MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

MOOT MEMORIAL

Submitted to – MODI LAW COLLEGE

Submitted By – ANAS SIDDIQUE

MLC
1
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SARDAM,

STATE OF INDIANA
APPEAL NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S SAHIR & SAHIR APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF INDIANA RESPONDENT

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF

INDIANA
2
2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of contents……………………………………………………………………..…3

List abbreviation of ……………………………………………………………………..4

Index of authorities……………………………………………………………………..5

Statement of jurisdiction………………………………………………………………..6

Statements of facts…………………………………………………………………..….7

Statement of issues………………………………………………………………….….8

Summary of arguments……………………………………………………………….…9

Arguments advanced…………………………………………………………….……..10 - 14

I. WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT B/W M/S SAHIR &SAHIR AND Mr. SIDD
MAHESH?..................................................................………………………….10-11

I. WHETHER THE KARNAIL SINGH JUDGEMENT IS IN VIOLATINO OF MANDIRA

SAWHNEY JUDGEMENT OF 1993 OR NO?.............……………………………………...12

II. WHETHER THE CREMY LAYER EXECUTION” PRINCIPA KSHOULD BE EXTENDED

TO SCHEDULE CASTES (SCs) AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (STs) RESERVATION OR
NOT? …………………………………………………………..…………….……………13

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………………..14

3
3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All Indiana Reporter

ICA Indiana Contract Act
b/w Between
CPC CIVIL Procedure Code
COI Constitution Of Indiana
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
HC High Court
Sec Section
v. Versus
govt. Government
P1 Petitioner 1
P2 Petitioner 2
Hon’ble Honorable
Admt. Amendment
PIL Public Intrest Litigation
Ar. Article
& And
¶ Paragraph
u/s Under Section
H.P. Himachal Pradesh
FIR First Information Report
UOI Union of Indiana
r/w Read With
Sd/ Signed

4
4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

● Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose(1903) ILR 30 Cal 539(PC)T.R

● Appaswami Aiyangar vs Narayanaswami Aiyar AndOrs.(1931) 60 MLJ 117
● Ajudhia Prasad And Anr. Vs Chandan Lal And AnrAIR 1937 ALL 610
WEBSITES REFERRED
● https://www.writinglaw.com/case-laws-on-amendment
● https://Indiananexpress.com/article/cities
● https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/
● https://Indianankanoon.org/doc/1603957/
BOOKS REFERRED
● XINDIANAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY M P JAIN
● ATYLYA RATNA'S CONSTITUTION - ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION (CONSTITUENT
ASSEMBLY DEBATES, LOK SABHA DEBATES ON CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS AND SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS); VOL. 2: ARTICLES 19 TO 28
● THE CONSTITUTION OF XINDIANA, 1950

5
5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate legislature made by virtue ofpowers
conferred on that legislature by this constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the lawadministered in, any
existing High Court, and the respective powers of the judges thereof inrelation to the administration of
justice in the Court , including any power to make rules of Courtand to regulate the sittings of the
Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in DivisionsCourts, shall be the same as immediately
before the commencement of this constitution.[Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of
original jurisdiction by any of the HighCourts with respect ton any matter concerning the revenue or
concerning any act ordered or donein the collection thereof was subject immediately before the
commencement of this Constitutionshall no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction

6
6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.Sidd Mahesh, a sixteen-year-old prodigy and citizen of Indiana, won the "Sensational Voice of
the Nation" award. He was a talented singer proficient in various genres, including Rap, Rock, Hip-
Hop, Jazz, Classical, and Folk.

2. Sidd wanted to develop his musical career by releasing fusion albums and engaging in world
music tours. For this purpose, he needed a multi-purpose, ultra-modern architectural marvel that
would house his recording studio, a music theatre for live performances, and a rooftop pool for
hosting parties.

3. Sidd misrepresented himself as a major and put out a tender for the construction of the building
and provision of all amenities. M/s. Sahir & Sahir, a leading building constructor and infrastructure
provider, offered to do the entire work for an unrealistically low price of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

4. Sidd accepted the offer and entered into a contract with M/s. Sahir & Sahir. According to the
contract, the ground floor was designated for parking, the first floor for the music theatre, the
second floor for the recording studio, and the last floor for the rooftop pool.

5. M/s. Sahir & Sahir completed the construction of the ground floor and first floor but ran out of
money and materials for further construction. They informed Sidd that they couldn't continue
unless additional capital was made available.

6. Sidd had arranged a poolside party and invited influential individuals from the music industry,
hoping to secure funding for his music albums and tours. He requested M/s. Sahir & Sahir to
complete the construction of the rooftop pool using their own funds, promising to pay them as soon
as his album was released.

7. The rooftop pool was completed, and Sidd's party was a success. He subsequently entered into a
contract with Veenaghaana Producers, who agreed to fund his fusion albums and world tours. Sidd
told Ms. Asha Sahir, the manager of M/s. Sahir & Sahir, that she didn't need to worry about the Rs.
7,00,000/- owed to them.

8. Sidd's fusion music album turned out to be a flop, and he couldn't pay the Rs. 7,00,000/- owed to
M/s. Sahir & Sahir. Ms. Asha Sahir compelled Sidd to perform at her daughter's birthday party,
promising to release him from the debt. However, Sidd couldn't perform due to a severe sore throat.

9. On Sidd's eighteenth birthday, both parties decided to alter the contract. Sidd acknowledged the
debt and agreed to repay it in easy monthly installments of Rs. 20,000/-. He later claimed that M/s.
Sahir & Sahir had performed substandard work, estimating the cost to rectify it at Rs. 3,00,000/-.

10. Sidd decided to dispose of his property without paying anything to M/s. Sahir & Sahir. When
they discovered his intentions, they tried to pressure him to recover the outstanding amount but
were unsuccessful. They sent Sidd a legal notice demanding repayment within 15 days, but Sidd
didn't respond.

7
7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA
11. M/s. Sahir & Sahir filed a suit before the Civil Court of Sardam, Indiana, stating that they had
constructed the building as per the contract but Sidd refused to pay the amount, alleging fraud
against him. They also sought an injunction to restrain Sidd from selling the property.

12. The Civil Court of Sardam held that a minor's contract is void ab initio based on the judgment
passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. They set Sidd free from all his

8
8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE: I

WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT B/W M/S SAHIR &SAHIR AND Mr. SIDD
MAHESH
ISSUE:II

WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN MOHRI BIBEE V. DAMODARDAS CHOSE

NEEDS RECONSIDERATION

ISSUE: III

WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT OF SARDAM WAS CORRECT IN REJECTING THE PLEA
OF RESTITUTION?

9
9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: I

WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT B/W M/S SAHIR &SAHIR AND Mr. SIDD
MAHESH?

It is most respectfully submitted before Hon’ble court that the first issue to be considered is whether
there is a valid contract between M/s. Sahir & Sahir and Mr. Sidd Mahesh. M/s. Sahir & Sahir offered
an unrealistically low-price contract to Sidd Mahesh, who misrepresented himself as a major.
However, since Sidd Mahesh was a minor at the time of entering into the contract, the principle of
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose applies. According to this principle, a minor's contract is void ab
initio and the minor is not liable for any obligations under the contract. Therefore, the contract between
M/s. Sahir & Sahir and Sidd Mahesh would be considered invalid.
ISSUE: II
WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN MOHRI BIBEE V. DAMODARDAS CHOSE
NEEDS RECONSIDERATION?

It is most respectfully submitted before Hon’ble court that the second issue is whether the judgment
passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs reconsideration. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas
Ghose is a landmark case that established the principle that a minor's contract is void ab initio. M/s.
Sahir & Sahir may argue that this judgment should be reconsidered due to changing societal and
economic conditions. They could present arguments for a more flexible approach to minor's contracts,
emphasizing the need to protect the rights of the other party involved in the contract.

ISSUE: III

WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT OF SARDAM WAS CORRECT IN REJECTING THE

PLEA OF RESTITUTION?

It is most respectfully submitted before Hon’ble court that the third issue is whether the Civil Court of
Sardam was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution. M/s. Sahir & Sahir sought restitution, claiming
that they should be repaid the amount spent on the construction and amenities. However, since the
contract was found to be void ab initio, the court may have rejected the plea of restitution. M/s. Sahir &
Sahir could argue that they should be entitled to restitution based on the principle of unjust enrichment,
as they provided services and incurred expenses for Sidd Mahesh's benefit.

10
10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE: I

WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT B/W M/S SAHIR &SAHIR AND Mr. SIDD
MAHESH?

[1.1] the contract is void

[1.1.1] It is most respectfully submitted before Hon’ble court that M/s. Sahir & Sahir can argue that
there is a valid contract between them and Sidd Mahesh. Although Sidd Mahesh misrepresented
himself as a major, the contract was entered into based on the mutual consent of both parties. M/s.
Sahir & Sahir made an offer to construct the multi-purpose building and provide amenities, and Sidd
Mahesh accepted the offer. Both parties knew that the contract price was unrealistically low, but they
agreed to the installment payment plan. Therefore, the contract should be considered valid and binding.
[1.1.2] on Sidd’s eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on grounds of humanity, decided to alter the
contract. Sidd acknowledged the debt taken from M/s. Sahir & Sahir for rendering past services and
further both agreed on the same point that Sidd would pay the debt through easy monthly installments
(EMIs) of Rs. 20,000/- per month till the repayment of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.

[1.1.3] an agreement with the minor cannot be ratified even on the minor attains the age of majority
according to the Indian Majority Act. But, when he attains the age of majority, if he makes a new
promise for fresh consideration, and this new promise will be binding on all because the reason behind
it the agreement with the major is valid as according to the requirements or an essentials for making
valid contract stated under section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

[1.1.4] Suraj Narayan v. SukhuAheer1: In the concerned case, a person borrowed some money during
his minority and after attaining the age of majority, he made a fresh promise to pay that sum and
interest thereon, but this contract was not enforceable due to the reason that consideration received
during minority is not a good consideration. it was remarked that if a minor, when of full age, takes it
upon himself to pay a previous debt, there is no reason either in law or equity why his agreement
should be deemed to be "unlawful." Of course there is no question of unlawfulness, but one of want of
consideration. This also was a case of a further advance after majority. There is no question of
ratification in such cases. The case of Gregson v. Rajah Sri Sri Aditya Deb [1890] 17 Cal. 223 was
distinguishable on the ground that the transaction of a disqualified proprietor was voidable. But the
language of Section 37, Court of Wards Act, is similar to that of Section 11, Contract Act, and it is
difficult to hold that a contract by a disqualified proprietor is 'only voidable and not void. The real
ground on which the Privy Council case is distinguishable is that although the contract had commenced
during the period of disqualification, it had been continued and performed after the disqualification had
ceased and fresh advances also had been made by the creditor.

1 AIR 1928 ALL 440

11
11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

ISSUE- II

WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN MOHRI BIBEE V. DAMODARDAS CHOSE

NEEDS RECONSIDERATION?

[2.1]

[2.1.1] An agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio. a minor can’t ratify an
agreement on attaining the age of majority validate the same.

[2.1.2]One of the reason for the rule that a minor cannot ratify an agreement after attaining
majority is that when the agreement was entered into during the minority there was no ‘proper
consideration’ and the ‘bad consideration’ is not enough for validating that agreement by its
ratification. This will be clear from the observation of SULAIMAN, C.J. of the Allahabad
High Court.

[2.1.3] “Under section 11 a minor is not competent to contract he is disqualified from

contracting. He can, therefore, neither make avlid proposal nor make a valid acceptance as
defined in section-2, clause (a) and (b). He cannot, therefore, for the purposes of this Act be
strictly called a promisor within the meaning of clause (c). Nor can, therefore, anything done
by the promise be strictly called a consideration at the desire of a promisor as contemplated by
clause
[2.1.4]If the part of the benefit was received by a person during his minority and the other part
after attaining the age of majority, a promise by him after attaining majority to pay an amount
in respect of both the benefits is enforceable, as that constitutes a valid consideration for the
promise.[25] A minor can’t even enter into a contract through guardian or any other agent
because it is void contract and the same is not capable of ratification by aminor, on his
attaining majority. According to Privy Council[26] stated that “ A ratification in law is treated
as equivalent to a previous authority, and it follows that as a general rule, a person or body of
persons, not competent to authorise an act can’t give validity after ratifying it.

[2.1.5]he case dates back to the year 1903, in which, for the first time, the Privy Council ruled that the
marriage of a minor was void-ab-initio and that the contract was void from the start.
The appellant, Dharmodas Ghosh, mortgaged his house to the defendant, the moneylender when he
was a minor. At this point, the defendant’s counsel knew the age of the complainant. Later, the
complainant paid only Rs 8000 but declined to pay the remainder of the revenue. The mother of the
complainant was his legal guardian at the time, so he started an action against the claimant, claiming
that he was a minor at the time of the contract, so that the contract, being void, is not bound by the
same.
The Court ruled that, unless the parties have authority under Section 11 of the Act, no arrangement is a
contract.
The legislation on minor deals is based on two concepts:
That the law must shield a minor from his or her own inexperience, which could allow an adult to take
undue advantage of him or to compel him or her to enter into a contract which, while reasonable in
12
12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

itself, is clearly imprudent (e.g. whether a minor buys anything that he or she cannot afford at a fair
price); and
That the statute does not bring undue suffering to parents who treat juveniles equally.

13
13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 MODI LAW COLLEGE, KOTA

PRAYER FOR RELEIF

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments advanced it is
humbly prayed before this hon’ble court that an innocent person should not be punished for the acts he
actually had not done and may this Hon`ble Court be pleased to adjudge & declare that:

● There is a valid contract b/w m/s sahir &sahir and mr. Sidd Mahesh
● The judgement passed in mohri bibee v. Damodardas not needs reconsideration.

AND/OR
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience.
All of which is most humbly prayed.

Sd/

Counsel for the Petitioner

14
14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT