CLARIFICATIONS RELATED TO MOOT PROBLEM

1. "There were mounting indications suggesting that Binod Kumar might have
artificially inflated the valuations of his assets, ostensibly with the intent of repaying
the loans once his business fortunes rebounded.", is this artificial asset value inflation
just a speculation or is backed by some data. If not, can we assume it to be statement
of fact.
There is no specific need for a clarity, as the same can be interpreted by either of the parties
as per the market trends and parameters.
2. Are the assets put on as collateral are personal assets of Binod Kumar or are they
company's assets?
They are personal assets of Binod Kumar.
3. The moot problem doesn't specify whether the loans in question were taken in the
name of the company (Lex Unicorn) or in Binod Kumar's personal name.
The Loan is taken in the name of the Company.
4. It's mentioned that a petition was filed directly in the High Court of Indiana. Why did
the petitioner not go to DRT or civil court first?
Kindly follow what is given as per the moot problem. The reason can be sorted out as per
the law.
5. Maximum and minimum number of pages.
There can be a Minimum of 20 Pages and Maximum of 30 Pages. The same is on the liberty
of the team. Keep in mind that the quality of the Memorial shall be the basis for 25 Marks
out of 100.
6. Bijoy Kumar the guy, under whose custody is he, what regulating body in India or is
he free.
He is currently free and not been under anyone’s custody.
7. Whether Binod Kumar in India or has he fled?
Binod Kumar is not in India and has fled abroad.
8. The facts are silent on the part which states a petition was filed. Since the kind of
petition is not specified, if the banks in the moot problem can be assumed to be 'public
sector banks' or not?
The banks are a group of Public Sector Banks, Private Banks etc.
9. The moot problem mentions that the petition is filed before the High Court of Indiana.
Since the High Court-District Court jurisdictions and other rules differ according to
 different states in India, which state might we presume the cause of action to
arise/jurisdiction to lie?
The High Court of Indiana is pari materia to High Court of Bombay.
10. Are the laws of Indiana pari materia with laws of India. If yes, then any specific law
or all laws?
The laws are pari materia to Indian Laws.
11. As mentioned about the investigation, what kind of investigation is being talked
about?
No Specific Clarification is required in this. The point can be interpreted as per the
necessary provisions in the law.
12. Under which provision are the Petitioner's approaching the High Court?
The provision can be figured out by themselves as per their requirement.
13. Under which provisions did the PBI Conduct investigation?
PBI Conducted investigation as per their bye-laws and necessary provisions of the statutory
authorities.
14. As the facts that are silent in the given problem, are we at liberty to develop upon the
same or are we strictly mandated to stick to what is given?
Interpretation can be done, keeping in mind, the meaning must not change the audacity of
the problem or factual matrix.
15. Is Binod Kumar a guarantor to a distress company?
Yes, Binod Kumar was a Guarantor.
16. The loan was given to the company or not?
Yes, the loan was given to the company, where Binod Kumar was a Guarantor in the
documents.
17. What is the claim and default amount on the part of bank?
The same bifurcation has been already provided in the moot problem.
18. Clarification with respect to which jurisdiction is the moot problem in pari-materia
with?
The laws are pari-materia to Indian Laws.
19. Is the petition against the Company or Binod Kumar?
Assume as per your prudence.
20. Is there any other cases related to it, as we are going to HC?
No clarification required. Assume as per your prudence and understanding.
21. As the banks are approaching the HC, can there be IBC involved or the provisions of
winding up from companies act be used?
No clarification required. Assume as per your prudence and understanding.
22. Binod has taken the loan for the business purpose which means the loan is on the
company and as the banks are approaching the HC for the recovery of their money
and in the problem it is stated that they are going behind the Binod which means the
corporate veil is lifted?
The facts are clear in reference to the above problem. No clarification required. Assume as
per your prudence and understanding.
23. If the loan is not for the company and personally taken by Binod that means fraud
can be involved; CPC?
No clarification required. Assume as per your prudence and understanding.
24. Do the assets 1472 Cr. are assets of Lex Unicorn or his personal ones?
The assets are of Binod Kumar.
25. Are the Loan amounts sanctioned in the name of Lex Unicorn or his own personal
capacity?
No clarification required. Assume as per your prudence and understanding.
26. Whether the loans taken were taken simultaneously or at different intervals of time?
No clarification required. Assume as per your prudence and understanding.