INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT OF TRIPURTHALA

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. ROHIT GHOSH..........PETITIONER

V.

MR.JAYANT ROY.....................................RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO HON‟BLE CIVIL COURT UNDER INDIAN

CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................5

LEGISLATIONS..........................................................................................................................5

TABLE OF CASES......................................................................................................................5

WEB RESOURCES.....................................................................................................................8

LEGAL DICTIONARIES...........................................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................9

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................10

ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....................................................................................................13

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES

FULFILLS ALL THE ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT?......................................................13

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER THE VERBAL CONTRACT ENFORCEABLE IN NATURE?. . .18

ISSUE 3: WHETHER JAYANT HAD MALA-FIDE INTENTION TO LOOT ROHIT’S

MONEY?.....................................................................................................................................24

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………..29
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PARAGRAPH

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Amend. AMENDMENT

Art. ARTICLE

CO. COMPANY

GOVT. GOVERNMENT

HC HIGH COURT

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

SEC SECTION

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

u/s UNDER SECTION

V VERSUS
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS

S.NO. PARTICULARS

1. Indian Contract Act, 1872

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Indian Evidence Act,

TABLE OF CASES

1. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt LTD vs Vinod Kumar Alag [AIR 1991 Delhi 315 ]

2. Bhagwan Das V. Giridhari Lal and Co.

3.
4.

4
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

WEB RESOURCES

Serial No Title Web Address

1 All India library www.allindialibrary.co.in/

2 Calcutta High Court www.calcuttahighcourt.nic.in/

3 Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.co.in/

4 Live Law www.1ivelaw.in/

5 Manupatra www.manupatra.co.in/

6 SCC Online www.sccon1ine.in/

7 The Wire www.thewire.in/

LEGAL DICTIONARIES

Serial No Title

1 Black's Law Dictionary

2 Dictionary of Law - Oxford Reference

3 Merriam-Webster's Law Dictionary: Legal Terms in Plain English

5
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner in the present petition approached the Hon’ble Court under The Indian Contract Act, 1872
and Indian Penal Code, 1860. The present memorandum contains the facts connections and arguments of
the present case.

6
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 10th January 2019, the Petitioner Mr. Rohit Ghosh and the Respondent Mr. Jayant Roy, under
the influence of liquor enter into an oral agreement.

2. On the same night of the party the respondent expressed his desire to construct a shop for which he
required an amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the petitioner. Upon hearing, the petitioner lent the required amount
to the respondent, then and there, to which the respondent promised to repay him by the mid 2020.

3. Further on 11th January 2019, the petitioner over telephone asked the respondent to pay back the
money at 2% interest to which the respondent was silent.

4. The respondent started the initial construction works which was completed by May 2019.

5. Further on 12th June 2019, the respondent’s father was admitted to the hospital TIMS and was diagnosed
with Atherosclerosis that required surgery, to which the respondent agreed. The respondent used the money initially
received for construction by the petitioner was used for the respondent’s father’s surgery, thereby exhausting all the
money.

6. The petitioner finds the respondent away from town for a long time. He tried to contact but could
not reach him by any means .Further the petitioner waited until 11th July 2020, expecting communication
from the part of the respondent but received none.

7. And then finally on 4th August 2020, the petitioner filed a case in the Civil Court of Tripurthala.

7
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES FULLFILLS ALL THE
ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE VERBAL CONTRACT ENFORCEABLE IN NATURE?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER JAYANT HAD MALAFIDE INTENTION TO LOOT ROHIT’S MONEY?

8
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES FULFILLS ALL
THE ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT?

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER THE VERBAL CONTRACT ENFORCEABLE IN NATURE?

ISSUE 3 - WHETHER JAYANT HAD MALA-FIDE INTENTION TO LOOT ROHIT’S MONEY?

9
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES

FULFILLS ALL THE ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT?

1. It is humbly submitted before the panel of judges that the general theory of law in regard to
the contract made by the petitioner affecting his rights and interests. To constitute a valid and binding
contract, both parties contracting must have the capacity to arrive at a reasonable judgement as to the
consequences of the transaction he is entering into, which was breached by the respondent. Also, the
present case involves no substantial question of law and inference is based on pure question of fact
which is entitled to be justice.

2. According to section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 “Every person is competent to
contract who is of sound mind. On 10th of January, 2019 both party to the contract, petitioner and
respondent met each other in a party where they were under the influence of alcohol.

3. Degree of drunkenness is therefore a question of fact, not law.

4. Moreover, even in law, mere drunkenness is not sufficient to dislodge a contract which is
otherwise

5. Here petitioner and the respondent drunk out of their own choice without any element of
coercion is valid contract. Law recognizes that the contract is valid.

6. A person cannot invoke his or her own “negligence” of “recklessness” to negate their legal
obligation under a contract.

7. Intoxication of a person does not affect their legal capacity to enter into a contract unless
against the will or fraud.

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER THE VERBAL CONTRACT ENFORCEABLE IN NATURE?

Oral agreements are highly enforceable in the court of law. An oral agreement is equally
valid as a written one .The legality of an oral agreement cannot be questioned if it falls
under the ambit of the requirements stated in section 10 of Indian Contract Act ,1872 .

This was substantiated by the Delhi High Court ,in the case of Nanak Builders and
Investors Pvt LTD vs Vinod Kumar Alag [AIR 1991 Delhi 315 ] ,whereby the Court that
held even an oral agreement can be valid and enforceable contract .Therefore ,in the strict
sense ,it is not essential that a contract must be in writing ,unless specified by law or the
parties themselves contemplate the reduction of terms of agreement to writing.

10
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
In the case of Sheela Ghelot vs.Sonu Kochar and Ors 2006 (92)Dr]498 Delhi High
Court observed that oral agreements are valid and enforceable and there could be no
dispute about it. Further for a contract there has to be some proposal and acceptance .And
for the oral agreement there should be some circumstances surrounding the alleged oral
agreement .No one can question the agreement as invalid .

As we see in the case of Alka Bose vs.Parmatma Devi and Ors [CIVIL APPPEAL
NO(s)6197 of 2000]the Supreme Court by coming to conclusion of the case observed
that how oral agreements are valid. It is not necessary that agreement should be written ,
what is more important that it should be within the Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act.
All oral and written agreements are valid if they full the conditions specified in section
10.

11
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUE 3 - WHETHER JAYANT HAD MALA-FIDE INTENTION TO LOOT

ROHIT’S MONEY?

8. The counsel on behalf of the appellant contends that the findings of National
Green Tribunal on merits are perverse and also the ban imposed on the appellant is
arbitrary in nature.

[3.1] THE FINDINGS OF NGT ON MERITS ARE PERVERSE.

9. The counsel on behalf of appellant humbly submits before the Hon'b1e court that
the newspaper clippings and the TV news report cannot be accepted as evidence as there are
high chances that such reports has been manipulated. The National Green Tribunal has
ignored the possibility of manipulation of the newspaper clippings and TV news reports
by the competitors of the appellant for personal gain and to ruin the reputation of the
appellant. The social media videos may be the propaganda of the competitors to frame and
defame the appellant. So, such report which has no valid standing cannot be acceptable as
evidence to pass an order.

10. In fiflJendro Sail V.M.P. High Court Bar Assn.’9 the editor, printer and publisher
and a reporter of a newspaper, along with the petitioner who was a labor union activist,
were summarily punished and sent to suffer a six months imprisonment by the High
Court. Their fault was that on the basis of a report filed by a trainee correspondent, they
published disparaging remarks against the judges of a High Court made by a union
activist at a rally of workers. The remarks were to the effect that the decision given by the
High Court was rubbish and fit to be thrown into a dustbin. In appeal the Supreme Court
upheld the contempt against them. Thus, we cannot totally rely on the newspaper clippings
without any valid standing of the report as we can see that the newspaper reports are filed
without proper scrutiny.

11. The counsel humbly submits that the judiciary has been critical of the overactive
and prejudicial reporting by the media. In the Labour Liberation Front case6 , Justice L.
Narasimha Reddy lamented the “abysmal levels to which the norms of journalism have
drifted.”

”Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Assn,(2005) 6 SCC 109.

60
Labour Liberation Front case 2005 (1) ALT 740.

12
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

12. The observations of Mr. Andrew Belsey in his article ‘Journalism and Ethics, can
they co-exist’) quoted by the Delhi High Court in Mother Dairy Foods & Processing Ltd V.
Zee FefeJfsis"aptly describe the state of affairs of today's media. He says that journalism and
ethics stand apart. While journalists are distinctive facilitators for the democratic process to
function without hindrance the media has to follow the virtues of ‘accuracy, honesty, truth,
objectivity, fairness, balanced reporting, respect or autonomy of ordinary people’. These are
all part of the democratic process. But practical considerations, namely, pursuit of successful
career, promotion to be obtained, compulsion of meeting deadlines and satisfying Media
Managers by meeting growth targets, are recognized as factors for the ‘temptation to print
trivial stories salaciously presented’. In the temptation to sell stories, what is presented is
what ‘public is interested in’ rather than ‘what is in public interest’. Thus, the product of
journalism which is the newspaper clippings and the TV news report cannot be held as valid
evidence solely on the basis of which the courts or tribunals can pass an order. Principles of
equity, fair play, and natural justice were violated as the appellant, who were adversely
affected by the bans imposed, were heard by NGT before passing the order on the basis of
such evidence.

13. In Sushil Sharma V. The State (Delhi Administration) and O r s —62 1t was held by
the Delhi High Court that:

“Conviction, if any, would be based not on media’s report but what facts are placed on
record. Judge dealing with the case is supposed to be neutral. Now if what petitioner
contends regarding denial of fair trial because of these news items is accepted it would
cause aspiration on the Judge being not neutral. Press report or no reports, the charge to be
framed has to be based on the basis of the material available on record. The charge cannot
be framed on extraneous circumstances or facts dehors the material available on record.
While framing the charge the Court will from prima facie view on the basis of the material
available on record. ”

Thus, appellant in the light of the above case contends that on the basis of media's report
the National Green Tribunal cannot conclude a case.

61
Mother Dairy Foods & Processing Ltd v. Zee Telefilms’IA 8185/2003 Suit No. 1543/2003 dated 24.1.2005.
62
Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors ,1996 CriLJ 3944.

13
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

[3.2] THE BAN IMPOSED ON PACMAN INDUSTRIES IS ARBITRARY.

14. The counsel on behalf of appellant humbly submits before the hon'b1e court that the
bases on which the order is passed by National Green Tribunal is invalid which also renders
the whole order as arbitrary.

15. The counsel on behalf of the appellant humbly submits that the use of Oxytocin
injections is done so as to lactate the animals. It has not been proven that use of such
injections reasonably can cause any harm to the animals or the content of its milk.
Oxytocin is an essential lactation hormone released during breastfeeding that causes milk
ejection and appears to have calming effect on mother. It is known that oxytocin is
naturally present in milk and is derived from the mother. Further, transfer of small
amount of labeled oxytocin from the maternal blood to milk has been demonstrated in
humans as well.63 It has been reported that the half-life of injected oxytocin is around
only 5-7 min in the plasma.64 Non significant effect of oxytocin injections on actual milk
oxytocin levels has been reported in Brown Swiss cows6’. According to the study,
oxytocin injections for mil let down have no effect on cow and its mil content. Also, the
oxytocin present in the mil is rapidly degraded during intestinal phase of digestion, thus
ruling out the possibility of its intestinal absorption and speculated adverse health
consequences, if any66. Therefore, the appellant has made a limited use of Oxytocin
injections considering its effect on the cattle which is beneficial rather than harmful.

16. The appellant contends that in spite of lacking the reasonable evidences, the tribunal
did not conduct any further investigation nor did it constitute any committee so as to present
a report on the matter. In the case of Anil Kumar Singhal & Others V. Union of India &
Others6’, on the direction of the National Green Tribunal a committee inspected the
industries around the Bagad River in upper Ganga region. The committee report pointed out
that the industries used fresh water for dilution, were dumping their effluents outside without
treating a major part, and thus causing huge environmental and groundwater pollution. On
the basis of the report the industries were shutdown.

6
'Takeda S, Kuwabara Y, Mizuno M. Concentrations and origin of oxytocin in breast milk. Endocrinol Jpn.
1986;33:82l-6.
64
Sagi R, Gorewit RC, Wilson DB. Role of exogenous oxytocin in eliciting mil ejection in dairy cows. J Dairy
Sci. 1980;63:2006-11.
65
Prakash BS, Paul V, Kliem H, Kulozik U, Meyer HH. Determination of oxytocin in milk of cows
administered oxytocin. Anal Chim Acta. 2009;636:111-5.
66
Indian I Med Res. 2014 Jun; 139(6): 933-939. PMCID: PMC4165007. PMID: 25109729.
67
Anil Kumar Singhal & Others Vs. Union of India & Others Original Application No. 501 of 2014

14
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

17. In the case of Shailesh Singhal V. State of t/P68, the NGT formed a joint committee
which filed a report on June 10 to the effect that only three of the 15 slaughter houses and
meat processing units at Mundakhera Road in Khurja were operational, while the remaining
12 were not operational.A huge quantity of municipal solid waste was found dumped on the
bank of the Mundakhera drain at different locations, said the report. And on the basis of the
said report the NGT gave its final order of banning the slaughter houses in UP.

18. In the case of Pramod Bahadur V. North Delhi Municipal Corporation’ 9, the NGT
constituted a committee comprising of NDMC, North DMC, SDMC EDMC and DPCC and a
directed to make a joint factual report. On the basis of this report the pig slaughtering houses
were closed.

19. The counsel on behalf of the appellant contends that the appellant has
lawfully obtained the license for the slaughter houses after complying with all the necessary
conditions under the Food Safety (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulations
2011 with FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India). According to the rule 2.1.2
(5) of Food Safety (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulations 2011, the
Food Business Operator ensures that all conditions of license as provided in Annexure 3 of
Form B in Schedule 2 and safety, sanitary and hygienic requirements provided in the
Schedule 4 contained under different Parts depending on nature of business are complied
with at all times. Provided that the Licensing Authority shall ensure periodical food safety
audit and inspection of the licensed establishments through its own or agencies authorized for
this purpose by the FSSAI. So, since the appellant are licensed the licensing authority has
been ensuring the audit and the inspection as a part of its duty.

20. The appellants contends that according to rule 10.4 of Food Safety (Licensing and
Registration of Food Business) Regulations 2011, the concerned Panchayats/Municipalities
responsible for local administration in the country shall appoint qualified Veterinary staff for
the meat inspection (Ante mortem and Post mortem inspection) or if regular staff cannot be
made available or deployed for the purpose shall make contractual arrangements for availing
the services of qualified Veterinary staff for meat inspection available with the Animal
Husbandry Depts. of the concerned state/UT in the country. This ensures the proper
inspection of the food. Thus, in the light of the above rules, until and unless there is a failure

6
'Shailesh Singhal Vs State of UP ,Original Application No. 341 of 2017.
69
Pramod Bahadur Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Original Application No. 639 of 2019.

15
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

on the part of the authorities of the state, we can presume that the appellant is not involved in
any of the activities which are violative of the laws.

21. Further the counsel on behalf of the appellant contends that the allegation made
upon the appellant is wrong which renders the order of the National Green Tribunal as
arbitrary.

16
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE PETITIONER MOST HUMBLY AND
RESPECTFULLY PRAY AND REQUEST THE HON'BLE COURT:

1. TO DECLARE THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THIS

HON'BLE COURT.

2. TO DECLARE THAT THE NGT AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

3. TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE PROVISONS OF PCAA IS ARBITRARY

IN NATURE.

4. TO DECLARE THAT THE FINDINGS OF NATIONAL GREEN

TRIBUNAL ON MERITS PERVERSE ARE ALSO ARBITRARY IN
NATURE.

AND/OR

GRANTANYOTHERRELIEFWHICHTHEHON'BLECOURTMAY DEEM FIT IN

THE EYES OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOODCONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND FOR SUCH ACT OF

KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND AS EVER PRAY.

(COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER)

17
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER