MOOT PROPOSITION -1

Mr. Fena v. Mr. Umesh

At 10.00 a.m. on Monday, June 5th, Mr. Umesh, the managing director of Tata Ltd., sent a telex
to Mr. Fena, a regular customer, offering to sell him a rare vintage car for 50 LAKHS. On
receiving the telex Mr. FENA immediately writes a letter of acceptance to Mr. UMESH which is
posted at 1.00 p.m. Mr. Fena puts a incorrect address on the letter and it never arrives. Worried
that the letter may be delayed in the post and that he didn’t address it correctly, Mr. Fena
subsequently sends a telex accepting the offer at 9.00 a.m. on Tuesday morning, June 6th.
Mr. Umesh is late arriving at work that day and fails to notice the telex. During the day he
receives another offer of 60 lakhs for the car from Mr. Sunet.
He telexes a revocation to Mr. Fena at 5.30 p.m. on the evening of June 6th knowing that Mr.
Fena’s office is closed between 5.00 p.m. and 9.00 a.m. Mr. Fena receives the revocation telex at
9.00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 7th. Mr. Umesh receives Mr. Fena’s telex at 9.30 a.m. on the
same day, June 7th. Mr. Umesh refuses to sell the car to Mr. Fena, who is now suing him for
breach of contract.
Allotted To:
14146-15001
15006-15007
15012-15015
15020-15028
 MOOT PROPOSITION -2
Mark Sentriz& Co. (MS) …… Petitioner
V.
Nero Motors Limited …… Respondent
1. Nero Motors Limited (“the Company”) was incorporated in the year 1991 in the State of
Punjab with an object of carrying on the business of manufacturing motorized bicycles.
The paid-up share capital of the company was 180 million comprising of 18 million
shares of Rs. 10 each. The Company initially made a foray into manufacturing motorized
bicycles and later into the two wheeler sports bike segment in India. In 2010, there was
an unprecedented growth in the bike segment, which led the Company to invest heavily
in that division.
2. With the focus shifting to bike segment, the bicycles business was largely neglected and
contributed a very insignificant share to total revenues. At times, the Board of directors
even considered discontinuing the bicycles business. However, the proposal was always
thwarted by a few senior members of the management popularly known as the Sidhu
group, being headed by the one of the promoters, N. Sidhu. This group did not subscribe
to the new-age philosophy of sports bike but believed that bicycles, as a form of medium
of transportation, still had the widest possible reach in the country and therefore, the
business had to be nurtured and revived.
3. At that time, one of the biggest problems faced by the industry in general, and the
Company in particular, was the rate of attrition amongst employees. The difficulty in
retaining employees was more pronounced in the bicycles business and this led the Sidhu
group to moot the proposal of engaging Human Resource Consultants to address the
problem of attrition in the company. When the matter was brought up in the Board
Meeting held in October 2012, the directors responsible for managing the bikes business
opposed the suggestion contending that it would involve heavy investment with no
commensurate tangible/perceivable benefits. After heated discussions, it was finally
resolved that Consultants would be engaged for the entire company (not just the bicyles
business) on an experimental basis for a period of 2 years initially, with an option for
renewals every two years. It was further resolved that the entire amount of consultancy
fees would be paid out of the annual budgetary allocation made to the Bicycles Division
and would constitute expenses of the Bicycles business. Accordingly, a consultancy
contract was entered into in December 2012 with a renowned Italian company Mark
Sentriz& Co. (MS) which specialized in recruitment consultancy and employee retention
programmes.
4. Some relevant clauses of the consultancy contract are reproduced below: Reorganization
Clause: “(a) …. (b) The Company agrees that no reorganization of business shall take
place without notice to the Consultant. Provided that the consent of the Consultant shall
not be required where no payments under the Contract are outstanding/due to the
Consultant as on the date of sanction of the scheme for reorganization.” Payment Clause-
 “While the services may be delivered to different divisions separately and the
Consultant’s fees and bills would be raised as a lump sum (giving a break-up of fees for
each division), the payment would be made as a lumpsum without any demarcation of the
amounts attributable to each division”. Dispute Resolution Clause: “Any dispute arising
out of or in connection with this contract shall be referred to arbitration by a panel of
three arbitrators with one arbitrator appointed by each party, who will in turn agree upon
the third arbitrator. The place of arbitration shall be Singapore and the language of
arbitration shall be English.”
5. In the beginning of the year 2013, it was finally decided to hive off the bicycles business
into a separate company under the Sidhu group and a demerger proposal was accordingly
drafted. With a revival in the bicycle users, perhaps because of PM Modi’s focus on
enhancing the human life style, it was believed that a demerger of the business to a
separate company with a focused strategy would have a positive impact on revenues and
also enhance shareholder value.
6. The salient features of the Demerger Scheme were as follows: (a) All assets, debts,
duties, liabilities and obligations of the Nero Motors Ltd. (demerging company),
appertaining and relatable to the Bicycles Business as on the date of demerger (Effective
Date), whether provided for or not in the Books of Accounts of the demerging company,
whether disclosed or undisclosed in the Balance Sheet, shall be the assets, debts, duties,
liabilities and obligations of Sprint Company Ltd. (Resulting company) and the Resulting
Company undertakes to meet, discharge and satisfy the same. (b) All legal or other
proceedings by or against the demerging company under any statute, whether pending on
the Effective Date or which may be instituted in future in respect of any matter arising
before the Effective Date and relating to Bicycles Business (including those relating to
any property, right, power, liability, obligation or duties of the demerging company shall
be continued and enforced by or against the Resulting Company only after the Effective
Date. (c) All contracts, deeds, bonds agreements and other instruments of whatsoever
nature, relating to the Bicycles Business to which the demerging company is a party or to
the benefit of which the demerging company may be eligible and which are subsisting or
having effect immediately before the Arrangement shall remain in full force and effect
against or in favour of the resulting company and may either be enforced as fully and
effectually as if instead of the demerging company, the resulting company had been a
party thereto or replaced by fresh contracts/deeds etc. executed by the resulting company
with the third party concerned. (d) Any statutory licenses, permissions or approvals or
consents held by the demerging company required to carry on operations of Bicycles
Business shall stand vested in or transferred to the resulting company without any further
act or deed, and shall be appropriately mutated by the statutory authorities concerned
therewith in favour of the resulting company. (e) Consequent to the demerger, for every 3
equity shares held in the demerging company, the shareholder will receive 1 equity share
in the resulting company.
7. After the Scheme was approved by 90% of the shareholders and 80% of the creditors of
the Company, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed an order on 22.05.2013
 sanctioning the Scheme without any modifications and a certified copy of the said order
was filed with the Registrar of Companies on 15.06.2013. Following the demerger, Nero
Motors Ltd. also shifted its Registered Office from Punjab to Delhi as most of the
directors of the demerged company were based in the capital.
8. While there were positive effects on shareholder value as a whole, the flip side of the
demerger was that the Sports Bike business initially took a hit due to the sudden absence
of senior personnel in the management of the company (Nero Motors Ltd.). This situation
worsened with the loss of a few critical contracts for supply of bikes. For the first time
since inception, the company reported huge losses for the FY 2013-14.
9. On September 12, 2014, Nero Motors terminated the Consultancy Agreement with Mark
Sentriz& Co. In December 2014, MS sent a legal notice to Nero Motors Limited
demanding the settlement of outstanding consultancy dues to the tune of Rs.150.26
million, being fees payable for the years, 2012-2013 and 2013-14 along with damages to
the extent of 75 million for premature termination of contract [current tenure of the
contract – 20.1.2013 to 20.1.2015]. According to MS, Mr. N. Sidhu, a member of the
Sidhu Group had engaged the Consultant to conduct market research in the Sports Bike
and Bicycles segments. MS produced written acknowledgements of Mr. Sidhu, which
evidenced the commissioning of the said services as well as an undertaking on behalf of
the company to pay for the same. MS contended that the amounts were admitted debts
and MS was entitled to payment of the same. Incidentally, for the years 2013 and 2014
till the demerger took effect, Mr. Sidhu had been heading the Sports Bike division.
However, with the demerger taking effect, he resigned from his directorship from Nero
Motors Ltd. and took over as a director on the Board of SPRINT CO. LTD.
10. By reply dated March 21, 2015, Nero Motors Ltd. merely responded to the demand for
damages and stated that the same was not payable as the termination was for cause and
the Consultant had not provided any services in the past 1 year. Subsequently, in April
2015, MS sent a demand notice under Section 434(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956 for
its outstanding dues.
11. To this, Nero Motors Ltd. sent a response stating that all liabilities/obligations pertaining
to the contract had been taken over by SPRINT COMPANY LIMITED and a copy of the
earlier legal notice had already been forwarded to SPRINT for necessary action. Further,
Nero Motors Ltd. contended that the sums claimed by the Consultant were for additional
services allegedly rendered by the Consultant and were in excess of the contractual fees
already paid to the consultant. The director, who had allegedly given the
acknowledgment was no longer with the company and had no authority to act without the
Board’s consent in such matters. No entries were made in the books of accounts, which
would amount to an admission of liability. In any case, the liability, if any, had to be
borne by SPRINT.
12. On May 15, 2015, MS received a response from SPRINT CO.LTD stating that only
liabilities relatable to the Bicycles Business were taken over and therefore, the company
could be held liable, if at all, only to that extent. Further, SPRINT disputed the said
 liability stating that the excess payment claimed was not a contractual liability and
therefore not payable unless admitted by the Company. As far as damages were
concerned, SPRINT disclaimed all responsibility for the same as it was an action taken
by Nero Motors Ltd. and Nero Motors Ltd. alone could be held responsible for its
consequences.
13. On July 5, 2015, MS filed a company petition before the High Court of Delhi for
winding up of Nero Motors Ltd. under Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the
Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the Company was unable to pay its debts. The
petitioners also filed an application for modification of the Scheme for winding up and
fixation of exact amount of liabilities of the respective companies towards the petitioners,
by virtue of its powers under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
14. Nero Motors Ltd. countered the petition on the following grounds, among others: (1)
Nero Motors Ltd. was under no obligation to pay the alleged debt, if any, as all
obligations pertaining to the said contract had been transferred to SPRINT COMPANY
LIMITED by virtue of the demerger. (2) Further, the alleged debt was one in respect of
which, a bonafide dispute had been raised by Nero Motors Ltd. (3) The machinery of
winding up was being used by MS to coerce the company into making payment of the
alleged debt, which Nero Motors Ltd. is under no obligation to pay.
15. MS’s contentions, among others, were as follows: (1) By terminating the contract, Nero
Motors Ltd. had confirmed that it was the relevant party to the contract and therefore, all
remedies for MS lay against Nero Motors Ltd. (2) There was no bonafide dispute, as the
liability remained undisputed till the date of demand under Section 434(1) (a). This
dispute was merely raised for the purpose of covering up the Company’s inability to meet
its payment obligations. (3) The Company was unreasonably refusing to pay the debt
without just cause and with malafide intentions and therefore, the Court could order
winding up in such instances.
15036-15037
15040-15041
15043-15050
15058-16059
 MOOT PROPOSITION 3

Mr. Timmy is a 17 year old boy resident of Patiala. He is a genius in the firled of Computer
Science and is always keen about learning and creating new things. One day while surfing the
internet he stumbles across an advertisement for freelance app development for company X.

Interested in the prospects, Timmy contacts the company whereupon he talks to Ms. Seema. She
informs him that for this, he will have to qulaify a phone interview which would be conducted by
the Vice President of the company. During the interview held on 2 ndAugust 2019, Timmy is able
to impress the Vice President with his knowledge and ideas and is successful in getting the
contract. This interview and all further correspondence with Timmy is recorded as per the
company’ spolicy. The company also has a policy of not entering into a contract with minors.
The company send s the contract by post to Timmy for his signature and he signs the contract on
13th August 2019 and posts it back, whichis duly received by the company. Timmy is informed
he has to submit a prototype of the app by 31st January 2020 and he also receives an advance of
Rs. 50,000 for the same.

On 23rd January 2020, Timmy celebrates his 18th birthday. Realising that he will not be able to
submit the same by 31st January 2020, he seeks an extension of 2 weeks on 30 January 2020 and
promises to submit the same by 15th February 2020. He further asks for Rs. 10,000 in order to
complete his prototype. Byt by then, Company X had already started further processing work of
the app and had also spent a lot on the related promotional activities. Already facing major
losses, the company is not in a position to give further tiem to Timmy.

On 14th February 2020, the company X files a suit for damages and recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs in the
Court in Patiala accusing Timmy for breach of contract.

Argue on both sides.

Allotted to:

15062-15065

15070-15077

15080-15081, 15089-15092
 Moot Proposition 4

Fanama NV (“F Co.”) is a global technology conglomerate headquartered in Kai Land. FCo. has
several subsidiaries in various countries around the world which provide technology solutions
and IT services. Mango LLC (“M Co.”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of F Co, and is
incorporated in Pinguland. M Co. is set up for the purpose of holding investments, and also
performs some back office operations for the other companies in the Fanama Group. M Co.
holds investments in companies in Westeros, High Garden and Essos.

2. Titan Pvt. Ltd. (“TPL”), a company in Westeros which is a captive BPO of F Co. F Co.
outsources some of its work to TPL, for which it remunerates TPL at arm’s length. Since 2016,M
Co. holds 63% of the equity share capital of TPL and along with some compulsorily convertible
preference shares (“CCPS”) which are convertible into equity on June 2017. The shares in TPL
constitute 63% of the global assets of M Co. in terms of fair market value. TPL does not pay any
dividends to M Co.

3. With a view to reduce complexity of the group structure and increase efficiency, the Fanama
Group decides to liquidate M Co. along with some other Group companies in different
jurisdictions. As a result of the liquidation, all assets held by M Co., including its shares in TPL
are distributed to F Co., which is the only shareholder of M Co. The liquidation is undertaken in
December 2017. On the date of liquidation, TPL has some accumulated profits, and the fair
market value of the equity shares and the converted CCPS is more than the accumulated profits.

4. F Co. files a nil return of income in Westeros for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The
Assessing officer issues a notice under Section 143(2) Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) requesting
for some further information in relation to certain points in its return of income. In order to
obtain tax certainty, F Co. also files an application before the Authority for Advance Rulings
(“AAR”) under Section 245 Q (1) of the ITA . The questions in the Application are broadly as
follows:

a) Whether F Co. is liable to tax in Westeros under the ITA in respect of liquidation of M
Co.?

b) Whether F Co. is eligible to avail of relief under any Double Taxation Avoidance
 Agreement?

c) Whether the Liquidation can be construed as an impermissible avoidance arrangement

under Section 96 of the ITA?

5. Before the AAR, the Revenue raises a preliminary objection on maintainability of the
application under proviso (i) and (iii) of Section 245R (2).

6. Further, during the pendency of the AAR proceedings, the Revenue issues another notice in
furtherance of the earlier 143(2) notice questioning the nil tax in relation to the liquidation. FCo.
raises this before the AAR questioning the validity of such move on the ground that an AAR
application is already pending. The Revenue’s defense for this notice is that the bar against
initiating further proceedings only applies in cases where the applicant is a resident. Further, this
question is argued before the AAR, and the AAR’s jurisdiction to decide this ground should not
be challenged.

7. The laws of Kingland are in pari materia with Netherland, the laws in Pingulandare in pari
materia with Mauritius and the laws of High garden, Westeros, Essos are in pari materia with
Hongkong, India and Singapore respectively.

Allotted to:

15098-15101

15102-15109

15112-15113

15123-15138
 MOOT PROPOSITION–5

Bye Bye Ltd is one of the top 50 publicly traded company substantially owned by Jignesh Bhai
and Motalal Bhai. Motalal Bhai was the Chairman cum Managing Director of the company. He
was appointed to these positions with the consent and support from Jignesh Bhai. However, soon
after his appointment a tussle began between the two parties.

The first issue that arose between the two was relating to poll funding. Motalal had proposed Rs
10 crore funding for state assembly elections in 2014. The logic given was that Bye Bye had big
iron ore deposits in that state. But Jignesh Bhai argued against the idea, citing the long practice
of Bye Bye of only contributing to parliamentary polls, and that too through a trust. The proposal
didn’t pass. Jignesh was unhappy that such a proposal was even mooted.

Another issue arose when Bye Bye Ltd made two different bids for the same government
contract through two different joint ventures. Jignesh felt that this situation made their company
a laughingstock. He felt that Motalal should have leaned on the two entities to resolve any
difference, and a single unified bid should be made. However, Motalal felt that he had done his
role by convening a meeting between the two joint ventures.

The third issue arose when Motalal proposed a tie-up with a pizza chain. Jignesh felt that such a
tie-up should have been done through a subsidiary and directly dealing with a pizza chain pulled
down the image of the group. Motalal felt that there was nothing wrong with this idea as Bye
Bye already had a tie up with a coffee company for packaging and sale of coffee in India.

All these issues added to a worrying picture between Motalal and Jignesh. Jignesh requisitioned
an Extraordinary General Meeting to remove Motalal Bhai as a director of the company. He
publicized all the issues, and it got full media attention as Bye Bye Ltd was one of the fortune
companies. An ill game of mud slinging began between the two in the newspapers and national
media. Motalal called Jignesh as an arrogant person and a dictator. Jignesh called Motalal as a
person with childish behavior and incompetent to hold the post of Chairman and Managing
Director. Ultimately, the resolution for removal of director was passed in the meeting.

Motalal filed an unsuccessful petition with National Company Law Tribunal against his removal
that was appealed in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal restored Motalal as the director of the company by rejecting the conduct of
meeting. No appeal was filed by the company against this order.

Now, Motalal has filed a suit for damages of Rs. 10 crores against Jignesh for defamation and
removing him from the directorship in state of Maharashtra. Argue on behalf of Motalal and
Jignesh.

Allotted to:

15143-15145

15147-15152

15153-15154

15158-15159
 MOOT PROPOSITION-6

Emerald Ltd was doing a business of packing and processing of agricultural products. Its major
business included procurement of raw material from farmers and sale to various government
corporations and government departments.

The shares of Emerald Ltd were listed on a Stock Exchange. The shares were partly owned by the
Government of Punjab to the extent of 12%. The remaining shares of this company were widely owned
by shareholders spread throughout India as follows:

S. No. Name of State %age of shareholding

1 Punjab 11
2 Haryana 12
3 Tamil Nadu 10
4 West Bengal 7
5 Maharashtra 9
6 Uttar Pradesh 11
7 Karnataka 3
8 Kerala 5
9 Others 20

Soon financial problems began in Emerald Ltd due to mismanagement and gross failure of
corporate governance. The farmers who were supplying there products to the company remained
unpaid for months together. Due to the worsening conditions, the State of Punjab passed
legislation that the financially weak and unstable companies having a center of economic
interest in the state could transfer their ownership and control without the sanction of Chief
Secretary of the state. The companies having center of economic interest were defined as the
public companies who had either minimum 10% shareholding in Punjab or whose shares were
partly owned by the Government of Punjab. The Emerald Ltd came within the definition of
financially weak and unstable companies.
Another company named Tamarind Ltd that was doing similar business became interested in
acquiring Emerald. It gave an open offer to all the shareholders of Emerald Ltd as it was
interested to acquire Emerald and then merge it into itself.

Now, the public shareholders of Punjab have filed a writ petition to declare the legislation passed
by State of Punjab as unconstitutional because they were interested in selling their shares.
Tamarind Ltd also joined the shareholders as it was interested in acquiring the shares.

Argue the case for the petitioners and the state.

Allotted to:
15166-15167
15172-15174
15175-15176
15177-15178
 MOOT PROPOSITION-7
Jaag vs/. Mook

In 1991 a war broke out between Jaag and Mook. Mook was supporting Reol but Jaag was
neither with IKava nor with Reol. Mook’s soldiers entered Jaag’s North-East territories and at
Hova Port. They were checked by Major Boshop. Due to problems in understanding the
language of each other Major Boshop thought that Mook’s soldiers threatening, hence he ordered
fire. As a result 22 soldierss and 2 colonols had died of Mook’s army. By taking a coercive
measure Mook sent another military contingent to the Hova Port that engaged Jaag’s Army. As a
result of this conflict Jaag suffered a huge loss of army, people and property. Hence, it expelled
the Mook’s Ambassador from its country.

Jaag’s plea

1. Mook is responsible for the incident hence is liable to pay compensation for all the losses
suffered by Jaag.
2. Jaag has acted only in defence.
3. Jaag did not violate International Law.

Mook’s plea:

1. Jaag itself is responsible for the incident.

2. There was no threat from Mook’s side.
3. It acted according to International Law.

Status of Case:Both countries have agreed to submit the dispute to International Court of
Justice.

Applicable Law: Relevant International customary Law, treaties between both countries if any
and General principles of international law.

Allotted to:

15179-15180

15181-15192, 15195-15197, 15199-15202

 MOOT PROPOSITION---8

Enaav vs/. Suukav

Enaav and suukav both are sovereign, republic and independent countries. They are neighbour
to each other and historically they were unite hundred years ago. Both countries have capacity to
use nuclear weapons and have strong army. There are many types of territorial disputes pending
between these two States. Many bilateral treaties existed time to time but territorial disputes
could not be solved despite the existence of bilateral treaty between two countries. A
commission was appointed to solve the boundary disputes.

The dispute took a new turn in 2001, when Enaav protested against the provocative speech of
the President of Suukav. The President of Suukav had declared in his speech that the people of
Suukav has the right to use its nuclear weapons against Enaav as the survival of Suukav is at
stake. Suukav has right to use its nuclear weapons against Enaav if the Sovereignty and peace of
its threatened. Ennav condemned that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is against the
International Law. There is no such threat from the side of Enaav’s side. All channels of peaceful
dialogues under the bilateral treaty which is between two countries in 1995 have been exhausted.
There is no specific International Law against the use of nuclear weapons at time when survival
of State would be at stake.

Status of case:

Both countries have agreed to submit the dispute to International Court of Justice for solving the
dispute.

Applicable Law:

Relevant International Law and bilateral treaties, if any.

Allotted to:

15203-15204, 15205-15206, 15209-15214, 15216-15217

 MOOT PROBLEM 9

RYAN Educational society is a registered society since 1980 and is running two colleges and 7
schools at Ludhiana. The schools and colleges being run by the society are imparting quality
education and one college and three schools are receiving 95% grant in aid from the Govt. of
Punjab. The said grant is being utilized for the purpose of paying the salaries of the teaching/non
teaching staff. The remaining one college and four schools are completely self financed and are
not receiving any aid from the Government. One of the school was allotted land by the
Government on concessional rates on account of the fact that the school would provided 30%
reservation in each class to economically backward students. Mr. Gaurav, who is the Ex-
Chairman of RYAN Educational Society and who was creating lot of trouble in working of the
society, was removed from the membership of the society and hence he started moving false and
frivolous complaint against the society and the staff to various authorities. Mr. Gaurav files an
application under RTI Act, 2005 to the principal of one of the unaided school under the society
which was working on self finance basis to the effect that he needs the copies of the accounts and
balance sheets of the school for the past 6 years. The RTI Application was rejected by the school
on the ground that they are not public authority within the definition of RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved, Mr. Gaurav files an appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Punjab State
Information Commission alleging that the society is receiving 95% grant in aid from the
Government and is also owning land provided on concessional rates by the Government and
hence, the society be declared a public authority. The appeal is allowed and RYAN Educational
society is declared a public authority under RTI Act, 2005 and is directed to furnish requisite
information to Mr. Gaurav. RYAN Educational Society has challenged the order in appeal before
the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

ARGUE THE CASE.

15219-15221, 15223-15224, 15226-15233, 15241-15243

 MOOT PROBLEM-10

Jasmine, a single girl child of her parents was a resident of Model Town, Patiala. She was very
soft-spoken and emotional. She was overpampered by her father Joginder Singh. When she was
in Tenth standard, she had failed in two subjects then she cut the vein of her left hand.

At the age of 23 she was married to Fateh Singh in November, 2017 in Rajpura. She died on 25
January, 2019, at about 2.30 p.m by putting kerosene oil on her body. The evidence established
that she died of second to third degree burns on the body, and there was sprawling of kerosene
oil on her body and the body was burnt by fire. She was brought dead by the neighbours to the
hospital.

She had committed suicide because of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws soon after her marriage.
she always complained that mother in-laws used to taunt her and insisted her to bring more
dowry and taunted that at the time of the marriage, her parents did not serve proper meals to the
in-laws and their guests. Her husband(accused) always tell her that they had been offered by car
etc. by other parties for the marriage while she had not brought dowry expected from her parents.
She was often openly threatened that she would be turned out of the house in case she did not
bring more articles and even insinuated that she was carrying 'an illegitimate child'.

On the other hand, Fateh Singh (accused) alleged that his wife had extra marital relations with
one of boy named Tejveer who was earlier her classmate in college days and baby boy was born
from that relation because at the time of marriage one of relative of jasmine told to Fateh Singh
that jasmine was not of good character.

Mother-in-law stated in her statement that she was lying in her house at that time and the
deceased was cooking food on a kerosene stove due to shortage of gas cylinder in the city and as
such the deceased caught fire accidentally. Soon after the incident she called her son and
husband and after that she made a noise and informed her neighbours. They took jasmine to
hospital but she died on the way.

According to these facts, decide the jurisdiction, legal points and argue the case from both sides.

Allotted to: 15250-15253, 15254