Motilal Nehru Law College

Ahmedabad
Moot Problem 1

In the village of Mylapore in the State Ramil Wadu there is an eminent

businessman turned politician Rahul Raghuvanshi. He has been elected to Ramil
Wadu assembly successfully 3 consecutive times. Rahul a management graduate
from Annamalai University was an active student in Youth Politics. He was The
President of Janata Morcha Youth wing and thereafter he joined Janata Morcha, he
held several posts within the party and at a young age of 31 became MLA. Rahul is
a 2nd generation politician and son of renowned industrialist Bhargav
Raghuvanshi, Shri Raghav Raghuvanshi has been a 2 times MLA and 3 times MP
from Mylapore constituency, he also held the portfolio of Minister for Urban
Development when Janata Morcha was in power in the country .Rahul
Raghuvanshi being an Industrialist owned several factories which had huge
manpower and Trade unions with political affiliation. Rahul after procuring a
degree in management from Annamalai University chose to pursue his family
business, in the course of his business he had to grapple with many problems
relating to workforce such as absenteeism, low productivity, and acrimonious
disputes as the trade unions had differences within themselves. A strike broke out
in Mr. Raghuvanshi’s factory on account of denial of bonus and incentives. There
was labour unrest, sloganeering and chaos. The Trade Union Leader Babu Shankar
was affiliated to Samaj Saghatan the party which was in the opposition and arch
rival of Janata Morcha the Party in power.
Rahul Raghuvanshi was in a fix and catch 22 situation as the labourers besieged
the bunglow of Rahul Raghuvanshi at the behest of Babu Shankar on account of
political rivalry there was wide media coverage of the issue. On the 2nd February,
2019 situation was extremely turbulent hence the local police imposed Section 144
of Cr.PC and also detained a few labourers U/S 151 of Cr.PC. The detention of
many labourers exceeded the prescribed time ordained by Cr.PC. As Rahul
Raghuvanshi used his clout and influence to suppress the agitation, the family
member of a workerfiled a Habeas Corpus petition on 6th February, 2019 Under
Article 226 and 227 of Shennai High Court at Ramil Wadu challenging the
detention of several workers and also claimed compensation. The Shennai Bench
consisting of Chief justice allowed the petition and gave relief to the prayers of the
petitioners and also awarded compensation. The Trade Union leader Babu Shankar
urged the leader of opposition in Ramil Wadu assembly to broach a debate on
Rahul Raghuvanshi’s undue influence and causing loss to poor labourers. This led
to furor in the Assembly demanding resignation of Rahul Raghuvanshi was the
post of standing committee for Education and Environment. Rahul Raghuvanshi
did not relent. This lead to social unrest and there were protest marches across the
city, agitation which led to Gheraos and Bandhs. The Home minister tried to
control the situation with Rapid Action Force and Local constabulary. In the course
of this chaos Rahul Raghuvanshi made a public speech at Tradulai Swamy stadium
on 16th February 2019 in the course of his speech he called the agitators of Samaj
Sanghtans as ‘wild creatures’ and urged the Janata Morcha workers to give a
‘fitting reply’ to the protesters. This caused a furor and there was law and order
problem which resulted in casualties and damage to property. Rahul Raghuvanshi
was held responsible for whatever transpired and he was compelled to resign from
the committees he was part of and the portfolio he held. The speech delivered by
Rahul Raghuvanshi was regarded as a hate speech causing enmity between two
communities hence he was booked under sec 153 A of IPC and a FIR was lodged
against him on 17th Febraury 2019 There was round the clock coverage of the
incidents of violence by the media. The opposition demanded an inquiry of the
incidents and insisted on setting up a commission. A Commission was constituted
on 1st April, 2019 by the Ruling Party i.e Janata Morcha under the auspices of
retired judge, Justice Vishwanath to enquire and investigate into this matter on
urgent basis. The commission submitted its report before the House on 30th June,
2019. There was election hence the commission report was debated fiercely then
kept in abeyance. Samaj Sanghatan captured Power and Muthuswamy Nair became
the Chief Minister in November 2019 and the commission report was again
debated with disruptions in the House. Though Rahul Raghuvanshi was booked
under sec 153 A of IPC and a FIR was lodged against him on 17th February 2019,
he was not arrested due to the political influence. The home minister finally
demanded arrest of Rahul Raghuvanshi and Rahul Raghuvanshi was arrested and
produced before magistrate on 12th November 2019. The Magistrate took
cognizance of the complaint and convicted Rahul Raghu Vanshi for 3 years
imprisonment on 18th November 2019. The order was challenged in court of
sessions court, on 22nd November, 2019 the order was upheld and eventually it
was challenged in Shennai High Court on 27th December 2019. The High Court
admitted the appeal and overruled conviction on 16th July, 2021 of Rahul
Raghuvanshi and found that lower courts made gross error in passing such orders.
The State challenged the High Court order of acquittal in the Supreme Court of
India in August 2021.
Issues:
1) Is he said appeal maintainable in the Supreme Court?
2) Is the High court justified in setting aside the session court’s order?
3) Does the case have anything pertaining to limitation act or has time barred as
per the relevant legal provisions?
4) Is sanction required for prosecution of Rahul Raghuvanshi as he is member of
state assembly?
5) Is the government bound by the findings of Justice Viswanathan commission as
regards its implementation or not?
 Motilal Nehru Law College
Ahmedabad
Moot Problem 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT : AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. XYZ OF 2023

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. PQR OF 2023

1. Dr. Vyomesh Mishra

2. Dr. Kuldeep Singh ………………. Appellants

(Ori. Accused Nos. 1 & 2)

Vs.

1. Mahesh Patel

2. State of Gujarat. ………………... Respondents.

(Resp. No.1 Original Complainant)

Appeal u/s. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order
of the Sessions Court passed in Criminal Case No. ABC of 2020 passed on April
10, 2022.

and

Appeal u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order
of the Sessions Court passed in Criminal Case No.ABC of 2020 passed on April
10, 2022

Facts :
Mr. Mahesh Patel, original complainant is a government servant having upper
middle class background. He was having wife Madhvi, the only son Keval in his
small family. His son was studying in the standard 7 at a reputed English Medium
School of Ahmedabad. Keval was considered to be one of the brilliant students of
the class and was also a captain at the school football team.

In May 2019, after having returned from the practice of football from the school in
vacation Keval began throwing fits and losing consciousness at sudden intervals.
Mahesh Patel, immediately consulted Dr. Kuldeep Singh, a reputed neuro-
physician at the Longlife Charitable Trust Hospital. The aforesaid hospital is
started by Ahmedabad Doctors’ Welfare Association having sole motto to provide
the best treatment to the patients at the reasonable charges. It has its reputation in
the entire city for providing the best treatment.

During examination, Dr. Kupdeep Singh diagnosed that Kevel was suffering from
epilepsy. Dr. Kuldeep Singh prescribed treatment involving the administration of
two wel-known drugs for epilepsy – Zentor and Gardiol – over a course of 8
months. Keval was also advised to discontinue school for a period of 2-3 months
during his treatment. But he was keen to attend the classes at his school. Due to
continuous insistence of his son, Mr. Mahesh Patel allowed him to go to the school
for attending classes. The medicine prescribed to Keval did not serve its object and
hence Dr. Kuldeep Singh increased the dosage and frequency of his prescribed
drugs. However, the condition of Keval worsened and the frequency of
convulsions grew rapid. As a resultant effect, Keval was constrained to proceed on
leave from the school from 16th August 2019. However, his studies continued
from home by engaging teachers who taught Keval at his residence. Thereafter, in
December 2019, Covid 19 started spreading in India. But study of Keval continued
with all precautions at home. Later on his study was made on line in the year 2020.
He underwent on line study and also appeared at the on line examinations taken by
school. But his result was poor looking to his health. Doctors advised the parents
of Keval to give him rest for some time and not to continue his study for some
time. As the teaching was on line, the parents continued his study despite of
doctor’s advise. On August 19, 2020, at about 10.30 pm when Keval had his
evening dosage of prescribed drug Gardiol, he developed severe convulsions. He
lost his consciousness and collapsed on the bed. Mahesh Patel called Dr. Kuldeep
Singh at his residence. Dr. Singh expressed his inability to come, but advised to
admit Keval to the Longlife Charitable Hospital. By following the advise of Dr.
Singh, Keval was immediately admitted at the Longlife Charitable Hospital by his
parents. Dr. Kuldeep Singh also appraised the parents of Keval the fact that he was
quarantined as he came into contact with Covid-19 positive patients and it would
not be advisable for him to personally come and treat Keval looking to his critical
situation.

At the night of 19th August 2020, Dr. Vyomesh Mishra, a young doctor pursuing
his internship at the hospital was on duty. He examined the patient Keval and
directed him to be taken to the ICU. Looking to the critical conditions of the
patient, the hospital authorities agreed to provide treatment upon signing a consent
form stating that the Hospital shall not be responsible in whole or part for any
further future consequences if at all developed to the patient Keval during his
treatment at the hospital. Desperate to save his son Keval, Mr. Mahesh Patel was
constrained to sign the aforesaid consent form of the Hospital.

Before the complainant Mahesh Patel could appraise Dr. Vyomesh Mishra about
the previous case history of Keval and the treatment provided to him, Dr. Vyomesh
Mishra administered a sedative called Epitaphenol, a sedative given in case of
severe epileptic attack. After the application of aforesaid medicine, Mahesh Patel
saw his son finding difficult to breath and was gasping for breath. Soon he lost his
consciousness. Mahesh Patel desperately called Dr. Mishra to examine his son. Dr.
Mishra explained him that it was not unconsciousness, but sleep due to sedative
medicine. Being dissatisfied with the explanation Mahesh Patel called Dr. Kuldeep
Singh at his residence again at 3.30 am on 20th August 2020 and requested him to
come to the hospital to examine his son. But Dr. Kuldeep Singh refused and
showed his inability.

At 6.00 am on 20th August 2020, Keval expired in the Hospital. The autopsy
revealed myocardial infarction as the cause of death. This was a resultant effect of
adverse reaction of Epitaphenol drug with Gardial, which was prescribed by Dr.
Kuldeep Singh.

On 23rd August 2020, Mr. Mahesh Patel lodged an FIR in Crime Register
No.I/XXX/2020 at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad against both the
present appellants for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302,
304 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The chargesheet was filed after
investigation by the Officer in charge at Navrangpura Police Station and the
magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial after framing the
charges u/s. 302, 304 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

During trial learned sessions Judge observed that accused No.2 did not place on
record any evidence of his being Covid 19 positive on or around period August 19,
2020 justifying his inability to come for treatment. The learned Sessions Judge by
his judgment and order dated 10-04-2022 found both the accused persons guilty for
having committed offences punishable under sections 304 of the Indian Penal Code
and punished them with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2 lacs
each. However, even on the request by the prosecution advocate, the court did not
passed order for payment of compensation to the relatives of deceased out of the
aforesaid amount of fine.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, the
accused persons have preferred appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure before the High Court of Gujarat. The appeal is admitted.

Simultaneously, Mr. Mahesh Patel, being father of deceased preferred appeal u/s.
372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Appeal No. PQR of 2023
before the High Court of Gujarat seeking compensation from the above accused
persons who are responsible for the unnatural death of his son. The above appeal is
also admitted and the Hon’ble High Court passed an order to hear both the above
appeals together at the final hearing. Now both the appeals have come up for the
final hearing.
 Motilal Nehru Law College
Ahmedabad
Moot Problem 3

1. Rahul and Riya both are residents of Ambridge, a town in State of Metropolis,
Indica and are Hindus, They got married in February, 2011 at Ambridge, Indica
under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Immediately after their marriage both of
them shifted to Jamalpur, another city of Metropolis State, Indica, where Rahul is
working since 2009.

2. Rahul and Riya took a flat on rent in Jamalpur after shifting to the new city. Mr.
Ramakant Shukla is their landlord who stays on the 2nd floor and gives the 1st floor
on rent to Rahul and Riya.

3. Mr. Ramakant Shukla makes an agreement for 11 months (i.e. from 01st March,
2011 to 28th February, 2012) with Rahul and Riya regarding renting the flat and
handing over the premises to both of them on 10,000/- per month.

4. Rahul and Riya started living in the aforementioned premises from 01st March,
2011. Things were going good until Rahul lost his job in last week of May, 2011.
However, Riya was completely unaware of this incident.

5. Riya started working in a KidZee in Jamalpur as she used to get bored at home
after Rahul left for job. Riya was paid Rs. 5000/- per month. Rahul used to earn
Rs. 20000/- per month.

6. Due to the loss of job of Rahul, the rent of the property remained due for 6
months consecutively. However, Riya did not know the reason for such delay as to
the payment of the rent and kept on asking Rahul, while Rahul was trying to avoid
confronting Riya.

7. At last, in November, 2011 Mr. Ramakant Shukla sent a notice to the Couple
expressing his desire to not continue the agreement with thecouple. The said notice
also disclosed that Mr. Ramakant Shukla wanted the couple to leave the premises
within 1 month.

8. Receiving this notice Riya confronted Rahul that followed a heated argument.
Following the argument Riya was informed about the unemployed status of Rahul.

9. Following this Riya left that house on 01st December, 2011 and went to her
home at Ambridge. Rahul made several attempts to call her and talk to her,
however, everything seemed to go in vain. Riya did not pay any heed and stayed
back in her parental home.

10. It was on 22nd April, 2015 Riya came back to the shared flat at Jamalpur that
the couple had rented.

11. Mr. Ramakant shukla made repeated requests to Rahul during the absence of
Riya to pay the rent. However, everytime Rahul has paid month for some months
and then became defaulter again and again for several months. Therefore, the
payment of rent was irregular in nature.

12. After coming back Riya asked Rahul to leave the said flat and also talked to
Mr. Ramakant Shukla that from now onwards Riya would stay in the flat and
would pay the rent. Riya also informed Rahul that she wanted to divorce him as he
hide the fact of his unemployment to her thereby causing mental trauma.

13. Mr. Ramakant Shukla did not want to face any unwanted problem therefore, he
asked Riya to vacate that flat no matter she agreed to pay the rent. Mr. Ramakant
shukla has issued a notice for eviction to the couple in May, 2015.

14. When the couple did not vacate the premises Mr. Ramakant Shukla filed a suit
for eviction against Mr. Rahul and Ms. Riya before the Controller in June, 2015.
Ms. Riya in the abovementioned suit contended that

a. she was having a matrimonial dispute with her husband regarding which she had
to take a decision,

b. She had a job in Jamalpur therefore she wished to stay back in the town and did
not want to go back to her parental home and be a burden upon her parents,
c. She needed a safe place to stay in the city Therefore, vacating the premises
would not be possible for her. She made a prayer before the Controller to order for
the continuation of the tenancy.

Mr. Ramakant Shukla contended that. He requires the suit property for his personal
use, &

b. The couple became defaulter in paying the rent amount. Therefore, he prayed
before the Controller to order for eviction of the couple.

15. Simultaneously, Rahul filed a suit for Restitution of Conjugal rights under
section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the District Court.

a. The reason because of which Riya has withdrawn herself from the conjugal
relationship with him is unreasonable,

b. That he wanted to continue this marriage with Riya.

16. The Controller in the suit for eviction decided in favour of Mr. Ramakant
Shukla and ordered Ms. Riya to vacate the suit property.

17. The suit for restitution of conjugal right between Mr. Rahul and Ms. Riya was
still pending before the competent court.

18. After the decision of the Controller Mr. Rahul left the suit property. However,
Ms. Riya did not vacate the suit property and decided to file an appeal before the
Tribunal.

19. An appeal was filed by Ms. Riya against the decision of the Controller to the
Tribunal. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Controller and asked
Ms. Riya to vacate the suit property.

20. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal Ms. Riya filed an appeal before the
High Court of Metropolis, Indica contending that the order of the trial court
regarding eviction of Ms. Riya from the suit property amounted to grave injustice.
Therefore, the Appellate court should consider the situation and order accordingly.

21. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court of Metropolis, Indica
the issue of matrimonial dispute between Ms. Riya and her Husband Mr. Rahul
came up. This also led to the disclosure of pendency of suit for restitution of
conjugal rights before the District Court.

22. Considering the issue of matrimonial dispute between Mr. Rahul and Ms. Riya
an important issue, the High Court of Metropolis issued a notice under Article 227
of the Constitution of Indica to the District Court and took up the suit for
adjudication.

23. The High Court of Metropolis has clubbed the Appeal and the suit for
restitution of conjugal rights and fixed ____________ March, 2019 for hearing.

24. The High Court of Metropolis, Indica has framed the following issues to be
heard in

Ms. Riya…………………………… Appellant

v.

1. Mr. Ramakant Shukla……. Respondent No. 1

2. Mr. Rahul………………… Respondent No. 2

a. Whether the present suit is maintainable both in law and in fact?

b. Whether there is landlord and tenant relationship between Ms. Riya

and Mr. Ramakant Shukla under the Transfer of Property Act?

c. Whether concealment of the fact of unemployment of Mr. Rahul is

just and reasonable ground for withdrawal from the conjugal

relationship by Ms. Riya?

d. Whether the High Court of Metropolis, Indica has the power to take

up any case from a Subordinate Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of Indica.

Note:-
a. The Constitution, laws and rules of Indica are in pari material with the
Constitution, laws and rules of India. Any state law of State of metropolis is in pari
materia with the State laws of State of West Bengal. Any Civil or Criminal rules
and orders of High Court of Metropolis are similar to the civil and Criminal rules
and orders of High Court of Calcutta.

b. An Ad-interim maintenance order of Rs. 2000/- has been granted by the

competent court in a suit filed by Ms. Riya against Mr. Rahul.

c. Besides the aforementioned issues the participants are free to frame additional
issues.

d. The Proposition is neither intended to nor does it attempt to resemble any

incident or any person, living or dead. Any such resemblance is purely
coincidental. The Proposition is a fictitious factual account prepared for the
purposes of the present Competition only and it does not attempt to influence or
predict the outcome of any matter whatsoever.