TEAM CODE – T038

SVKM’S NMIMS KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2019

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF VINDHYA PRADESH

W.P (Civil) No- ______/2019

IN THE MATTER OF

BRUCE BANERJEE AND TREEBACHAO NGO.................................................................PETITIONER

VERSUS

STARK PRIVATE LIMITED....................................................................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

FILED BY THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

00001
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL. NO DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5-6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

5. ISSUES INVOLVED 9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10-11

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12-19

8. PRAYER 20

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

Sec. Section

v. Versus

& And

Ltd. Limited

Pvt Private

Ors Others

Ars Anothers

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Amrit Lal vs Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1917 Cal 348

2. Balco Employees Union(REGD) vs Union Of India & Others, 2002(2) SCC 333
3. Chaman Lal vs The State of Punjab, 1970 AIR 1372
4. Sahib Singh Mehra vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965 Air 1451
5. Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co, 1952 SCR 36
6. S.P. Anand vs H.D.Deve Gowda , 1996 (6) SCC 734

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Vindhya Pradesh is vested with jurisdiction to hear the present
case under Article 226 of the Constitution of Zindia.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories.

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1),
without-

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the
plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High
Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in
whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall
dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received
or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or
where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next
day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of,
the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or , as the case may be, the expiry of the
aid next day, stand vacated.

5
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.

6
 FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Tony Suryavanshi, an industrialist was a renowned face of Stark Industries which was a
private limited company which was one of the new emerging manufacturers of leather in
Zindia. The leather manufacturing unit of the company was situated in Datia and it was
complimented by the Vindhya Pradesh government’s declaration to promote and propagate
industries operating in Datia and their promise to facilitate such industries by granting them
special privileges. It used to draw water from the river Narmada which is the sole water body
of Vindhya Pradesh and is responsible for ensuring water supply to the State.

Stark for decades, had relied on the services provided by Indophile Chemical Ltd. for the
supply of 30 gallons of Calvinol-100 which was necessary to ensure that toxicity is
completely rooted out from the industrial waste. Though not complete but sufficient
disinfecting of industrial waste can be done without the use of Calvinol-100. Mr. Bruce
Banerjee is the chief operating officer of Hush Kitties which was one of the leading leather
shoe manufacturers in Zindia and whose sole supplier of leather was Stark. Hush Kitties
signed a big contract of immediate delivery of 25,000 pair of shoes which amounted to a sum
of Rs 2,50,00,000 with TimmiSo on 11th July 2017. The order was to be delivered on 3rd
August 2017. Mr. Banerjee sent a request to Mr. Tony for the supply of required amount of
leather on 12th July 2017. He also spent a sum of Rs 75,00,000 on other raw materials and
paid it in advance as he was assured that Stark would do the timely delivery of leather.

A reminder was sent to Mr. Tony by Mr. Bruce for the aforesaid supply and Mr. Tony replied
that he needed half of the amount to be paid in advance and on 18th July 2017 the advance
was paid and the production of leather started. Indophile Chemicals Ltd. was informed to
supply 30 gallons of Calvinol-100 in the first week of July but they delivered 20 gallons of it.
Stark started with the production of leather to meet the deadline.

In the next few days, a drastic change could be seen in the vegetation along the banks of river
Narmada with fishes and aquatic animals of river dead and a thick layer of substance on the
river was visible. Seeing the change in the water quality, Mr. Tony paused the production of
leather unless the required amount of Calvinol-100 is not arranged and stated that ‘ safety is
of utmost importance’ even though he was reminded of the deadline as a result of which Mr.
Bruce lost the contract as he was not able to deliver the said amount of shoes and he was
shocked as he lost a huge amount of sum. Mr. Bruce posted a derogatory comment on

7
Facebook on Stark company which went viral stating that Stark were a bunch of liars, cheats
and thieves with no ethics and that it was the worst company and nobody should make a deal
with them and immediately after that there was a steep decline in the sales of Stark which
clearly shows that the good will of the Company was affected due to this comment.

On July 23rd 2017, some residents felt a sharp pain in the chest and were critically coughing
and splitting blood and were diagnosed of severe medical condition based on the conclusion
that they had been consuming contaminated water for a long time. Therefore, a Public
Interest Litigation(PIL) was filed by a NGO TreeBachao against Stark for releasing toxic
waste into the river and contaminating the water which affects the public at large and
destroying the local vegetation .

Being aggrieved by the conducts of Stark Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Bruce Banerjee and TreeBachao have
filed a petition before this Hon’ble Court.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

Whether the PIL filed by TreeBachao under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable or
not?

ISSUE II

Whether Stark Pvt. Ltd. is liable for the loss to Mr. Bruce and his company because of the
repudiation of the TimmiSo contract?

ISSUE III

Whether Mr. Bruce is liable for defaming the reputation and good will of Mr. Tony and Stark
Pvt. Ltd.?

ISSUE IV

Whether Stark Pvt. Ltd. is liable for voluntarily damaging the environment of Vindhya and
causing damage to the health and well-being of the people?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

In the present case in hand, Stark company is a private entity and its very well known that
PILs can be filed against a private entity only if the State is also made a party. However, in
this case the State is not made a party which shows that the PIL is not maintainable under
Article 226. The second thing based on which PILs can be filed is if there is a locus standi
which means it is affecting the public at large. In the present case in hand, only some people
had a pain in their chest and were diagnosed of severe medical conditions on the assumption
that they have been consuming contaminated water for a long time. However, Stark was
engaged in the production of leather for only 3-4 days after which they paused the production
and within those 3-4 days they were using Calvinol-100 to treat the industrial waste.
Moreover, as only some residents suffered from a severe medical condition it does not prove
that the entire public at large was affected and therefore, there is no locus standi. Hence, the
PIL filed by TreeBachao under Article 226 is not maintainable.

ISSUE II

In the present case in hand, Stark Pvt. Ltd. was dependent on Indophil Chemicals for the
supply of 30 gallons of Calvinol-100 for the production of required leather. However,
Indophil Chemicals were only able to supply 20 gallons of Calvinol-100 because of factors
beyond their control. Even though Stark started with the production of leather to meet the
deadline after sometime they had to pause the production of leather due to the lack of
Calvinol-100 as a result of which the contract between HushKitties and TimmiSo was
repudiated as they could not fulfil the order in time. Moreover, Mr. Bruce spent a large
amount of money on raw materials simply based on his own assumption that Stark will fulfil
the delivery on time. Therefore, Stark cannot be held liable for the losses suffered by Mr.
Bruce due to the repudiation of contract with TimmiSo.

ISSUE III

Stark Pvt. Ltd. had a very good reputation with the general public and its clients as mentioned
in the beginning of facts. However, after the comment posted by Mr.Bruce which was false
and defamatory in nature, Stark private limited suffered a tremendous loss of image,

10
reputation and good will. This can be supported by the fact that there was a steep decline in
the sales of Stark after the comment was posed and went viral. Therefore, Mr. Bruce is liable
for defamation as the comment made by him was false and defamatory in nature and affected
Mr. Tony and Stark private limited.

ISSUE IV

In the present case in hand, Calvinol-100 was the chemical used for disinfecting the industrial
waste water. However, it is clearly mentioned that though not complete but sufficient
treatment of industrial waste water can be done even without the use of Calvinol-100. This
shows that even though the amount of Calvinol-100 was used, there was sufficient treatment
of industrial waste water. When Mr. Tony noticed a change in the quality of water of the river
Narmada he immediately paused the production of leather and even though Mr. Bruce wanted
him to continue without the production he did not start and stated that ‘safety was of utmost
importance’. Moreover, some people who were affected, their diagnosis report was based on
the conclusion that they were consuming contaminated water for a long time. Firstly, neither
it is mentioned nor there is any prove that they were consuming the contaminated water of
river Narmada and secondly, it is clearly mentioned that it was caused due to the
consumption of contaminated water for a long time but Stark company stopped the
production after 3-4 days which does not support the term of consumption of contaminated
water for a long time. Hence Stark Pvt. Ltd. is not liable for the voluntarily damaging the
environment and causing damage to the health and well being of the people of Vindhya
Pradesh.

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I- WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY TREEBACHAO UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

According to Black Law’s dictionary, “Public Interest is something in which the public, or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything
the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question rather it should be
in the interest of the National government.”

In the present case, it is clearly mentioned that it is a private company and a PIL can only be
filed against a State and against private companies if the State is made a party to it.
Therefore, the PIL is not maintable under Article 226.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Anand vs H.D.Deve Gowda 1held that:

“It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a
waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not
plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to
spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues
providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public
cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to court
without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent. Besides, it must
be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked
information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent
to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights.”
Locus Standi means that the public at large is affected. In the instant case, some residents
were diagnosed of severe medical conditions due to consumption of contaminated water for a
long time. However, Stark company had paused the production within 2 to 3 days which does
not support the fact that it was because of them those people were affected as it does not
support the term of long time. In ‘some people’ the number is not defined and hence it cannot
be taken as a base to show that the public at large was being affected.

Furthermore, in the case of Balco Employees' Union (REGD) Vs. Union Of India And
Others2, the Court observed that:

1
S.P. Anand vs H.D. Deve Gowda, 1996 (6) SCC 734
2
Balco Employees Union(REGD) vs Union Of India & Others, 2002(2) SCC 333

12
“ In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the
Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by
the Government after due care and consideration.”

In this case, the setting up of leather manufacturing unit in Datia was complimented by
the Vindhya Pradesh’s government declaration to promote and propagate industries
operating in Datia and their promises to facilitate such industries by granting them
special privileges which means that such a decision was taken by the Government after
due care and consideration.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there is no locus standi
and Stark company being a private company, the PIL is not maintainable under Article
226.

13
ISSUE II- Whether Stark Pvt. Ltd. is liable for the loss to Mr. Bruce and his company
because of the repudiation of the TimmiSo contract?

When Mr. Bruce entered into a contract with Stark Pvt. Ltd. the contract to supply the
required amount of leather was possible.

According to Section 56 of the Contract Act,“ a contract to do an act which, after the contract
is made, becomes impossible or by reason of some event which the promisor could not
prevent, becomes void when the act becomes impossible.”

In the case of Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co3, the Hon’ble Court held that:

“We hold, therefore, that the doctrine of frustration is really an aspect or part of the law
of discharge of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of
the act agreed to be done and hence comes within the purview of section 56 of
the Indian Contract Act. It would be incorrect to say that section 56 of
the Contract Act applies only to cases of physical impossibility and that where
this section is not applicable, recourse can be had to the principles of English law on the
subject of frustration.”

In the instant case, Stark Pvt. Ltd. was dependent on Indophil Chemicals for the supply
of Calvinol-100 which was used to treat the industrial waste water. 30 gallons of
Calvinol-100 was required for the production of the required amount of leather for
which Stark Pvt. Ltd. notified Indophil Chemicals. However, due to factors beyond their
control Indophil Chemicals supplied Stark company with only 20 gallons and after the
consumption of the said amount Stark company paused the production of leather as
there was a drastic change in the quality of the river Narmada. The moment the 20
gallons of Calvinol-100 was consumed and further supply wasn’t provided the contract
became impossible.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that due to the
impossibility for performing the contract, after the contract was entered into, due to
factors beyond reasonable control, the contract becomes void and hence Mr Stark

3
Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co, 1952 SCR 36

14
cannot be held liable for the loss suffered by Mr. Bruce and his company Hush Kitties for
the repudiation of the contract with TimmiSo.

15
ISSUE III- Whether Mr. Bruce is liable for defaming the reputation and good will of
Mr. Tony and Stark Pvt. Ltd.?

If a company loses its reputation and good will due to the comments published or made by
another person or company then the person who had made such comments is said to have
defamed the company.

"The distinction between a tort and a crime, between a civil suit and a criminal
proceeding, may be regarded as of an elementary character, and the same wrongful act
sometimes gives rise to a civil as well as to a criminal liability. The purpose of the civil
suit is to compel the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for what he has unjustly
suffered, while the object of the criminal proceeding is punishment and the cure of what
may be called a public wrong.”4

In the present case in hand, Stark Pvt. Ltd. have suffered a tremendous loss due to the
comment made by Mr. Bruce and hence this comes under tort of defamation. It is most
humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Singh Mehra vs
State of Uttar Pradesh5, the Court held that:

“There was no evidence that the remarks were defamatory of any

particular group; that the prosecution did not lead any
evidence to establish that the defamed group had any reputation
which could be harmed; and that in any event the remarks were
for public good.”

It is mostly submitted that in the instant case, it is clearly mentioned that Stark Pvt. Ltd had a
very good reputation among the clients and after the post made by Mr. Bruce on Facebook
there was a steep decline in the sales of Stark which supports the fact that the post was
defamatory in nature as the reputation and goodwill of the company suffered.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chaman Lal vs The State of Punjab
6
held that:

“It has to be established that what has been imputed

concerning the respondent is true and the publication of the
imputation is for the public good. The onus of proving these two
Ingredients was on the appellant.”

Mr. Bruce in his post referred Stark Pvt. Ltd. as cheaters, liars and thieves but there is no
truth to it. Stark Pvt. Ltd. was dependent on Indophil Chemicals for supply of Calvinol-100.
Even though there was not adequate amount of Calvinol-100 still Stark company continued
4
Amrit Lal vs Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1917 Cal 348
5
Sahib Singh Mehra vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965 AIR 1451
6
Chaman Lal vs The State of Punjab, 1970 AIR 1372

16
with the rampant production of leather which shows that they were responsible enough to
make sure that they wanted to fulfil the order within the stipulated time and its good relations
with the clients is a clear indicator that they were not cheaters and had good ethics. Stark
took half of the money in advance in order to start with the production which doesn’t make
tem thieves as it is justifiable. Moreover, the inability of Indophil Chemicals to supply the
required amount of Calvinol-100 led to the failure of not being able to fulfil the order and not
because there was any negligence on the part of Stark Pvt. Ltd.
Hence it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the comment posted by Mr.
Bruce had no truth to it and was defamatory in nature. Stark Pvt. Ltd. suffered a huge loss of
reputation and good will and there was a steep decline in their sales and therefore Mr. Bruce
should be held liable for defamation of Mr. Tony Stark and Stark Pvt. Ltd.

17
ISSUE IV- Whether Stark Pvt. Ltd. is liable for voluntarily damaging the environment
of Vindhya and causing damage to the health and well-being of the people?

Section 24 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 deals with the
prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting water and the clause (1) under
the Section deals with what must be the standard provisions to be followed.

24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,—

(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter
determined in accordance with such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to
enter (whether directly or indirectly) into any 1[stream or well or sewer or on land]; or

(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream any other matter
which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the
proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a
substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.

In the instant case, it is clearly mentioned even without the use of Calvinol-100 there can be
even though not complete but sufficient treatment of industrial waste water can be done. This
clearly indicates that it was safe to let water into the river Narmada even without the use of
Calvinol-100. Moreover, under the clause (1)(a) of Section 24 of the said Act, the very
wordings of the section make it apparent that the mens rea of knowledge had to be
manifest in the person violating the said provision7 but in the present case Mr. Tony
Stark immediately stopped the production of leather when he noticed a change in the
quality of water of river Narmada and even when Mr. Bruce reminded him to continue
with the production he refused and stated that “safety is of utmost importance”. This
clearly shows that Stark Pvt. Ltd. did not voluntarily damage the environment.

Some people who were diagnosed with severe medical conditions due to consumption of
contaminated water for a long time. Stark company started with the production of leather

18
from 18th August 2017 and paused the production after 2 -3 days and this does not support
the fact that the people have been consuming contaminated water for a long time. The
diagnosis report doesn’t mention that the contaminated water was consumed from river
Narmada.

Hence, it is most humbly submitted before the Court that there was no mens rea on the
part of Stark Pvt. Ltd. to damage the environment and hence they cannot be held liable for
voluntarily damaging the environment and affecting the health and well being of the
people.

19
 PRAYER

In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

1. held that the PIL is not maintainable under Article 226

2. held that Stark Pvt. Ltd. is not liable for the losses suffered by Mr. Bruce Banerjee
3. held that Mr. Bruce is liable for defamation of Mr. Tony Stark and Stark Pvt. Ltd.
4. held that Stark Pvt. Ltd. is not liable under voluntarily damaging the environment and
health and well being of the people
AND/OR

pass any other order as it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience
for which the respondent in duty bound shall ever pray.

Place: S/d _______________

Date: (COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT)

20