1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE
HIGH COURT OF MANTE
UNDER SEC. 15 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

COMPANY ‘IROL’..................................................................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
Ms. ISHIKA……..........……………………………………......................DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF FACTS
STAEMENT OF ISSUES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

7.1 THAT THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTANABLE IN THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT OF MANTE

7.2 THAT THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT AMONG THE PARTIES

7.3 THAT ON ACCOUNT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE PLAINTIF IS

ENTITLE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

v. Versus

C.P.C. Code of Civil Procedure

Com. Company

Def Defendant

ICA Indian Contract Act

Ltd. Limited

Sec. Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

NAME Page no.

M.C. Nagalakshmi v. M.A. Farook
Surta Singh v. Pritam Singh
Yanalla Maheshwari & ors v. Ananthula Sayyama

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh

Jagar Nath Singh v. Lalta Prasad
Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. V. State bank of India & ors
T.R. Appasami v. Narayanaswami
Hanumanta v. Sitharamayya
McDermott International Inc. V. Burn Standard Co. Ltd
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh
Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Tilak Raj Ranga
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vidyawati
Haryana Development Authority v. Suman Bansal
Gauri Shankar Prasad v. Brahma Nandsingh
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ruchi Printers

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

S.N NAME PAGE NO.

O
1. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
2. SPECIFIC RELEIF ACT, 1963
4. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ,1908
6. INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875

S.NO TITLE
1. Contract and Specific Relief, Avtar Singh, 12thedn.
2. The Indian Contract Act, Mulla, 8thedn.
3. Black’s Law Dictionary
4. Anson’s Law of Contracts, 29thEdn.
5. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Bare Act
6. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 Bare Act
7. The Limitation Act, B.B. Mitra, 12thedn.
8. Companies Act, Avtar Singh, 3rdedn.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for plaintiff has endorsed their pleadings before the Honourable high Court of
Mante under Sec. 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in which the Hon’ble Court has the
jurisdiction.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ms Ishika is a 17 year old girl from the City of Mante. She is great wizard in field of
computer science. She came across an advertisement on internet for creating freelance
software for ‘Irol’ company.

2. She contact the company regarding this opportunity. She spoke to Mr. Siddhartha,
Vice – President of Company regarding this, and eventually she was interviewed by
Mr. Siddhartha and then selected hence, she got the contract. This contract was
reported in accordance of the policy of the company, company had a policy of not
contracting with minor.

3. She signed the contract on January 16th 2021 and same was uploaded on the official
site of company. Company told Ishika that she will be paid Rs. 1,00,000 for
submitting the prototype on 21st April 2021.

4. For the development of prototype she ordered few hardware pieces from China.But
was unable to receive on time due to spike of covid cases in India which made it quite
difficult for Ishika to complete the prototype on time.

5. Now, on 23rd March Ishika turns 18, after recognizing that she won’t be able to
complete the prototype on time as she was down with covid on 20th April 2021. She
asks for extension of 2 weeks and promises to submit the same on 5th may 2021,
meanwhile she also request for Rs. 40,000 in order to finish her prototype.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

6. But the company was not in capacity to give more time to Ishika as company suffered
great lose as thehuge amount was spent on advertisement and other promotional
activities because of such delay, also the company suffered loss because it has to
cancel its meetings dueto non – availability of the prototype.

7. Finally, on 21st June 2021 company ‘Irol’ filed a suit of 2,50,000 against Ishika to
claim damages from her in Mante High Court for breach of contract.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE SUIT BROUGHT BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.

II. IS THE CONTRACT VALID OR VOID.

III. WHETHER THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE

COMPENSATION.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

.
I. ISSUE 1 – THAT THE PRESENT SUIT NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE COURT .
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the suit is not maintainable
as the plaintiff doesn’t has sufficient Locus Standi as the case should be instituted
in the lowest grade competent to try it.

2. ISSUE 2 – WHETHER THE CONTRACT IS VALID OR VOID. -

2.1. The Defendant contends in lieu of cited judgements that the contract was Void

ab Initio.

2.2. The plaintiff contends that there was a representation by the defendant as
regards to the question of competency to the contract which was a standard
form of Contract and thus the contract stands void as per section 65 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872.

3. ISSUE 3 – WHETHER THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE

COMPENSATION.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there was a breach of contract
as all the essentials of a valid contract was there but there was only partial
performance.On the part of the defendant. Time was the essence of the contract
but the it was not performed on the due date. Also, the company invested in
promotional activities, leading them to believe that it will earn them good revenue
if the prototype was made available on time as well as affecting the company’s
goodwill in the market. Hence it is humbly pleaded in this court of law to allow
the compensation to the plaintiff.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT

OF MANTE

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court of Mante that this petition should be
transferred to Dsitrict due to following reasons-
1.1 Petition is not made in due regard of Section 15 of Code of civil procedure (CPC), 1908.
NCT Delhi is fully competent to depose off this petion in accordance with Delhi H.C
amendment act, 2015 and Punjab Courts Act, 1918

1.2 Filed petition is transferrable to subordinate courts in accordance with section 22 of CPC,
1908.

1.3 Filed petition is transferable and application can be made in accordance with section 23 of
CPC, 1908.

1.4 Filed petition is transferable by Hon’ble high court in accordance of Section 24 (General
power of transfer and withdrawal) of CPC, 1908.

1.1 Petition is not made in due regard of Section 15 of Code of civil procedure (CPC),
1908.

Section 15 of CPC: states that”Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade
competent to try It”.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that this petition should be tried by the
subordinate court i.e. NCT Delhi. NCT Delhi have complete jurisdiction to deal with present
case it is competent to depose off this petiton in accordance with Delhi H.C amendment act,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

2015 and Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As according to this The Chief Justice of the High Court
of Delhi may transfer any suit or other proceedings which is or are pending in the High Court
immediately before the commencement of this Act to such subordinate court in the National
Capital Territory of Delhi as would have jurisdiction to entertain such suit or proceedings had
such suit or proceedings been instituted or filed for the first time after such commencement.

Sections 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, and Section 25 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918,
have been amended to change the original pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi
and eleven district courts in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Now, In the Punjab
Courts Act, 1918, as in force in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, in section 25, for the
words ‘‘rupees twenty lakhs’’, the words ‘‘rupees two crore’’ shall be substituted.

In the case Nandita Bose Vs. RatanlalNahata, 1987 (3) SCC 705, directing return of the
plaint, holding, inter alia, that ―once the legislature has mandated that the suit shall be
instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try, the same has to be adhered.

In the case of Suryanarayana v. Bullayya A.I.R.1927 Mad.568, SundaramChetty, J., held

that the trial of a suit by a higher Court when it is triable by a Court of lower Grade by virtue
of Section 15, C.P.C. is merely an irregularity. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, where
more than one Court has a jurisdiction over a matter, the case should be instituted only in the
Court of the lower grade competent to try it. The Sub Court being a Court lower to the
District Court in the hierarchy of Courts, the application for grant of probate or letters of
administration will have to be instituted only in that Court. But this is only a rule of
procedure. Therefore, Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code does not deprive the District
Court of its jurisdiction. 

Moreover, In the case of NidhiLal v. Mazhar Hussain I.L.R. 7 All. 230 at 233 (F.B.), court
stated that the suitor shall be obliged to bring his suit in the Court of the lowest grade
competent to try it. The object of the legislature is that the Court of the higher grade shall not
be over crowded with suits. The proviso is for the benefit of the Court of higher grade, and it
is not bound to take advantage of it. If it does not wish to try the suit, it may refuse to
entertain it. If it wishes to retain the suit in its Court it may do so.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Hence, it is requested to this Hon’ble court that this case should be transferred to NCT, Delhi
as it is triable by the lower court by virtue of section 15 of C.P.C and permitting it would
amount to irregularities in order to provide justice and it will only overburden the Hon’ble
court as there is no special grounds to entertain this case by this Hon’ble court. It is most
humbly requested to transfer this case to court of lower grade i.e. NCT, Delhi.

1.2 Filed petition is transferrable to subordinate courts in accordance with section 22 of

CPC, 1908.

Section 22. Power to transfer suits which may be instituted in more than one court.
Where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more Courts and is instituted in one of
such Courts, any defendant, after notice to the other parties, may, at the earliest possible
opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, apply to
have the suit transferred to another Court, and the Court to which such application is made,
after considering the objections of the other parties (if any), shall determine in which of the
several Courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court of mante that the case is completely
transferable to subordinated court in accordance with section 22 C.P.C, 1908.

1.3 Filed petition is transferable and application can be made in accordance with section
23 of CPC, 1908.
Section 23. To what court application lies-
(1) Where the several Courts having jurisdiction are subordinate to the same Appellate
Court, an application under section 22 shall be made to the Appellate Court.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court this particular case is completely
transferable in adherence of section 23 of CPC, 1908.

1.4 Filed petition is transferable by Hon’ble high court in accordance of Section 24

(General power of transfer and withdrawal) of CPC, 1908-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Section 24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.

(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing
such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court
or the District Court may at any stage-
(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any
Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or

(b) Withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it,
and-

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try
or dispose of the same; or

(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.

It is requested before this Hon’ble court that this present case is transferable in adherence of
section 24 of CPC, 1908.

HENCE THE COMPANY CAN’T FILE IN HIGH COURT.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

II. The respondent, Ms.Ishika is not liable.

The council on behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that Ms.Ishika, being of the age of 17 years(at the time of framing the contract)
was a minor and that’s why not competent1 to contract under the Indian Contract act, 1872.
The contract between the Appellant and the Respondent is void ab initio, as respondent was a
minor at time of signing the contract. Since minor entered into this contract which makes the
contract void agreement and hence, incompetent to contract.

Sec. 10 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 says that-

“All agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void”.2

In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of U.P 3

It was held that contract can only be made by major and contract by a minor is a void contract
in accordance with Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The age of majority of a person can be determined as “according to the law to which he is
subjected”.

MohoriBibee v. DharmodasGhose4 is a landmark case covering the scope minor’s

agreement. In India, a contract with a minor is void ab initio. In this case it was held that
minors are legally incompetent to give their assent , and thus the contract with the minor is
void ab initio.

In the case of Kashiba v. Shripat5 the case is of a 16 year old Hindu widow. It was held that
“her capacity to contract shall be regulated by Indian Contract Act, 1872 being the law of her
domicile and she being a minor was not liable under the bond.”6

1
Section 11 of Indian contract Act, 1872
2
Section 10 of Indian Contract Act,1872
3
In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of U.P
4
MohoriBibee v. DharmodasGhose (1908) 30 Cal 539
5
(1894) 19 Bom 697
6
Sanjiva Row’s Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, p. 649.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

According to Sec. 11 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Every person is competent to
contract to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject,
and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is
subjected.7

Thus, the person incompetent to contract are:

a)Minors,
b) Person of unsound mind, and
c) Person disqualified by law to which they are subject 8

Age of majority under the Indian majority Act, 1875.

Section 3 of the Indian majority Act, 18759 provides that a person is deemed to have attained
the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years.

Thus, the council on behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully presents before
this hon’ble court that as Ms.Ishika is of 17 years, she is a minor and thus incompetent to
contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

In the case of Latcharao v. Viswanadham10 it was held that, “as a minor cannot enter into a
contract, contract with minor is void ab inotio.”

In the case of RajubalaDasi v. NidhuramaPandit11, it was held that, “a contract is

specifically enforceable against a minor if he has reaped any benefit under the contract. Even
though a minor cannot enter into a contract, yet, guardian of a minor can validly enter into
contract on his behalf.”12

7
Section 11 of Indian Contract act , 1872
8
AVTAR SINGH, Contract & Specific Relief, 153 (2017).
9
Section 3 in The Majority Act, 1875
‘ Age of majority of persons domiciled in India —
1)  Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen
years and not before.
2)  In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day
and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that
day.’
10
AIR 1956 AP.
11
AIR 1960 Cal 65.
12
T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, p. 136.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI13 it was held that, “a contract must be entered
into by a person who can make a promise or make an offer. Else, the contract will be void
as an agreement which is not enforceable under law is void. Thus, minors cannot enter
into a contract.”14

13
(2008) 8 SCC 205.
14
Supra 5.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

III. THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.

From the arguments of the previous issues brought up by the counsel for the Defendant, it
can be concluded that:

• The suit is not maintainable as it does not lie under the jurisdiction of the high court,
by view of Sec. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

• Sec. 10 and Sec. 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly says that the Defendant
can’t be made liable as she was an infant, or incompetent to contract while contract
was signed and thus, contract is not valid and doesn’t comes within the ambit of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Consequently, making the contract void ab initio, and thus cannot be enforced by
either party. Since, the above issues clearly indicate that the suit is not maintainable
and the contract is void ab initio clearly indicating that there was never a contract in
existence between the parties, the issue for claiming damages and recovery by the
Plaintiff is simply nullified.

By referring to the matrix of facts, the Plaintiff had a major policies of not entering
into any contract with minors. Thus the facts shows that the Plaintiff had some
personal gain by not following the policy since the facts indicate that the company
was in extreme need of the protoype and also had an ulterior motive. The Defendant
was just a prodigy in the field of computer science and in usual situations, these sorts
of issues regarding hiring of personnel or outsourcing of certain projects are matters
dealt with by a specific department of the company like a social media department
and not by the top-level management of the company. In the instant case, the
interview was conducted directly by the Vice-President, this further emphasises that
the company was in extreme need of the prototype.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Later, the Defendant, upon realizing that he won’t be able to submit the prototype on
time on 21stapril 2021, asked for an extension of time up to 5 th May 2019. This clearly
shows that she was still diligently working over the project but the Plaintiff doesn’t
provide more time and additional sum of money (40,000).As the Plaintiff doesn’t
provided money for the making of prototype this shows that the plaintiff prevents, or
makes it impossible for the defendant to perform his part of obligation, that’s why
defendant himself has the option of voiding the contract.

Plaintiffs waited for 62 days post the original deadline before filing the suit, They knew it
very well that the defendant was going to hand over the prototype on i.e. 5th May 2021. The
only logical conclusion to this series of events is that the Plaintiff had a mala fide intention.
Since in the present scenario there was no misrepresentation by the Defendant as she was
extensively working over the project throughout the course of time and had no intention of
breaching the contract & dishonest intention towards the Plaintiff. In the instant case, there is
no question of breach of contract as there was no contract between the parties. The contract
was void ab initio as the Defendant was a minor at the time of signing the contract. In light of
the above arguments, it is pleaded that the demand for damages and recovery of a lump sum
amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (two lakh fifty thousand rupees) by the Plaintiff is unrighteous and
totally out of the line.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER