LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Team Code:-102

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

OF

MANTE

CIVIL SUIT

UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908

‘IROL’ COMPANY PVT. LTD.

(PETITIONER)

VERSUS

MS. ISHIKA

(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF THE HIGH COURT OF MANTE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

1|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
PRAYER

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

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.
1.1 SUIT IS NOT FILED IN DUE REGARD OF SECTION 15 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPC), 1908.
1.2 ACCORDING TO DELHI HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT), ACT 2015,
DISTRICT COURTS OF DELHI HAVE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OVER
SUITS VALUED UP TO RS. 2 CRORE.

II. IS THE CONTRACT VALID OR VOID.

II.1 CONTRACT IS VOID
II.2 ISHIKA IS NOT LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT IS FRUSTRATED

III. WHETHER THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.

2|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOK AND REFERNCES

 Avtar singh, Contract & Specific Relief (Eastern Book Company , New Delhi),

12th edn., 2020

 Pollock & Mulla, The Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts (Lexis Nexis), 16th Edn,

2019

 C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 (Eastern Book Company),

9th edn. 2021

ACT AND STATUTES

 Civil Procedure Code Act,1908

 Indian Contract Act, 1872
 Specific Relief Act, 1963
 Indian Majority Act, 1875

ARTICLE AND LEGAL JOURNALS

 SCC Online data Base

 Manupatra,
 Blog.ipleaders.in
 Legalservicesindia.com

3|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

& And

AIR All India Reporter

V. Versus

C.P.C. Code of Civil Procedure 1908

No. Number

Def Defendant

ICA Indian Contract Act

Ltd. Limited

Sec. Section

Edn. Edition

Pvt. Private

Org. Organisation

SRA Specific Relief Act 1963

Hon’ble Honourable

Rs. Rupees

i.e That is

4|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 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.

Section 15 CPC 1908

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

5|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 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,
and she told him that she would like to give an interview to vice president of company
via a phone call regarding this, and eventually she was interviewed by Vice president
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.
6. But the company was not in capacity to give more time to Ishika as company suffered
great lose as the huge 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 due to non – availability of the prototype.
7. Finally, on 21st June 2021 company ‘Irol’ filed a suit of 2,50,000 against Ishika to
claim from her in Mante High Court for breach of contract

6|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUE RAISED

.
ISSUE 1 – THE PRESENT SUIT NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE COURT.
1.1 SUIT IS NOT FILED IN DUE REGARD OF SECTION 15 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPC), 1908.
1.2 ACCORDING TO DELHI HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT), ACT 2015,
DISTRICT COURTS OF DELHI HAVE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION
OVER SUITS VALUED UP TO RS. 2 CRORE.

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

2.1 CONTRACT IS VOID

2.2 ISHIKA IS NOT LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT IS FRUSTRATED

ISSUE 3 – WHETHER THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE

DAMAGES.

7|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

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.

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

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 competent 1 to contract under the Indian
Contract act, 1872.

ISSUE 3 – WHETHER THE COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.

It is most humbly submitted before Hon’ble high court that contract was void ad initio
as Ishika was minor at the time of contract and she was quite deligently working for
the completation of the prototype within the limited time frame. But unfortunately she
was not able to complete on time as because she ordered the hardware from China
which she couldn’t get on time as there was increase in covid cases in India which
resulted in frustration of contract and that is why she is not liable to give any kind of
Damages.

1
Section 11 of Indian contract Act, 1872

8|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ADVANCE ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1: Filed suit is not maintainable in the eyes of Hon’ble High Court of Mante.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court of Mante that this suit is not
maintainable in Hon’ble High Court due to following reasons-

1.1 Suit is not Filed 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 suit is not maintainable in the
hon’ble high court and should be tried by the lower subordinate court as Lower subordinate
have complete jurisdiction to deal with present case, it is competent to dispose this petition in
accordance with Delhi H.C amendment act, 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.

In the case Nandita Bose Vs. Ratanlal Nahata, 2 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. Bullayya3, it was 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. 1908 is merely an
irregularity. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908; 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.

2
1987 (3) SCC 705
3
A.I.R.1927 Mad.568

9|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Moreover, In the case of Nidhi Lal v. Mazhar Hussain4, 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.

1.2 According to Delhi High Court (Amendment), Bill 2014, district courts have
pecuniary jurisdiction over suits valued up to Rs. 2 crore.

It is most humbly submitted before Hon’ble High court that as Section 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. With the passage of the Delhi High Court
(Amendment), Act 2015, district courts have jurisdiction over suits valued up to Rs. 2 crore.
And this present claim is filed only for Rupees 2.5 lakh which is less than the pecuniary
jurisdiction of Hon’ble high court.

Hence, it is requested to this Hon’ble court that this case need not to be entertain by Hon’ble
High Court, as it is completely triable by the lower subordinate Courts by virtue of section 15
of C.P.C and Delhi High Court (Amendment), Act 2015 and permitting such it would only
amount to irregularities in order to provide justice and it will only overburden the Hon’ble
court as there are no special grounds to try this case by this Hon’ble court. It is most humbly
requested that this case is not maintainable in Hon’ble High Court, it should be transferred to
court of lower grade of Mante.

4
I.L.R. 7 All. 230 at 233 (F.B.)

10 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

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

2.1.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 competent 5 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”.6

In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of U.P7

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”.

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose 8 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.

5
Section 11 of Indian contract Act, 1872
6
Section 10 of Indian Contract Act,1872
7
In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of U.P
8
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1908) 30 Cal 539

11 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

In the case of Kashiba v. Shripat9 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.”10

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.11

Thus, the person incompetent to contract are:

a.)Minors,
b) Person of unsound mind, and

c) Person disqualified by law to which they are subject12

Age of majority under the Indian majority Act, 1875.

Section 3 of the Indian majority Act, 187513 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. Viswanadham14 it was held that, “as a minor cannot enter into a
contract, contract with minor is void ab inotio.”

In the case of Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit15, it was held that, “a contract is
specifically enforceable against a minor if he has reaped any benefit under the contract. Even

9
(1894) 19 Bom 697
10
Sanjiva Row’s Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, p. 649.
11
Section 11 of Indian Contract act , 1872
12
AVTAR SINGH, Contract & Specific Relief, 153 (2017).
13
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.’
14
AIR 1956 AP.
15
AIR 1960 Cal 65.

12 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

though a minor cannot enter into a contract, yet, guardian of a minor can validly enter into
contract on his behalf.”16

In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI17 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.”18

2.2 Ishika is not liable because the contract is frustrated

As in this case, the clause of force majeure is not present, section 56 will be applied. The
party contending that the contract is frustrated, has to prove that some unforeseeable event
has occurred which has made the contract frustrated.

Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 says that: “Agreement to do impossible act.
Contract to do an act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful.—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, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or
unlawful. Compensation for loss through non-performance of act known to be impossible or
unlawful.—Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with
reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not know, to be
impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation to such promisee for any
loss which such promisee sustains through the non- performance of the promise.”

The essentials of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:

1. Valid contract must exist.

2. The performance of the contract shall be pending
3. By the way of fact or law, the performance becomes impossible.
16
T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, p. 136.
17
(2008) 8 SCC 205.
18
Supra 5.

13 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Frustration of a contract means occurrence of an act after the contract is done, not
under the contract but lead the performance of contract impossible. Doctrine of
frustration is lighted by Section 56 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.

For the first time, the doctrine to frustration had its place in the case of Taylor v.
Caldwell19. In this case, an opera house at which the concert was going to held was
destroyed by the fire, it was held that the field on which the concert has to take place
is destroyed, the event becomes impossible to be held, it was held that if the basic
essential element of the contract, without which the contract cannot take place, ceases
to exist, the contract becomes totally impossible and therefore discharges the parties.

In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co.20

The dispute is concerned with whether the contract for sell of land came to an end and
got discharged because of the occurrence of the event which was unforeseeable.
Hon'ble Court had a view that the existence of such condition made the contract a
difficult one, but not impossible it was held that the performance of contract is not
impossible; therefore the doctrine will not get applied.

In Syed Khursed Ali Vs. State of Orissa and Anr.21, It was held that “it is clear from
the facts of the case that the agreement entered into between the parties became
impossible to perform as well as unlawful and, thus, amounted to of the same. 56 of
the Contract Act, 1872, as quoted above, does not cover every case of which, neither
of the parties is responsible. Giving regard to the nature and circumstances of the
transaction and implied terms, no doubt is cast in the present case that the
performance of the contract on the part of the petitioner became impossibility.”

In this case the doctrine of frustration is applied as because when contract was done
between the company named “Irol” and Ishika, neither of the party knew that Covid
will occur, but when Ishika, in order to complete her prototype, which was given by
the same company, ordered the hardware from China, subsequently Covid crisis

[1863] 3 B&S 826 

19

20
AIR 1954 SC 44
21
AIR 2007 Ori 56

14 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

increased in India, and because of this she was not able to complete her prototype on
time as prescribed by the company.
Counsel request The Lordship to discharge Ishika from any kind to liability as
because, firstly and most importantly, she was a minor, secondly , the contract was
frustrated which discharges her from any kind on liability, as she was down with
Covid on 20th April,2021, and as Covid is an inevitable disease , and it lives in the
human body for maximum of 14 days , and also this contract was of personal nature
i.e., it has to get completed only by Ishika as according to section 4022 of Indian
Indian Contract Act, 1872 as she was a computer science wizard and the prototype
can only be completed by her ,unfortunately she was not able to perform the contract,
but then also , she was trying to perform the contract as she demanded the extension
of 15 days to complete her prototype, this shows that she was diligently working for
the completion of prototype , but then also she was not able to complete her prototype
because of the non- availability of the hardware. Therefore, the Counsel is of the view
that Ishika should her discharged from any kind of liabilities and shall be discharges
from paying the amount claimed by the company for non-completion of the project
and the breach of contract.

22
Section 40 of ICA, 1872 , If it appears from the nature of the case that it was the intention of the parties to
any contract that any promise contain in it should be performed by the promisor himself, such promise must be
performed by the promisor. In other cases, the promisor or his representatives may employ a competent person
to perform it.

15 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUE 3- WHETHER THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE .

It is most humbly submitted before Hon’ble high court that from the arguments of the
previous issues brought up by the counsel for the Defendant, it can be concluded that the
defendant is not entitled to as:

• 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 and recovery by the Plaintiff is
simply nullified.

By referring to the matrix of facts, the Plaintiff had 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 prototype 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.

Later, the Defendant, upon realizing that he won’t be able to submit the prototype on
time on 21st April 2021, asked for an extension of time up to 5th May 2019. This

16 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

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. 5 th
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 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.

17 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court, to be graciously pleased to:

I. Declare that the suit is not maintainable.

II. Declare that the contract between the parties is void.
III. Declare that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the damages claimed.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the light of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience.

And for this, the Respondent, as duty bound as ever, shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

18 | P a g e