Moot 1

The Marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnized on 31-01-2007 as
per the Hindu Religious Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock a son, namely Vimal
was born and he is 10 years old now. At the time of marriage the Respondent was Business
Man at U.K. After marriage the Appellant and the Respondent lived together for 3 months
and thereafter lived separately because of the misunderstanding between them. Since the
harassment and cruelty of the Respondent crossed the extreme extent, the appellant was
compelled to file a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Respondent filed an
original petition under the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the 10 years old minor
child, and a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Right.
The main allegation of the Respondent was that, the Appellant was having illegal intimacy
with another person. The second contention was that, if the child is in the company of the
Appellant, it would affect the education of the child. The Respondent also contended that he
is financially better than the Appellant and hence the custody of the child be given to him.
The Appellant defended the matter and filed a written statement denying all the allegations.
In the meantime, the Subordinate Judge passed an exparte decree of divorce in favour of the
Appellant and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the Respondent was
dismissed for default. After considering the oral evidence adduced by the parties and
examining the documentary evidence and also interviewing the child the trial court came to
the conclusion keeping in view that welfare of the child the custody should be given to the
mother and dismissed the original petition of the father filed under the Guardians and Wards
Act.

Against the order of the Trial Court, the Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court.
The contention of the Respondent was that, contrary to the deposition made by the Appellant
before the trial court that, she would not remarry, immediately after the judgment of the
petition filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, she remarried. It is, therefore, contended
that the continued custody of the child with the Appellant would be detrimental to the
interest, progress and welfare of the child. The High Court, without giving an opportunity to
express the willingness of the child, allowed the appeal on the ground of remarriage of the
Appellant, i.e., Mother of the child. The High Court also held that the Respondent Father is a
Business man in U.K. and the father is more apt and suitable to protect the interest of the
minor child and also in imparting education to the required standard of the child.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court, the Appellant has preferred the appeal.
Raise issues and put forth your arguments.

Moot 2

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

Moot 3

The present environmental problems in Delhi, India, are a threat to the well-being of the city's
and area's inhabitants as well as the flora and fauna. Delhi, the sixth-most populated
metropolis in the world, is one of the most heavily polluted cities in India, having for instance
one of the country's highest volumes of particulate matter pollution. This was corroborated by
an announcement by the World Health Organization, in May 2014, that New Delhi was the
most polluted city in the world.

Overpopulation and the ensuing overuse of scarce resources such as water have put pressure
on the environment. The city suffers from air pollution caused by road dust and industry, with
comparatively smaller contributions from unclean engines in transportation, especially diesel
powered city buses and trucks, and two-wheelers and three-wheelers with two-stroke engines.
Besides human and environmental damage, pollution has caused economic damage as well.

On April 8, 2015, picking up several points brought out in the ‘Death by Breath’ series, an
ongoing investigation on the quality of air in Delhi, the Delhi Green Tribunal (DGT) issued a
fresh ban on all diesel buses and trucks more than 5 years old from plying in the National
Capital Region. A day after that, the Delhi government came up with a unique order of the
era whereby the vehicles with odd and even registration numbers will be allowed on alternate
days from January 01, 2016. It also passed an order to requisition school buses to ply as
commercial, public buses after school had ended in order to encourage the commuters of
Delhi to take public transport rather than rely solely on their private vehicles.

The Modern School of Environmental Studies, Delhi was plying school buses running on
diesel purchased in 2005 for school purposes, and coincidently, all the buses were of the odd
number series. This order of the Delhi government proved to be the last nail in the coffin for
the school.

The Modern School of Environmental Studies was not the sole victim of the ban and thus got
the support of all the private schools of Delhi. And so, aggrieved by the orders of DGT and
the Delhi government, the Action Committee for Unaided Recognized Private Schools, Delhi
has

filed a Writ petition in the Supreme Court against the DGT ban and the Odd-Even formula
order of Delhi government on the following grounds:

 That taking the schools' own buses is in violation of Education Act which stipulates
that school's assets cannot be put to commercial use. The school buses are the assets
of the schools and allowing them for use as commercial vehicles shall amount to
 violation of basic principles and provisions of DSEAR (Delhi School Education Act
and Rules) 1973.
 That the insurance of school buses stipulates use of buses for students only. The
school buses are not permitted to be used for general public nor should the school
buses be used for hire.
 That the road tax exemption also stipulates the buses shall not be used for any
commercial purposes.
 That the Motor Vehicles Act prescribed a fitness test, and not the vehicle’s age, to
ascertain whether it should be allowed to ply or not. They also contended that the
DGT could not substitute by its order what has been written in the Motor Vehicles
Act, which did not put a ban on vehicles older than 5 years.
 That it is further contended that such a ban is completely arbitrary, and raised the
argument that it is not the College who is responsible for making Delhi a gas
chamber.

A group of public-spirited individuals also filed a Public Interest Litigation before the
Supreme Court of India, Delhi. While the ban on diesel buses and trucks older than five years
did not directly affect private individuals, the Odd-Even formula did, especially those who
have to commute to work and also persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups who
rely on their personal means of transport to get by. The writ petition was based on allegations
of the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens – including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. They also averred that the decision was made without any informed
public discussion or debate, and without paying attention to the particular circumstances of
India which are different from those of other countries where this rule has previously been
implemented. The individuals approached the court to issue a writ that would restrain the
Delhi government from implementing the Odd-Even rule on private vehicles and cars in
Delhi. The two petitions have been clubbed together to be heard by the Apex Court. Argue
from the both side.

Moot 4

Kumar, resident of Devanahalli, who owned 10 acres of agricultural land situated at

Devanahalli, under Survey No.10/5 filed a suit numbered as O.S.239/2010 before the Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.), Devanahalli, for Declaration and Injunction against Neeraj on the ground that
he is the sole owner of the agricultural land in dispute. On receipt of summons, Neeraj
appeared before the said Court and engaged a lawyer to conduct his case. Neeraj not only
opposed the suit claim but also filed a counter claim against Kumar for Declaration and
injunction in respect of the said property.
The suit was decreed in favor of Kumar declaring him as the owner of 10 acres of agricultural
land and restrained Neeraj from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the said agricultural
property by Kumar.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.239/2010 Neeraj filed Regular Appeal before
the First Appellate Court. On receipt of Appeal Notice, Kumar engaged Sri. Ram Rahim, a
famous civil lawyer in Devanahalli, to represent and argue his case before the Appellate
Court. Kumar paid Fifty Thousand rupees as initial fee to Sri. Ram Rahim.
When the Appeal was posted for hearing, Advocate representing Neeraj argued the matter and
completed his side. However, Sri Ram Rahim sought several adjournments to argue on behalf
of Kumar. He did not turn up to argue even when it was posted for final argument.
The Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial court and decreed the counter claim of
Neeraj in O.S.239/2010. The Appellate Court in its judgment noted the absence of
Respondent’s advocate (Sri. Ram Rahim) during the course of argument and pointed out that
the Court had no assistance from Respondent’s Advocate in deciding the matter.
The judgment of the Appellate Court was death knell for Kumar as the land in dispute was
life line for him and his family.
Kumar enquired with his Advocate about his absence during hearing of the Appeal but did
not get a satisfactory answer. However, Sri. Ram Rahim advised Kumar to file Second
Appeal against the Judgment of the First Appellate Court and referred the name of Sri.
Ajathshatru. Kumar followed his advice and engaged Sri. Ajathshatru for filing Second
Appeal and paid rupees One Lakh as initial fee.
Sri. Ajathshatru took his own time to file Second Appeal and by the time Second Appeal was
filed, the limitation period was over. Thereafter, he filed Second Appeal along with an
Application to condone the delay.
The Second Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation period since no
sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. Sri. Ajathshatru advised Kumar to
approach the Supreme Court.
Kumar virtually had no means to continue the litigation before the Supreme Court as he had
lost all the money in litigation. Neeraj spared no time to execute the decree passed in his
favor by the First Appellate Court and took possession over the land in dispute.
Having lost agricultural land, which was life line for him and his family due to inefficiency
and negligence of his Advocates, Sri. Ram Rahim and Sri. Ajathshatru , Kumar filed a case
against them before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), at
New Delhi for deficiency of service and claimed One crore rupees as compensation.
Kumar argued that there was ‘deficiency of service’ on the part of both the Advocates who
failed to pursue his case before the Appellate Courts in an efficient and professional manner.
He also contended that both the advocates were highly negligent, one of them did not argue
his case before the first Appellate Court and the other advocate failed to file Second Appeal in
time before the High Court and got it dismissed at the threshold, as result of which he had
lost his property and means of livelihood. On notice, both the advocates appeared and argued
that, advocates are immune from any legal action under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
as Kumar is not a ‘consumer’ under the Act and their relationship as client and advocate is a
‘contract of personal service’ and not a ‘contract for personal service.’ They argued that they
are merely his agents and represented him in the Court and are Officers of the Court and no
legal action can be initiated for actions done in the course of judicial proceeding. Further, it
was argued that, it is for the Court to decide the case on its merit and no advocate can
guarantee the result.
The NCDRC, however, allowed the claim of Kumar holding that there was ‘deficiency of
service’ and awarded One crore rupees as compensation and directed both the advocates to
pay together the award amount within two months from the date of the order.
The said Order created havoc among the legal fraternity and became national news. Within
two months of passing of this Order there were two thousand cases filed against advocates
across the country before consumer forums for deficiency of service.
Both the advocates approached the Supreme Court against the award of NCDRC and
contended that among other things that the said award is also in violation of Article 19 (1) (g)
of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court issued stay against the operation, execution
of the award.
Now the case is set for hearing before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether the Advocates fall within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. Whether the award is in violation of the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to
carry on any occupation as contemplated under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India?
Moot 5

Republic of Indiva is a country which has various cultural and historical glories to its name
and was often nicknamed as the “Land of Culture”. People from various backgrounds lived in
harmony and abided by the laws of the land. In Republic of Indiva, the majority of the
population worshipped deities in the personification of women as a symbol of Strength and
Fearlessness. Ankara is a State of Republic of Indiva with the highest literacy rate among all
other States of Republic of Indiva and the people believed in the Equality between Men and
Women in all spheres of life.
Shrishti was a young Advocate who had just passed her college and started practicing. She
was very ambitious about her work and always worked for the poor and needy people free of
cost. She was always the last one to leave her workplace and often took her personal vehicle
to travel home from workplace. One such night, on 17-01-2020 around 9:30 P.M. she was
returning from workplace on her scooty, where she noticed four men desperately asking for
help beside the highway. Out of generosity, she stopped her scooty and two men told her that
they are tourists and one of their friends is laying injured at a distance. While she got down
from her scooty, two of them accompanied her to a distant secluded place.
On her way, she realized that her phone was inside the scooty, so she returned for taking the
same and on return, she found that her two-wheeler tyre was punctured. Shrishti called her
younger sister Nancy at 9.35 p.m. to inform that her scooter had broken down and she was
alone on the road. All of a sudden, the two men, who had asked for help accompanied by two
other men came towards her and started touching her in a wrong way. She got scared and
slapped one of them, to which the men became angry and then dragged the girl to a distant
place and raped her one by one. In the fear of not getting caught, the four men put petroleum
in her body and burnt her alive till she was dead and ran away towards the nearby village.
On 18-01-2020 the partially burnt body was found at an underpass on the Ankara-Bendakal
national highway by a farmer around 6 a.m. He informed the village sarpanch, who alerted
the local police. After confirming that the victim was a female, the local police verified the
recent women missing cases and then, with the help of the handbag and the scarf, the family
members were able to recognise her.
The Police started various investigation procedures and discovered a CCTV footage which
was placed near the highway for traffic control. By looking at the CCTV footage, the Police
saw some faces where the recording timing showed around 10:00 P.M. based on which, they
started searching for the four men who had run towards the village and started the enquiry.
On 23-01-2020, based on its investigation, the Police arrested, Javed, Rajesh, Naveen and
Keshav. In the meantime, as soon as the news became viral, people all over the country
started protesting and the news became trending all over Social Media and people demanded
Justice for Shrishti. People from various political background as well as Film Industry and
Media houses demanded speedy Justice and #KillTheRapists became viral all over the
Country and the Government took initiative for a speedy disposal of the case.
On 24-01-2020, the Police presented the four accused in front of the local Magistrate and
requested for a 7 days remand for further investigation. Amidst the remand period, the entire
Country protested with candle light marches and various High-Profile Personalities also got
involved in the protests. On 03-02-2020, the Media flashed the news that the four accused
had been shot dead by the Police while they were being taken to the Court. The Investigation
In-Charge in the Interview stated that Naveen and Keshav snatched the revolvers from the
Constables while they were being taken to the Court, jumped out of the Police Van and fired
two rounds in the air. Javed and Rajesh also followed them and tried to escape. The Police
claimed that they found no other ways and had to shoot down the four accused otherwise the
accused would have fled.
The killing of the accused in the alleged encounter was hailed by a section of people,
the families of the deceased and human rights groups alleged that the police took law
into its hands, terming this as extra-judicial killing. In the police press conference that
followed, questions as to how two of the four accused managed to get hold of the pistols
in the presence of 10 armed police officers went unasked.
The families of the Four Accused also alleged that the police officers have have framed the
murder scene as they had threatened them when they went to the police station. The families
informed the reporters that the police officers angrily made the statement to the families that
the accused stand no chance of being saved from death as the entire Nation was against their
act.
As soon as the News became viral, the entire Country rejoiced and supported the action of
the Police and the same was called an “Act of Bravery” by various Political Leaders. But, An
NGO named as “Saman Adhikar” filed a Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Ankara.
The Hon’ble High Court of Ankara after hearing all the arguments of the case held “The
Police had no other option but to shoot the four accused failing to which they would have
fled and which would have triggered mass and widespread agitation throughout the Nation
and the Role of the Police would have been in question. Therefore, the Court finds the Act of
the Police as an Act of Bravery and sudden reflex to counter the situation which arose in
front of them.”
Families of the four accused who were gunned down by the police in an alleged
encounter, have approached the Supreme Court, seeking registration of murder case
against the police officers involved. Alleging that the youth were killed in a stage-
managed gunfight, the families filed a writ petition under the provisions of Article 32
of the Constitution that enables individuals to seek redressal for the violation of their
fundamental rights.
The NGO, after the Judgment by the Hon’ble High Court, approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on the contention of violation of Human Rights as well as the violation of Fundamental
Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Republic of Indiva. All the petitions have been
clubbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Republic of Indiva and stands pending before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Indiva.
Note:
1. The laws of the State of Republic of Indiva are in pari materia with the laws of
India.
2. The matter to be heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. Students may frame their own issues