R VIII R

BEFORE THE HONBLE

SUPREME COURT OF
ESSOS
XYZ v. UNION OF
ESSOS and OTHERS.

MEMORIAL FOR
RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of authorities
Statement of facts
Statement of jurisdiction
Issues for consideration
Summary of arguments
Written submissions
Prayer for relief.

INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Essos is a country in Southern Asia. The people are educationally and economically
sound and have reasonable sense of judgement. The nation of Essos boasts of a very
developed healthcare sector and also claim itself to have one of the best health standards
in the world.
2. The legally permissible age for consuming alcohol in the country of Essos is 21 years and
roughly forty percent of the population indulges in frequent drinking in their leisure time.
3. Wines of Winterfell is a alcohol conglomerate and is valued at approx. $850 million. And
its specialty is Plenders Bride.
4. Plenders Bride came with a warning on its carton which read, the pleasure of Plenders
Bride can cause deleterious effects on your health. But its sales went unaffected.
5. Essos Institute of Health Sciences (EIHS) is an institute of national eminence. In its study
brought forth an alarming rise in a Kidney related disease known as Renal Calculus. In
the past two years it had overshot exponentially.
6. Upon a detailed study conducted in April 2014, it was concluded majority of all patients
were regular consumers of alcohol. There was a steep and continuous rise in the number
of people suffering and it was found to have risen by almost forty percent in the past two
years.
7. The Center for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, an eminent body consisting of scientist and
researchers of international repute collaborated with EIHS and conducted a study to find
the cause of the alarming rise in disease.
8. Upon knowing the major cause to be alcohol a detailed study of different brands and after
6 months the sample of Plenders Bride was found to be toxic. It had significant amount
of metal oxide possibly of the pipelines of distillery.
9. Once the report was made public many civil suit were filed before different courts. Some
were disposed of, while others failed to yield. Seeing this public spirited lawyer filed a
Public Interest Litigation before the Honble SC of Essos which was admitted by the SC
for hearing.

STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION
The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the
petition filed before the Honble Supreme Court of Essos. The petition
invokes its Jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution of Essos which
reads as followsRight to move to Supreme Court by appropriate proceeding for the
enforcement of the rights conferred under this part is guaranteed.

ISSUES FOR
CONSIDERATION
Issue 1
Whether the PIL filed is maintainable before the Honble supreme
court of Essos
Issue 2
Whether there was any negligence on the part of the respondent
Issue 3
Whether the report filed by Center for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies
is credible.
Issue 4
Whether putting a warning over the carton of the liquor exempts the
parent company from any liability.
Issue 5
Whether there was negligence on the part of plaintiff which
contributed to damage.

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS
1. The PIL filed before the honble Supreme Court is not Maintainable.
The PIL filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because. Firstly, there was no
infringement of any Fundamental right. Secondly, the writ is not maintainable as the
aggrieved persons were self sufficient to move to court. Also, the cases were already
decided by lower courts which disqualifies a PIL for them.

2. There was no negligence on the part of the defendant.

There was no negligence on the part of Wines of Winterfell as Firstly, the distillery
was regularly checked, maintained, and regular quality checks of the products were
done. Secondly, excessive Alcohol intake instead of metal oxide is responsible for Renal
Calculus.
3. The report submitted by The Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies is not credible
and can not be the sole basis for plaint.
The Center for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies is a private body and hence its report can be
vulnerable. Further there are some doubts left in the report.
4. Putting a warning over the carton by the company exempts it from the liability.
Putting a warning over the carton of the liquor explaining the harm and possible
consequences paves way for the defence of volenti non fit injuria.
5. Plaintiff them self contributed to the damages amounting to Contributory
negligence

WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
1.

The PIL filed before the Honble Supreme Court is

not Maintainable
The PIL filed before the Honble Supreme Court is not maintainable because (A) There was not
infringement of any Fundamental Right, (B) All the cases were previously decided which makes
the PIL non maintainable, (C) also, the aggrieved party was from nowhere were restricted or had
any disability in approaching the court for redressal
.(A) THERE WAS NO INFRINGEMENT OF ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
It is established 1 that a PIL is an extraordinary relief granted when any person 2 under bona
fide intention reaches SC or HC for a matter in which he has no private interest and that matter
affects public at large. A person can approach Supreme Court directly under article 32 only when
a question regarding Fundamental right is involved3 or where the litigation is initiated for the
benefit of poor or unprivileged 4 and even in that case it can file a case against the state only not
on a private party. In this case no fundamental right was infringed of anyone
Supreme Court has laid Emphasis on the aspect of Article 32 in the Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v.
Union of india5 as follows
It is well settled that, the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court
under Article 32 is an important and integral part of Indian Constitution
but a violation of fundamental right is the sine quo non for seeking
enforcement of those rights by the Supreme Court. In order to
establish the violation of a Fundamental Right, the court has to
consider the direct and inevitable consequences of the action which is
sought to be remedied or the guarantee which is sought to be
enforced.

(B) ALL THE CASES WERE PREVIOUSLY DECIDED

All the cases in question were already decided by the lower courts, in some cases
compensation were awarded while this was not the case in others. In Joydeep Mukharjee v. State
of West Bengal6 Supreme court clearly stated that the cases already settled and finalized
cannot be reintroduced in a PIL. Hence the PIL is liable to be dismisses as first the cases need
to go through the hierarchy of courts in appeal then they can reach Supreme Court.

(C) THE AGGREIVED PARTY WERE COMPETENT TO REACH COURT ON THEIR

OWN
The person filing the PIL can only file if the other person(s) for whom he is filing the case is/ are
unable to approach the court owing to
i)
ii)

Such person being in custody7

Such person belong to a class or group of a person who are in a disadvantaged postion
on account of poverty, disability or other social or economical impediment and are
unable to enforce their rights8
As the people of Essos are educationally and economically sound hence they belong
to none of the above category and are therefore out of the ambit of PIL.

2.

THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE

PART OF THE DEFENDANT.
There was no negligence on the part of the defendant Wines of Winterfell as the
(A) The distillery (Still) used in the facility is of latest technology used by other
whiskey companies, (B) Regular alcohol intake instead of metal oxide is responsible
for the Renal Calculus.
(A) The Still (distillery) which was used in the in the Production of Plenders
Bride is one of the latest model which is also used by all other Whiskey
producing companies. Its outer body is made up of stainless steel with copper
innards (piping, are lined with copper along with copper plate inlays along
Still walls). This combination of metal is much cheaper as it prevents erosion
of the entire vessel and and lower copper level in the waste product which is
later processed to become animal feed.
All copper Still requires repair about every eight years because of the copper
erosion from the compounds it is designed to remove, this erosion is therefore
unavoidable but that erosion is in very less quantity which does not affect
human health and is under constant check.

(B) Humans have efficient mechanism to regulate the copper quantity in the body
but sometimes excess copper intake in the body leads to COPPER TOXICITY.
The intake of Copper Oxide also contributes to Copper Toxicity. It can cause
damage to Central Nervous System, Liver and to KIDNEY also but Copper
Toxicity causes RENAL PAPILARY NECROSIScit not RENAL CALCULUS,
in this disease all renal papillae die.
Although it has been found that drinking alcohol like Beer in limited quantity
can help in Renal Calculus but having distilled spirit like whiskey on a
regular basis can lead to increased risk of developing Gout, and chronic and
untreated Gout can lead to Kidney stones. It also acts as a catalyst if a person
is already having kidney stones.
If one takes too much Alcohol and lesser quantity of other liquids, one can
dehydrate. Dehyration leads to more concentrated urine, allowing substances
to collect into Kidney stones.
Alcohols, particularly Grain Alcohol (whiskey) are high in a substance called Purine. Uric Acid
is produced when body breaks down Purines. Normally, Uric Acid is excreted in Urine but when
Purines is consumed in excess quantity uric acid can accumulate in kidney as Uric Acid Kidney
Stones.
3.

The report submitted by The Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies is not
credible and can not be the sole basis for complaint.

Anything which is private can be buyable when it comes to competition at

such level. The reputation of our company is questioned so as to give a bad
name to our trusted and booming industry.

As stated, 50% of all inebriants consumed were under our brand. We have a
major foothold in the market. So, it is quite obvious for a third party (other
alcohol brands) to vandalise our reputation for an upper hand in the market
as they were desperate to get hold of market.

Ours is a $850mn company and as PB arrived in market it took the market by

storm, demolishing every other companys dream of selling their top notch
products of alcohol. So, the reports by TCTA can be placed under radar and is
cannot be held credible in the Court of Law due to the above reasons.

1. Putting a warning over the carton by the company exempts it from the liability.
People of Essos are of sound mind and have a fair sense of Judgement as to what is right and the
other way round. Their Health care is at its zenith as we can conclude from the above stated
facts.
So we can clearly conclude that a warning\caution clearly exempts our company from any fault
or liability thereof.
Excessive of anything is harmful and alcohol surely is tempting enough but one cannot rule out
the problems and detrimental effects of it on our health. When it comes to Alcohol and our
company connection, we took proper caution and put up a warning Deleterious effect on health
which clearly indicates that it will effect in the long run, anyhow. Even though people voluntarily
took this inebriant. Many studies prove the above stated fact of alcohol being harmful. (footnote
needed)
If a sound mind person is not observant and vigilant towards oneself , why our company should
be liable for a fault which we havent committed and even though we took proper measures to
avoid any liability on our part. Why should one pay for someone elses fault?

PRAYER FOR
RELIEF
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most humbly and
respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court may adjudge and declare that:
1. PIL should be dismissed.
2. A Special Investigation Team monitored by Honble Judges should be brought up and
asked to look into the matter of the oxides concerned and bring out the true facets of the
case.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.