DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

IN THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF SARDAM

_IN THE MATTER OF_

M/s SENGHAL & SENGHAL...........................APPELLANT

VERSUS

Mr. SIDD MALHAR......................................RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF M/s SENGHAL & SENGHAL

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 Index of Authorities

2 Statement of Jurisdiction

3 Statement of Facts

4 Issues Raised

5 Statement of Argument

Arguments Advanced
Issue 1
6 Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4

7 Prayer

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Sardam is empowered to hear this case by virtue of Section 28 of
the Indian Contract Act, of 1872.

The Section reads as:-

28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void.— [Every agreement]—

(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in
respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits
the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or
(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto,
from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to
restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.]

Exception 1.—Saving of contract to refer to arbitration dispute that may arise.—This section
shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which
may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to
arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect
of the dispute so referred.

Exception 2.—Saving of contract to refer questions that have already arisen.—Nor shall this
section render illegal any contract in writing, by which two or more persons agree to refer to
arbitration any question between them which has already arisen, or affect any provision of any
law in force for the time being as to references to arbitration.

[Exception 3.—Saving of a guarantee agreement of a bank or a financial institution.—This

section shall not render illegal a contract in writing by which any bank or financial institution
stipulate a term in a guarantee or any agreement making a provision for guarantee for
extinguishment of the rights or discharge of any party thereto from any liability under or in
respect of such guarantee or agreement on the expiry of a specified period which is not less than
one year from the date of occurring or non-occurring of a specified event for extinguishment or
discharge of such party from the said liability.

Explanation.—(i) In Exception 3, the expression “bank” means—

(a) a “banking company” as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949);
(b) “a corresponding new bank” as defined in clause (da) of section 5 of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949);

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

(c) “State Bank of India” constituted under section 3 of the State Bank of India
Act, 1955 (23 of 1955);
(d) “a subsidiary bank” as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the State Bank of
India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959(38 of 1959);
(e) “a Regional Rural Bank” established under section 3 of the Regional Rural
Banks Act, 1976(21 of 1976);
(f) “a Co-operative Bank” as defined in clause (cci) of section 5 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949);
(g) “a multi-State co-operative bank” as defined in clause (cciiia) of section 5 of
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949); and

(ii) In Exception 3, the expression “a financial institution” means any public financial
institution within the meaning of section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956(1 of 1956).]

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the instance of Sidd Malhar and M/s. Senghal & Senghal, the story begins with Sidd, a
sixteen-year-old Indiana musical prodigy, imagining a massive architectural undertaking to
advance his musical career. His goals included recording fusion albums that combined
several genres and going on international music tours. In an attempt to realize his vision,
Sidd set out to build a complex that included a music theater, a recording studio, and a
rooftop swimming pool for entertaining.
In a misleading approach, Sidd introduced himself as a major and started the building
project's tender procedure. A respectable construction company, M/s. Senghal & Senghal
responded by offering to take on the entire job for an incredibly cheap cost of Rs. 10,000,000.
Both parties understood that this money would be paid out in installments when the project's
various phases were finished.
After the offer was accepted, Sidd and M/s. Senghal & Senghal signed a contract outlining
the precise roles of each floor in the suggested building. However, M/s. Senghal & Senghal
ran into financial difficulties and an inadequate supply of materials after constructing the
first and ground floors, which put a halt to the project's advancement. They informed Sidd of
this failure and stressed that they couldn't move on without more funding.
Sidd consented to lend his voice at a private event organized by Ms. Asha Senghal, offering a
performance in exchange for debt forgiveness, in an effort to make amends with the debt. But
before Sidd could carry out his commitment, he had an unexpected illness that prevented him
from doing so—a terrible sore throat.
Later, both parties decided to change the terms of the agreement, and Sidd agreed to pay
back the remaining debt of Rs. 7,00,000 in reasonable monthly installments of Rs. 20,000.
Sidd approximated the real cost of the building work to be Rs. 3,00,000 and said it was
overpriced and of inferior quality. This led to disputes. This encouraged Sidd to consider
selling his property without paying M/s. Senghal & Senghal, which resulted in legal action.
The dispute went to the Civil Court of Sardam despite Sidd's minor age, and there, on the
basis of legal precedence, Sidd was released from obligation under the terms of the contract.
To resolve the disagreement, M/s. Senghal & Senghal filed an appeal with the High Court of
Sardam.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

ISSES RAISED

Issue 1:- Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Senghal and Senghal and Mr. Sidd
Malhar?

Issue 2:- Whether Sidd Malhar's misrepresentation of his age as a major person, affects the
enforceability of the contract with M/s. Senghal & Senghal?

Issue 3:- Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?

Issue 4:- Whether the Civil Court of Sardam justified in rejecting the plea of restitution?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5
DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6
DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6
DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

PRAYER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

IN THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF SARDAM

_IN THE MATTER OF_

M/s SENGHAL & SENGHAL...........................APPELLANT

VERSUS

Mr. SIDD MALHAR......................................RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF Mr. SIDD MALHAR

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 Index of Authorities

2 Statement of Jurisdiction

3 Statement of Facts

4 Issues Raised

5 Statement of Argument

Arguments Advanced
Issue 1
6 Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4

7 Prayer

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Sardam is empowered to hear this case by virtue of Section 28 of
the Indian Contract Act, of 1872.

The Section reads as:-

28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void.— [Every agreement]—

(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in
respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits
the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or
(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto,
from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to
restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.]

Exception 1.—Saving of contract to refer to arbitration dispute that may arise.—This section
shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which
may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to
arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect
of the dispute so referred.

Exception 2.—Saving of contract to refer questions that have already arisen.—Nor shall this
section render illegal any contract in writing, by which two or more persons agree to refer to
arbitration any question between them which has already arisen, or affect any provision of any
law in force for the time being as to references to arbitration.

[Exception 3.—Saving of a guarantee agreement of a bank or a financial institution.—This

section shall not render illegal a contract in writing by which any bank or financial institution
stipulate a term in a guarantee or any agreement making a provision for guarantee for
extinguishment of the rights or discharge of any party thereto from any liability under or in
respect of such guarantee or agreement on the expiry of a specified period which is not less than
one year from the date of occurring or non-occurring of a specified event for extinguishment or
discharge of such party from the said liability.

Explanation.—(i) In Exception 3, the expression “bank” means—

(a) a “banking company” as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949);
(b) “a corresponding new bank” as defined in clause (da) of section 5 of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949);

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

(c) “State Bank of India” constituted under section 3 of the State Bank of India
Act, 1955 (23 of 1955);
(d) “a subsidiary bank” as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the State Bank of
India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959(38 of 1959);
(e) “a Regional Rural Bank” established under section 3 of the Regional Rural
Banks Act, 1976(21 of 1976);
(f) “a Co-operative Bank” as defined in clause (cci) of section 5 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949);
(g) “a multi-State co-operative bank” as defined in clause (cciiia) of section 5 of
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949(10 of 1949); and

(ii) In Exception 3, the expression “a financial institution” means any public financial
institution within the meaning of section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956(1 of 1956).]

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the instance of Sidd Malhar and M/s. Senghal & Senghal, the story begins with Sidd, a
sixteen-year-old Indiana musical prodigy, imagining a massive architectural undertaking to
advance his musical career. His goals included recording fusion albums that combined
several genres and going on international music tours. In an attempt to realize his vision,
Sidd set out to build a complex that included a music theater, a recording studio, and a
rooftop swimming pool for entertaining.
In a misleading approach, Sidd introduced himself as a major and started the building
project's tender procedure. A respectable construction company, M/s. Senghal & Senghal
responded by offering to take on the entire job for an incredibly cheap cost of Rs. 10,000,000.
Both parties understood that this money would be paid out in installments when the project's
various phases were finished.
After the offer was accepted, Sidd and M/s. Senghal & Senghal signed a contract outlining
the precise roles of each floor in the suggested building. However, M/s. Senghal & Senghal
ran into financial difficulties and an inadequate supply of materials after constructing the
first and ground floors, which put a halt to the project's advancement. They informed Sidd of
this failure and stressed that they couldn't move on without more funding.
Sidd consented to lend his voice at a private event organized by Ms. Asha Senghal, offering a
performance in exchange for debt forgiveness, in an effort to make amends with the debt. But
before Sidd could carry out his commitment, he had an unexpected illness that prevented him
from doing so—a terrible sore throat.
Later, both parties decided to change the terms of the agreement, and Sidd agreed to pay
back the remaining debt of Rs. 7,00,000 in reasonable monthly installments of Rs. 20,000.
Sidd approximated the real cost of the building work to be Rs. 3,00,000 and said it was
overpriced and of inferior quality. This led to disputes. This encouraged Sidd to consider
selling his property without paying M/s. Senghal & Senghal, which resulted in legal action.
The dispute went to the Civil Court of Sardam despite Sidd's minor age, and there, on the
basis of legal precedence, Sidd was released from obligation under the terms of the contract.
To resolve the disagreement, M/s. Senghal & Senghal filed an appeal with the High Court of
Sardam.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4
 DME 10th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 TC - 33

ISSES RAISED

Issue 1:- Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Senghal and Senghal and Mr. Sidd
Malhar?

Issue 2:- Whether Sidd Malhar's misrepresentation of his age as a major person, affects the
enforceability of the contract with M/s. Senghal & Senghal?

Issue 3:- Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?

Issue 4:- Whether the Civil Court of Sardam justified in rejecting the plea of restitution?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4
S NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 Index of Authorities

2 Statement of Jurisdiction

3 Statement of Facts

4 Issues Raised

5 Statement of Argument

Arguments Advanced
Issue 1
6 Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4

7 Prayer