Board of Excise
and Customs (CBEC).
the service rendered by the tour operator may be only for
providing transport service within or
outside the town, city or its territorial limits. The services
rendered by the tour operators may only be
limited to providing transport service in relation to a tour or
it may also include host of other services
as in case of package tour. The services provided by such a tour
operator may also include, apart from
providing the basic service of transportation from one place to
another, services of providing boarding
and lodging arrangement, local sight seeing, guide services and
wide range of other value added
services provided by tour operators such as providing for
porters, booking of accommodation,arranging the visit to amusement
park, visit to the museum etc.
Aggrieved by the CESTAT order dated 31.05.2009, Comfort Cars has
preferred an appeal before the
High Court of Allahabad on the following questions of law:
a) Whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the
amount received as reimbursement by itfrom the PTOs?
b) Whether the appellant could be assessed to service tax by
invoking the extended period oflimitation?
c) Whether, before the amendment in the definition of tour
operators, the supplementary servicesprovided by tour operators
could be said to be taxable?
d) Whether, the Circular cannot create tax liability and the
Tribunal was not justified in relying uponthe Circular dated
23.8.2007 issued after the disputed period?Please prepare arguments
for and against the appeal.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
16/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 10
468 v. 471
473 v. 474
BUSINESS LAW
Startek Hospitalities Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Startek)
was incorporated in 1990 as a
company limited by guarantee with its registered office in
Surat. The Articles of Association
(hereinafter referred to as the AoA) of Strartek provided that
there shall only be two
members as Board of Directors and Mr. Rajiv Khandekar and Mr.
Sandeep Jogiya, who were
also the initial subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of
the company to be the
permanent members of Board of Directors. As per the AoA, the
management of the company
and its day to day affairs vested in a Governing Body, which
could consist of 12 members,
including the permanent directors who were to be treated as
ex-officio members of the
Governing Body. All powers for appointment of committees,
granting membership, expellingmembers, giving status to members
along with the power to appoint a permanent director in
case of his death were given to the Governing Body, who were to
be elected by all the
members of the Company as per the AoA.
Startek was making huge profits by 1994, but unfortunately a
huge blow struck the company
when its permanent director Mr. Rajiv Khandekar died.
Thereafter, Startek suffered loses and
internal disputes started to surface. In 1998 two groups were
formed in the Company, one led
by Mr. Harsh Sangle and the other led by Mr. Hoshir Roowala. The
registered office of
Startek was changed by each group and duly notified to the
relevant Registrar of Companies
(hereinafter referred to as ROC). Mr. Harsh Sangle claimed to be
a member of Board of
Directors, elected by members of the Company whereas Mr. Hoshir
Roowala claimed himselfto be the Chairman of the Governing Body
appointed by the members and also as the
permanent director of the Company as appointed by the Governing
Body. Mr. Harsh Sangle
and group inducted 200 new members in the Company and removed
221 original members.
Subsequently Mr. Sangle and group called an Extra Ordinary
General Meeting of the
Company in May 2004 and changed the AoA of the Company to the
effect so as to remove
all provisions for Governing Body therein and replace all such
powers previously vested in
the Governing Body so as to vest such powers with the Board of
Directors. Mr. Roowala and
group on the other hand retained the original AoA of the
Company, inducted some 50 new
members and were functioning with 315 members which also
included the names of Mr.
Harsh Sangle and group, who were original members of Startek.
Mr. Roowala and group
being the members of Governing Body regularly called the general
meeting of the companyas per the requirement under the law and
filed the relevant documents, returns and accounts
with the ROC and so did Mr. Sangle and group.
The records of ROC, last show, two registered offices of
Startek, two annual returns, two
annual accounts for each year since 2005 and 559 members. Mr.
Harsh Sangle and group in
2007, changed the name of the company from Startek Hospitality
Ltd. to Startek Realty Ltd.
and attempted to dispose of certain assets of Startek and lease
out other assets which were not
being used by the Company since it was not carrying on with its
hospitality business
anymore. The attempts to dispose of properties of Startek by
Harsh Sangle and group was
resisted by Mr. Roowala and group and they filed a civil suit in
the District Court of Surat
and obtained an interim injunction restraining Mr. Harsh Sangle
and group from disposing off
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
17/27
FOURTH YEAR
any property of the Startek. Pursuant thereto, neither of the
groups was effectively carrying
on any business in the name of Startek.
Thereafter, in 2008, one Mr. Akhil Hasan, who was amongst the
original founding members
of Startek and had not shown his affinity to either of the
groups along with other 52 members
filed a petition before the Company Law Board (CLB) alleging
acts of oppression andmismanagement under Section 397 and 398 of
the Companies Act, 1956. Both the groups
represented the Company claiming to be the valid management of
the Company as against the
other group and resisting any claim of oppression and
mismanagement against them. Mr.
Harsh Sangle and Group also raised a preliminary issue on
maintainability for misjoinder of
party stating that the name of the Company has been changed. The
CLB after hearing the
parties, exercised its powers under Section 186 of Companies Act
and vide an order dated 2ndNovember 2011 directed Startek to hold a
Extraordinary General Meeting under the
Chairmanship of the ROC, Gujarat within four months from the
date of the aforesaid order
inter alia to conduct the following business
1. Appoint five members to the Board of Directors of the
Company.
2. Approve AoA of the Company.
CLB further ordered that no other agenda/business shall be
transacted at the said meeting and
permitted all 559 persons whose names appear as members of
Startek as per ROC records to
vote at the said meeting to be conducted.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Mr. Harsh Sangle and Group
preferred appeal before the
Honble High Court of Gujarat on 9th December 2011 claiming to
represent the management
of Startek. In the meanwhile, the RoC Gujarat issued a notice
dated 10 th December 2011 for
conduct of the Extra-ordinary general meeting of the Company on
25th February 2012 at SuratBagh Resort, Surat. Pursuant thereto,
Mr. Harsh Sangle and group have sought an interim
relief from the court staying the aforesaid meeting. Mr. Roowala
and group have also filed a
separate appeal challenging the order dated 2ndNovember 2011 and
have filed an application
for joining as a party representing the actual management of
Startek in the proceedings filed
by Mr. Harsh Sangle and others, which application is being
contested by other parties of the
proceedings.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
18/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 11
475 v. 476
480 v. 481
BUSINESS LAW
ABC system Ltd. (DSL) is a company based in Downtown. The
company developed a dust cleaning system,based on nanotechnology.
The system uses nanobots for cleaning dust. Patents for the dust
cleaning system havebeen granted in Downtown, US, EU, Japan and a
few other countries.
The nanobot is Dustbuster, which is a trademark (registered) in
Downtown. It was an instant hit ever since it
was launched in the market shortly after the patent application
was filed in September 2002.
Robotic Inc, a start u company formed in January 2004, by a few
former employees of ABC systems has also
started manufacturing dust cleaning system using nanobots, which
in addition to removing dust also destroysmicroscopic organisms
such as dust miles. This is being marketed as Dustbanger for which
a trade markapplication has been filed in Nanopore. A patent
application is pending in Downtown and the U.S.
As a promotional campaign, Robotic Inc., has launched a
websitewww.robotic.com/dustbanger/discountgame.xml with an online
interactive game. In this game, the player has toaccumulate points
by destroying biological organisms using an icon called Buster. If
the player gathers 100,000
points, he gets discount on Dustbanger.
Issues:
ABC systems have instituted a suit against Ribotic Inc in
Downtown stating that:
(i) Ribotic is infringing its patent(ii) Defamation of the
product DSL, in the cyber world since the player never wins and the
name of icon
is Buster, closely resembles Dust Buster of DSL.
(iii) DSL states that the former employee who are now the
founders of Ribotic Inc., have misappropriatedtheir trade
secret.
Robotic Inc,: Counter allegations:
(i) Robotic contends that DSL patent is not valid as there was
an article published regarding thistechnology in 1974.
Dustbanger is more than the Dust buster as it also destroy
biological organisms
(ii) Buster and Banger are interchangeable terms.
Argue the Case:
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
19/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 12
401 v. 412
417 v. 420
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Ridhima, a young school going girl of 15years age fell from the
school bus while returning
from school on 20th April, 2011. Her right arm was crushed
badly. She was immediately
rushed to nearby Government Hospital situated at a distance of
500 metres from the site of
the incident. She could not be admitted to the hospital as there
was a huge rush of patients.
She was given first aid in the pre operative hall of the
hospital but no operation was
conducted on the day of accident. Her bandage was changed at
intervals but no proper
treatment was started. As a result of this negligence, the
infection spread in her arm and due
to which her arm had to be amputated on 21stApril, 2011. The
hospital authorities blamed the
huge rush of patients for such neglect. She had to wait for her
turn for operation as there were
around 12 more patients ahead of her for getting their operation
done, all with similar or even
graver injuries. The whole hospital staff was busy looking after
one patient or the other butstill every patient couldnt be attended
properly due to heavy rush that day. After amputation
of her arm, her chances of survival became very thin as
infection started spreading to other
body parts. The girl was very young and saving her arm would
have been the priority of the
doctors. After amputation she was taken twice to the operation
theatre for surgery but she was
intolerant to anaesthesia due to poor health. She had been
transfused six units of blood and
was operated early morning on 22nd April, 2011. After the
operation due to heavy loss of
blood she slipped into coma and when she revived after a month
right side of her body was
paralysed.
The parents of the girl filed a case against the government
hospital for denial of proper
medical treatment and for a proper relief to her rest of the
life as violation of right to life
under article 21 of the Constitution. The parents are claiming
in the petition that thegovernment should take the responsibility
of Ridhima for her rest of the life.
Issues involved:
1. Whether denial of appropriate medical treatment is a
violation of right to life underarticle 21?
2. Whether the negligence on the part of government hospital
makes the governmentliable?
3. Whether compensation can be claimed under article 21?
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
20/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 13
427 v. 433
455 v. 470
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The Common Legal Entrance Examination (CLEE) is the examination
for 15 top Law
Schools in India for admissions. Every year around 50,000
candidates of different states
appears for this test to take admission in any of these
universities. Every university has its
own rules and bye laws to regulate their own institution.
The Bar Council of India is the authority to grant seats in
consideration with the University
Grant Commission. The distribution of seats in these
universities, including reservation for
the state is as follows:Category MP UP WB Guj Raj Punjab Orissa
Karnataka
Total 92 88 75 120 52 90 40 12General 30 40 40 60 30 0
SC 7 9 (3 forsc hill)
8 7 7 8
ST 3 9 8 3 3 PWD 2 3 2 2 2 2
OBC 4 6 1 4 4 1
Others 1 1 1 1 1 1
State Quota General 20 20 15 30 30 20 40
SC 7 7 10 3 ST 9 3 10 12
PWD 1 2 2 5 OBC 5 Nil others 3 1 3
The CLEE 2012 rules and other information of admission are as
follows:
1. The CLEE 2012 is conducted by West Bengal University.2. The
CLEE 2012 core committee (Consisting all Vice Chancellor of these
universities
as members and chairman will be the VC of organising
institution) will be the final
authority to frame uniform rule of admission.
3. The decision of core committee will be executed by
implementing committee(members will be Registrar or any authorised
person of these universities)
4.
There will be not uniform policy for state reservation, the
concern university will beresponsible for admission as per
reservation norms applicable to their state.
5. Even for all India seats their will not be a uniform
reservation norms.6. Once the seat is allotted to any candidate in
first list and if there is any vacancy in
other institution after last day, a candidate shall be upgraded
to other institution as per
preference given. The candidate will not have option to remain
in the same institution
irrespective of their rank and marks of merit.
7. The CLEE will declare only 4 lists of merit for admission,
after 4 th list the office ofCLEE will be closed for all purpose
except for internal settlement of accounts.
8. The candidate will not be able to make any change information
of application formafter declaration of result.
Manjeet Singh a student of Punjab domicile and Ratna Ben another
candidate ofGujarat appeared in the CLEE 2011 and secured there
marks as follows:
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
21/27
FOURTH YEAR
Manjeet Singh Marks 115 all India Merit Rank 2214
Ratna Ben Marks 122 All India Merit Rank 1900
Both are willing to take admission in their own state institute
of preference.
Manjeet is a resident of Punjab, but failed to mention it in the
application form
therefore considered under all India general category.
The last admitted candidate in Punjab University for All India
General Categoryscored 124 and in State general it was 114 and
since he failed to claim domicile in
application form he was denied admission and the less scored
candidate was admitted.
Mr. Raman who have also scored 115 and failed to domicile in
application form, later
requested the institution to consider him in Punjab domicile
category and the
institution sent it to CLEE core committee for approval, and
considering approval
from the institution they allowed Mr. to take admission in
domicile category.
Mr. Raman was accordingly admitted to the institution, this
information came to the
knowledge of Manjeet Singh and he asked for same relief but
since his admission was
denied on the ground that he neither approached before the core
committee nor the
institution for considering him in state domicile category and
moreover there is no
seat available vacant in the institution.Ratna also challenged
the distribution of OBC seats in different CLEE member
universities.
Both of them have filed separate petition in the high court of
Punjab and High court
of Gujarat on the following issues:
1. Punjab State University has violated fundamental rights of
the candidates entitledfor admission.
2. The Gujarat University has denied the constitutional scheme
for reservation, andpolicy of OBC reservation.
3. The courts should ask CLEE to follow a uniform policy of
reservation in allmember universities.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
22/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 14
403 v. 411
413 v. 416
CRIMINAL LAW
Ashok was broker in share market and belongs to well to do
family. Ashok and Monika were
married in 2006. After marriage Monika do have some problems
with her mother-in-law and
she requested Ashok to live separate from the parents. The
impact of living separate from the
parents was that there was no communication between the Monika
and her in-laws. Ashok do
spare some times to visit his parents at least in a month. In
2010 because of the downfall in
the share market Ashok had a loss of more than ten lakh. Because
of the financial constraints
he was not in a position to deposits the installments to the
bank where from he has taken a
loan of five lakh. Because of all these financial restraints
there were many disputes which
arouse between Ashok and Monika. Ashok started taking alcohol,
he does come home late at
night and sometimes he does slap Monika for inadequate reasons.
Mahesh who was a good
friend of Ashok ask requested him to seek some financial help
from his in-laws whichMahesh was agreed to. One day when Ashok
requested Monika that lets take some financial
help from the parents of Monika, she denied and threatens Ashok
that in case he compel her
to have some financial help from her parents then she will sue
Ashok for domestic violence
on this there is a manual fight between the couple and Monika
filed a complaint against
Ashok, Ashoks parents, his brother, sister and Mahesh that they
are committing a cruelty to
her and demanding the dowry.
Argue
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
23/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 15
409 v. 419
424 v. 438
CRIMINAL LAW
A police party consisting of a Sub Inspector and three
constables reached a small bridge overa canal near a village and
halted there. They noticed the accused coming towards the
bridge
but on seeing the police party he tried to beat the retreat. So
the police apprehended him. On
being questioned he was found to be in possession of an illicit
pistol for which he had no
license.
The sub inspector started the proceedings. He wrote a slip
[ruka] and sent one of the
constables back to the Police station for getting the FIR
lodged. The illicit weapon was taken
in possession and properly sealed. The other paper work
including the statement of the
constables present, the site plan etc were prepared at the spot.
There after the accused made a
statement that he had also six live cartridges hidden in the
store of his house in the near by
village. The police party was led by the accused to his house
and on identification of the
place the police recovered the live cartridges from the store
house of the accused. Hisstatement under section 27 Evidence Act
was also recorded by the Investigation officer.
The police party along with accused proceeded towards the police
station and on reaching the
Police station the case property was handed over to the M.H.C
and other necessary formality
was also completed .An FIR was lodged against the accused for
having illicit arms and live
cartridges without license and the accused was kept in police
lock up.
During the trail; the prosecution examined the Investigation
officer, the three constables who
were members of the police party. The Investigation officer
supported the prosecution
version and proved the site plan and the statement of the
accused under section 27 Evidence
act.
There were some discrepancies in the statements of the other
witnesses regarding the time
and manner of the occurrence.The accused produced his defense
witness who made a statement that the accused was
playing at cards with other villagers in the village chowpal at
the alleged time of
apprehension of the accused.
Argue the case
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
24/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 16
441 v. 454
456 v. 461
CRIMINAL LAW
Renuka Mitra was married to Shyamal Mitra in 2004. Initially
they were passing happyconjugal life in Kolkata. They had a son and
a daughter. But due to intervention of their in
laws, including her sister-in-law Shushila Mitra she was victim
of demand of dowry, to bring
more money from her parents house. Due to her failure to meet
the demand, the torture was
augmented. On the date of alleged incident, in 2011, cruelty was
of such a nature that took
away the life of Renuka Mitra. While she was in bathroom,
kerosene oil was poured and her
in-laws lit match-stick and threw it inside the bathroom. She
cried out loudly for half an hour,
to the knowledge of the neighbours. She got burned and died.
With the information from the
neighbours, the police came in and seized the match-box, tin of
kerosene oil and a suicide
note. The suicide Note mentions I have had enough of life and
dont want to live any
longer. The date mentioned on the suicide note was two weeks
prior to the incident. The
police arrested the husband, his father and mother, and also the
sister Shushila Mitra.Criminal case was filed against all of them
u/s 498A, 304B, 306, IPC.
1. Whether Dowry death has been caused u/s 304B also considering
the section 498A?
2. Whether the accused are liable for abetment of suicide u/s
306?
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
25/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 17
462 v. 464
466 v. 467
CRIMINAL LAW
Inder Singh, a resident of village Jor Kala, close to the
village Fagan Majra, once visited the house of
Karam Singh for treating his ailing sons, Chander Singh and
Jagjit Singh. When the two boys were
cured by Inder Singh, Karam Singh began to have great faith in
him and indeed started treating him as
his Guru. Inder Singh started paying frequent visits to Karam
Singhs house and apparently began to
cast an evil eye on Karam Singhs daughter Santosh Rani a minor
girl of 14 years of age. He (Inder
Singh) persuaded her to accompany him by inducing her to believe
that though she was made to work
in her parents' house she was not even given proper food and
clothes by her parents who were poor.
He promised to keep her like a queen, having nice clothes to
wear, good food to eat and also a servant
at her disposal. On one occasion Karam Singh happened to see
Inder Singh talking with his daughter
and felt suspicious with the result that he requested Inder
Singh not to visit his house any more. He
also reprimanded his daughter and directed her not to be free
with Inder Singh. Having been
prohibited from visiting Karam Singhs house, Inder Singh started
sending messages to Santosh Ranithrough Raju, a sweeper in the
house of Karam Singh. As desired by Inder Singh, Raju persuaded
the
minor girl to go with him to the house of Inder Singh. On
2nd
July 2012, Raju contacted Santosh Rani
for the purpose of accompanying him to Inder Singhs house. Rajus
daughter Sona by name, who
apparently was somewhat friendly with Santosh Rani went to the
latter's house and conveyed a
message that she ( Santosh Rani) should come to the house of
Raju at midnight. Santosh Rani as
desired, went to Rajus house on the night between 4thand 5
thJuly, 2012. Inder Singh was not present
at the house at that time. Leaving Santosh Rani there, Raju went
to bring Inder Singh, whom he
brought after some time, and handed over Santosh Rani to Inder
Singh. On the fateful night it appears
that Karam Singh was not in the village, having gone to Karnal
and his wife was sleeping in the
kitchen. Santosh Rani along with her two younger sisters was
sleeping in the court-yard, her elder
brother (who was the eldest child) was in the field. It was in
these circumstances that Santosh Rani
had gone to the house of Raju
On the following morning, when Chander Singh, brother of Santosh
Rani, returned from the field to
feed the cattle, she was found missing from her bed. Chander
Singh had returned to the house at about
4 a.m. He woke up his mother and enquired about Santosh Rani's
whereabouts. The mother replied
that she might have gone to ease herself. After waiting for
about half an hour Chander Singh went to
his grandfather who used to reside in a separate adjoining house
and informed him about this fact.
After having searched for her unsuccessfully, Chander Singh went
to Karnal to inform his father
about it. The father and the son returned from Karnal by about
10 a.m. The search went on till
afternoon but Santosh Rani was not found. The father, after
having failed in his search for the missing
daughter, lodged the First Information Report.
On 13thJuly 2012 at about 7 a.m. along with three other persons
and Karam Singh, saw Inder Singh
and Santosh Rani coming from the side of Dera. As they reached
near Dera, Karam Singh identified
his daughter and Inder Singh was seized and was taken into
custody. Santosh Rani had a bag in her
possession which contained one suit, a shawl and two chunis
(dupatas) which were taken into
possession. The salwar appeared to have on it stains of
semen.
After investigation Inder Singh, aged 32 years and Raju were
both sent up for trial. They were both
committed to the Court of Sessions.
Argue the Case.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
26/27
FOURTH YEAR
GROUP NO. 18
469 v. 472
477 v. 422
CRIMINAL LAW
Mr. Ashok Shah, Mr. Rajesh Singh, Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti
Kapoor, Mr. Sandeep Borse,
Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. S. Shaikh were the members of governing
body of a renowned
Jagran Public Charitable Trust (JPCT). Mr. Ashok Shah was the
Chairman of the Trust. Mr.
Rajesh Singh was a trustee by virtue of his post as Executive
Secretary. As per its objectives
JPCT was engaged in running of various schools, hostels and
hospitals. JPCT also owned
vast agricultural land and commercial complexes which formed
part of the income of the
Trust. Since the Trust property was spread in seven different
places situated in three different
districts, the trustees shared the responsibility of managing
various units called Station. Mr.
Ashok Shah was also responsible as manager of one such Unit at
Devnagar which had an
English medium school, a vernacular language school, dispensary,
agricultural land,
residential quarters, commercial complex and a hostel for 300
students. There was regularincome at this station in the form of
fees of students studying in school, agricultural produce,
patients availing dispensary facilities, hostel inmates and rent
of workers quarters and
commercial complex. The Governing body was divided into two
groups - Mr. Ashok Shah,
Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. S. Shaikh on one side and Mr. Manik
Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor
and Mr. Sandeep Borse on the other side. The latter was headed
by Mr. Manik Jain. Group of
Mr. Manik Jain was trying hard to get into power and therefore
they wanted to remove Mr.
Ashok Shah as Chairman of the trust. To achieve their purpose,
they incited Ms. Shruti
Kapoor to make allegations of sexual harassment against Mr.
Ashok Shah. On the other hand,
Mr. Ashok Shah and group came up with a plan where they made Mr.
Ashok Shah agree to
write a suicide note alleging Mr. Manik Jain and group
responsible for his suicide. They put
up a drama of suicide thus fixing Mr. Manik Jain and group on
charges of abetment tocommit suicide. The Trust held an
agricultural land near an upcoming Special Economic
Zone (SEZ) and therefore the land got attention of many
builders. Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti
Kapoor and Mr. Sandeep Borse wanted to sell the Trust land at
the prevailing market price
but Mr. Ashok Shah objected to the same and as a result the sale
did not materialize.
Thirty people viz. workers and residents of Devnagar Station
reported to the Executive
Secretary Mr. Rajesh Singh on 10th October 2011 that Mr. Ashok
Shah as a manager of the
station was engaged in embezzlement of funds. They pointed out
that he had taken illegal
gratification from the parents to get their children admitted in
schools and hostels. He had
sold away chunk of agricultural produce and had not submitted
the amount to Trusts fund.
Similarly, they pointed out that Mr. Ashok Shah had regularly
collected house rent and rentfrom the tenants of commercial complex
and had not remitted the amount to Trusts treasury.
This News was flashed widely in local media.
After receiving the written complaint, the Executive Secretary
brought the matter to the
notice of the Chairman Mr. Ashok Shah and informed him that
since he is having a written
complaint against him, he will have to bring the matter in front
of Governing body to be held
on 12thNovember 2011. He further requested Mr. Ashok Shah to
clear the matter before the
meeting so that his image was not tarnished. All Members of
Governing Body unanimously
supported Mr. Ashok Shah and issued a letter to Mr. Rajesh Singh
condemning the
allegations and supporting Mr. Ashok Shah.
-
8/12/2019 4th Year Moot (1)
27/27
FOURTH YEAR
On 5thNovember 2011, Mr. Ashok Shah wrote a letter and kept the
same in his office drawer.
The letter contained the statement that in case of his death,
Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti
Kapoor, Mr. Sandeep Borse should be held responsible for his
death. According to the letter,
they had been the mastermind behind the complaint and done with
sole intention to defame
him.
Early morning on 12thNovember 2011, Mr. Ashok Shah was found
hanging from the roof in
the rear room of his house with its main door not latched. On
the basis of preliminary
investigation, police prima facie assumed that he had committed
suicide. Based on the note
found in his office drawer police filed a charge sheet against
Mr. Manik Jain, Mr. Sandeep
Borse, Ms. Shruti Kapoor. They were alleged to have committed an
offence u/s. 306 read
with Sec. 34 of IPC. The Trial Court convicted Mr. Manik Jain,
Ms. Shruti Kapoor and Mr.
Sandeep Borse.
Being aggrieved by the conviction, they preferred an appeal to
the High Court of Gujarat.
