MCPT

MOOT PROBLEM
Mr. P borrowed Rs. 5,00,000 from Mr. R for the education of his son Mr. X, Mr. P executed a
promissory noted in favour of Mr. R in this regard he agreed to make the payment within 6
months however he was unable to make the payment. Later Mr. R through the help of Mr. Z a
sub inspector of police made P to issue a cheque to be encashed within 2 months anticipating
a loan which P might get this cheque was issued by him however that considering his poor
credit worthiness loan was denied, Mr. P arranged marriage of his daughter Y since he has no
money in his bank, he borrowed Rs. 4,00,000 from Q a promissory note was executed
undertaking to make the payment within a month after 1 month he issued another cheque in
favour of Q both R and Q presented the cheque before bank and was dishonoured.

R and Q issued statutory notice under Section 138 but no arrangement for payment was made
by P hence both of them filed separate criminal complaint before judicial magistrate of first
class Thanjavur Mr. P was not able to get the assistance of any lawyer with reasonable
practice, a young lawyer came to assist him and filed a petition under 482 of Crpc to quash
the proceedings in the petition six months’ time was sought for making the payment, the
petition was dismissed by the high court of madras stating that no such order can be passed in
the meanwhile judicial magistrate of first class convicted him in both the cases and sentenced
him to 6 months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000 and 4,00,000 to be paid as
compensation to complainants respectively under 357 of crpc.

An appeal was preferred before the sessions court Thanjavur which was also dismissed
subsequently, he preferred a revision petition before the HC of madras, Hc of madras reduced
the punishment to stand still rising of the court while maintaining the fine amount and the rest
of the judgement.

Mr. L a young social activist and advocate approached P filed a WRIT Petition in the HC of
madras challenging the constitutional validity of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
and seeking a prayer to quash the conviction and all other proceedings against Mr. P.
Madras HC dismissed the petition on 2 grounds
the rejection of the revision petition amounts to res judicata and constructive res judicata and
therefore this writ petition cannot be maintained
the petitioner received a minor punishment in the revision petition and henceforth there is no
need to interfere with it.

A special leave petition was filed by Mr. P and the leave was granted appeals were filed based
on the leave, court filed the following issues:
1. Whether the rejection of the criminal revision petition bards the subsequent writ
petition.
2. Whether Section 138 of NI Act is unconstitutional.
3. Whether the principle laid down in jolly George Varghese case can be applied to 138.
4. Whether punishment being meagre forms a ground for non-interference.
MOOT PROBLEM
Mr X a social activist, filed an RTI application u/s 6 of RIT act 2005 before a religious
institution held by trust in application
Mr X sought for information regarding the transfer of a few priests as well as details
regarding a few priests who dies 30 years back including the donations which they have made
to religious trust. The trust denied the application stating that they are not covered by RTI
2005 and appeal was preferred mentioning the appellate authority.
However, institution denied that they are not covered by act and no such appellate authority
within such institution. After 6 months once again similar RTI was filed by Mr X seeking the
same information. Again, it was dismissed stating the same reason. The appeal also received
the same fate. Mr X approached the state information commission under RTI act this time.
The state information commission dismissed the appeal stating that religious trust is nor
public authority within RTI act furthermore his 2nd application barred by res judicata.
Subsequently Mr X filed a writ petition under article 227 before the HC and the HC affirmed
the information of state information commission and dismissed the petition under article 227.
Mr X filed a SLP in SC leave was granted and appeals was preferred on the basis of it

Following issues framed by SC

1. Whether religious institutions are covered by RTI act?
2. Whether subsequent application under section 6 RTI act after dismissal of first one barred
by res judicata
3. Whether the information sought for could be provided under the provisions of the RTI act
4. Whether the HC under Art 227 and on SC on appeal against it decide the merit of the
application
MOOT PROBLEM
State of SP is a southern state in the Union of Needhistan. Union of Needhistan has a
constitution and laws same as the union of India. State of SP had a HC from 1954. It was
functioning in an old building near to a lake which was single storeyed. In 1964 the number
of courtrooms increased from 10 to 24. All courtrooms were numbered continuously from 1
to 24.

In 1984 a daily newspaper in vernacular language published that high court renumbering the
court rooms in a such fashion that after number 12, 12A appears. The news article stated that
it was due to the superstitious belief that many judges who sat in room number 13 suffered
many mishaps. Neither CJ nor the registry of HC gave any response to this newspaper article.
Since electronic media was only in a developing state in 1984, there was not much discussion
about this at that time.

In 2024, the High court shifted to a new building. In the new building which was eight
storeyed, there were 50 courtrooms which was continuously numbered but room number 13
was missing. Henceforth there were rooms from 1 to 51. Behind the courtrooms were well
furnished having more space and air conditioning. In the courtroom Satyameva Jayate was
imprinted in English letters removing the old Latin terms.

Mr. X leader of an atheist association filed a writ petition in the High court of SP stating that
HC should not promote superstitions by avoiding room number 13. Petitioner alleged that this
amounts to violation of rule of law under article 14 of the constitution. Mr. Y who is another
social activist filed a WP stating that Satyameva Jayate should be written in Devanagari script
and not in English and the same amounts to violation of protection of national emblem act,
1950.

The division bench of HC of SP heard both the cases considering it a PIL and dismissed the
same. HC stated that numbering and renumbering are the discretion of the court and the
petitioner cannot attribute any motives to it. The HC also expressed that using of English
letters will not be offending 1950 act. Both X and Y preferred an SLP in the SC of
Needhistan. The leave was granted, appeals were preferred based on the leave. Argue for both
the sides.