MOOT COURT PROBLEMS

CIVIL CASE

LL.B Semester VI

Moot Problem-1

1. Syndia is a country located in the southern part of the continent Basia. ‘Syndu’ is a
religion which originated in Syndia with majority of the individuals from this country
practicing the same. However, the land acted as an abode to various other religions as
well.
2. Within Syndia, in the State of Karnarajya, there was a religious structure of the ‘Ajax’
religion. It was owned by a private trust and was situated in the city of Arjunpur. One
of the widely practiced customs of this religion was of animal sacrifice. As per the
locals, on every alternate day, a dog was sacrificed in the structure during the early
hours of morning. In certain cases, sacrifices were done as early as 4:00 am which in
turn generated a lot of noise with the wailing and squealing of the animal. This had
disturbed a lot of Syndus who were living in the periphery of the structure, who in turn
had notified the head of the trust and a prominent religious figure of the Ajax religion,
Ms. Fatima D’Souza, regarding their inconvenience. On 9th March 2019, in order to
resolve the issue, the Syndu organisation ‘Cruento’ which consisted of Syndu women
led by Ms. Anshika Mondal entered the inner sanctum of the structure in spite of being
warned by the guards and stopped the ceremony from proceeding. Ms. D’Souza sternly
ordered the Syndu women to move out as it amounted to violating and defiling their
place of worship. As per the Ajax religion, no person belonging to any other religion
was allowed to enter the inner sanctum. If such an entry was done, it would amount to
defilement of the religious structure and would further require ‘Shudhikaran’
(purification ceremonies) to reintroduce the religious structure for public use.
3. The women enraged by Ms. D’Souza, gave some passionate interviews to a local media
outlet on the inconvenience caused by Ms D’Souza and group. These interviews shortly
went viral with a lot of people claiming to have the same problem with the group in
question.
4. Ms. D’Souza infuriated with this sudden shift of narrative, referred to Ms. Anshika
Mondal along with the Syndu women as “disgusting Syndu roaches being led by an
 unprincipled swine masquerading as a leader” in her own interview to a media outlet.
This statement spread like wildfire throughout the country.
5. On the day of 25th March 2019, a large group of Syndu women gathered outside the
structure headed by Ms. D’Souza to protest against the statements made by her. In
response to this, a group of Ajax followers responded with intense sloganeering.
Fearing a riot, the Government sealed the structure temporarily.
6. On the subsequent day Ms. Mondal filed a case in the Arjunpur City Civil Court against
Ms. D’Souza claiming that her right to reputation was tarnished by the vile statements
made by Ms. D’Souza. At the same time, Ms. D’Souza filed a plaint on the behalf of
the trust alleging that Ms. Mondal conspired with her followers and trespassed into their
property defiling their place of worship. She further claimed that in order to purify their
place of worship, it would require a Shudhikaran ceremony the cost of which should be
borne by the Defendant. The City Civil Court for the purpose of expeditious
proceedings clubbed the two Plaints to be heard together using its inherent powers.
After hearing the arguments, the Hon’ble Arjunpur City Civil Court held that Ms.
D’Souza is liable to pay damages to Ms. Mondal and at the same time, dismissed the
Plaint filed by Ms. D’Souza on merit. Ms D’Souza appealed this order in the High Court
of Karnarajya.

Issues:

Argue in the favour of Ms. D’Souza that:

a) Ms. Mondal is liable to pay damages to Ms. D’Souza for committing trespass.

b) Ms. D’Souza is not liable to pay damages to Ms. Mondal for the alleged tort of
defamation.

OR

Argue in the favour of Ms. Mondal that:

a) Ms. Mondal is not liable to pay damages to Ms. D’Souza for the alleged tort of trespass.
b) Ms. D’Souza is liable to pay damages to Ms. Mondal for committing defamation.
Argue for Ms. Mondal or Ms. D’ Souza. The laws of Syndia are pari materia with the laws of
the Republic of India.

MOOT PROBLEM 2

In the case of:

SOHAN V. MOHAN

Mohan and Sohan were long standing acquaintances who regularly had business dealings
with one another. On 1st November, 2012, Mohan, from his home address in Hyderabad,
wrote to Sohan at his address in Bhillai, offering to sell him his customised Volkswagen Polo
motor car, (which he has long admired), for Rs 5,00,000 the offer to remain open until 5th
November, 2012. On receiving the offer on 2nd November, Sohan left Bhillai on a business
trip to Lucknow. On the 2nd of November, Mohan sold the car to Kamal and posted to Sohan
a revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Sohan’s Bhillai address on 3rd November. On
4th November, Sohan posted an acceptance of the offer from Lucknow, addressed to Mohan
at his business address, (which was the address from which Mohan usually conducted
dealings with Sohan) in Kondapur, Hyderabad. It was delivered there on 5th November but as
Mohan was absent from his office on that day, it wasn’t read by him until 6th November. On
7th November, Sohan returned home and read the letter of revocation.

Sohan filed a case in the civil court claiming that a contract had been formed between himself
and Mohan, in that he had accepted the offer either on 4th November through the application
of the postal, or on the 5th November when the letter was delivered to Mohan’s place of
business. Both events took place before the offer lapsed and before Mohan’s letter of
revocation was communicated to him. Hence, Mohan selling the car to Kamal was in breach
of the contract.

 The matter to be heard by Ld. Civil Judge (Snr. Div.)

 Students shall prepare memorials/arguments for both Petitioner and Respondent.
 Students may frame their own issues