9TH KIIT INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

(KIMCC), 2017

Organised by:-

KIIT Law School Moot Court Society

School of Law, KIIT University.

Conducted on: March 4th- 5th, 2017 (Moot Proposition 1)

March 11th- 12th, 2017 (Moot Proposition 2)

1
 KIMCC BROCHURE

1. MOOT PROPOSITION I

2. MOOT PROPOSITION II

3. THE KIMCC RULES, 2017

4. THE TIMELINE

5. THE REGISTRATION FORM

2
 MOOT PROPOSITION I (For 1st and 2nd years)

1. Delsey Leather (hereinafter called as DLC) is a private limited company, headquarters

in Kanpur and primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing of leather products.
It carries on business mainly of manufacture of leather products. The Company does
not engage in retail/direct sales of its products and participates only in the manufacture
and sale of such manufactured products to other marketing entities, like Excel Leather,
who sells the products under the latter’s trade/business name to the latter’s customers.
The proceeds from the sale of the retail products forms part of the revenues/ profits of
the marketing entity.
2. DLC, in a bid to internalise/cut cost and build internal competency, decided to float a
separate division in the company for dealing in leather technology, which till date was
outsourced to a third party.
3. However, given the fact that not many of its competitors having similar business
models had not yet internalised such procedures, DLC was concerned that there would
be high risk of attrition/ employee poaching by rival business organizations, given the
fact that investments were costly, skilled workers were few, and the economic viability
of such technology was high.
4. DLC feared that once it floated a separate division, it would incur huge costs for the
required establishment, overhead, training of personnel, and likewise. If any such
personnel would have left DLC immediately after being trained, without giving DLC
the opportunity of utilising their trained skill for its own product/ processes, the
Company would end up incurring huge losses as it would not be able to have a return
on its investments.
5. To address this concern of theirs, DLC developed a scheme where they would induct
fresh graduates as interns, provide them the requisite training, and then build their
expertise by absorbing them as employees and giving them hands-on experience in this
matter, where they would be required to work in close association and coordination
with the other divisions of the company and also third party vendors, as applicable.
However, they would consider only such graduates who would, apart from possessing
the necessary merit and attitude, agree to successfully complete the mandatory three
year training period, and serve the company for a further period of five years, which the
Company considered was a necessary and reasonable period for building proficiency in
the use and application of the technology as a part of the total work environment.

3
6. The Company has inducted the following terms and conditions in the offer letter of
traineeship which it has started extending to several fresh inductees-

(a) That the trainee shall serve the company for a term of five years from the date of
his/her joining the duties after successful completion of the traineeship period of three
years, at a remuneration of Rupees 20,000 per month, and after completion of three
years, salary of Rupees 40,000 per month, in addition to other benefits and facilities as
extended by the Company.

(b) That in the event of the trainee’s work being found satisfactory, during the
traineeship period, he/she shall be entitled to retain his services for a period of seven
years after the expiry of the training period of three years, in the post of an Assistant
Leather Goods Technician

(c) That the trainee during the continuance of his/her employment shall well and
diligently, according to the best of his/her ability, employ himself/herself in the service
of DLC and shall obey the orders of DLC in all respects. He/she shall conform to and
comply with the directions and regulations given and made by DLC and shall well and
faithfully serve the company and use the utmost of his endeavour to promote its
interest and shall not divulge nor communicate to any person or persons whatsoever
any information which he may receive or obtain in relation to the affairs of company.
He shall not wilfully absent himself from the duty at any time without the sanction of
the company. The trainee shall not give his services or advice to any other person or
company whomsoever, nor become interested nor engaged in any enterprise or
undertaking either alone or jointly with other or any other in any business or trade
during the apprenticeship period of three years and after joining as Assistant Leather
Goods Technician;

(d) That the company shall be entitled to terminate the services of the trainee without
notice on account of either of the following events, if the trainee shall at any time
wilfully disobey or be found unable to perform or comply with all lawful instructions
given to him by DLC or if he fails to observe proper discipline, or if he fails to carry
out the conditions and stipulations of the agreement, or if he be considered guilty of
neglect of duty, insobriety, dishonesty, insubordination, fraud, or other indiscretion or
any offence under the law of the country irrespective of the fact whether the said
agreement period would have expired or not.
4
 (e) If the trainee fails to perform his duties to the satisfaction and approval of DLC
they shall have the absolute discretion in deciding whether the services of the trainee
are satisfactory or not. In the event of the Company terminating the Agreement under
this clause, the Assistant Leather Goods Technician shall have no claim whatsoever
against the Company."

7. Mr. Sahil Kumar had applied for and selected to join as a trainee under the said
scheme, after having duly considered all the terms and conditions in the offer of
traineeship. He joined as a trainee and he was posted in the factory located in Kanpur.
He started his training in leather manufacture and was given full facilities to learn the
technicalities thereof and to get specialised knowledge and experience therein. Sahil
received special training in design conceptualization and range building by reason of
his association with the factory located in Kanpur for a period of two years
continuously. Sahil applied for leave on ground of illness from DLC. Thereafter he did
not resume his duties and applied for further leave from time to time. Sahil wrote a
letter to DLC after a period of 6 months requesting DLC to terminate his services.

8. Though Excel was a marketing entity of finished goods procured from companies like
DLC, and it cannot be said that Excel and DLC were business rivals in the strict sense,
yet they had a link in trade. Furthermore, Excel was also looking at expanding its
business in newer and viable areas, in pursuance of which they decided to spinoff a
subsidiary named Excel Leather Technologies Ltd. (ELT), in which Excel was the
majority shareholder holding 81% share capital, and which was strictly focused on
developing leather technology for use by third parties on commercial basis.

9. ELT extended an offer to Mr. Sahil to join their organization as Deputy Manager –
Leather Technology, also offering a significant rise in the perquisite and remuneration
which were earlier offered to him at DLC. Mr. Sahil promptly decided to take the offer
of appointment and joined the services of the new company with immediate effect.

10. On coming to know about this subsequent employment, the concerned official of DLC
wrote to the concerned representative at ELT to immediately terminate Sahil’s
employment as it resulted in breach of Sahil’s contractual commitments to DLC, and
that by continuing Sahil’s employment, ELT would be held liable for contributing and
promoting the breach of the earlier contract, to which ELT rebutted that it was not a
party to the original contract and that it is not bound by its obligations.
5
11. DLC issued a final letter to ELT stating that despite not being a party to the contract, it
is in the position of a beneficiary of the breach, as it is the entity likely to benefit the
most from the expertise and knowledge gained by Sahil, and on the basis of which
ELT had extended the offer of appointment to him. DLC also stated that if ELT did
not terminate the appointment of Sahil within a week from the receipt of the letter,
they would initiate appropriate action before appropriate forum.

DLC has instituted a suit against M/s Excel Ltd., M/s ELT and Mr. Sahil Kumar as co-
defendants. The Court has framed the following issues for deliberation, and the
Counsel of both the parties is directed to present the submission on the following
issues:

1. Is the said agreement between DLC and Sahil unreasonable, being in total restraint of
trade and against public policy?
2. If unreasonable, whether the breach of the contract by Sahil is actionable and to what
extent?
3. Is ELT liable to be pleaded as a co-defendant, despite not being privy to the contract
between DLC and Sahil?
4. Is Excel liable to be pleaded as a co-defendant, being the parent and majority
shareholder of ELT, and having competitive nexus with DLC?

Note: Participants are free to frame additional issues on their own, which they can
support on the basis of the above facts and legal principles.

6
 MOOT PROPOSITION II (For 3rd years and above)

1. Raman Sundar, a Hindu hails from Bengaluru. He is a scientist by profession. After

completing his Ph.D. from India, he went to Texas in the United States of America. He joined
as a research fellow in a prestigious university in Texas. Owing to his academic brilliance, he
soon rose through the ranks in the University and this helped him secure a US citizenship.

2. Saritha Paramshetti is a Hindu born in Mysuru, India hailing from a traditional

conservative family and the only issue of well-off parents and is a software engineer by
profession.

3. Raman and Saritha got married on 12th June 1999 with the blessings of their parents and
spent the next three months in India. Soon after, they left for USA. She subsequently
acquired the citizenship of USA.

4. Out of this marriage they had two children, one son and one daughter, Nirmal and
Meghana. Nirmal was born in 2001 and Meghana in 2005. Both were born in USA.

5. By June 2010 the marital relationship between Raman and Saritha started deteriorating.
The children, who were schooling in Texas, could feel the alienation of their father. Though
Raman did not disclose any particular reason for discord, he started drinking and in his
inebriated condition would ill-treat Saritha. He would frequently abuse her verbally and often
also verbally abuse her parents. She suffered it silently for the sake of saving the marriage.

6. In October 2014 Raman, Saritha and their two children came to Mysuru to celebrate
Dussehra. Raman stayed in India for a week and left for USA because of work constraints.
Saritha and the children stayed back in Mysuru at her parents’ place.

7. During her stay, the parents found Saritha to be mostly dull and dejected and anxiously
enquired as to her well-being. Saritha revealed her plight and expressed her fear that her
relationship with Raman could not be continued for long as she and her children could not
suffer any longer.

8. After much thought and consultation with the Parents, Saritha decided to stay back along
with the children in Mysuru for some time and wait for the response of Raman and then
decide the future course of action.

7
9. She mailed Raman saying that she and children prefer to stay back in Mysuru and they will
return only if he assured them of good behavior and proper treatment of Saritha and the
children. Raman, who was apparently taken by surprise at the turn of events, returned within
a month to India and apologized to Saritha and requested them to return with him to USA.

10. Soon after returning, Raman went back to his usual behavior and consequently Saritha
and children flew back to Mysuru in April, 2015. Subsequently, in June Saritha arranged for
the admission of the children in a school in Mysuru. Their schooling was a priority for
Saritha and in order to catch up with local language required for schooling she arranged
tuitions for the children.

11. In due course, Saritha decided to put an end to her marital relationship with Raman. She
consulted a local lawyer and filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court at Mysuru in
August, 2015. The Court ordered for issue of notice to Raman.

12. During the same period, Raman sensing that legal action would be taken, consulted a
lawyer in Texas and filed a petition for the custody of his children. He contended that the
children are US Citizens and it would be his legal right to be their guardian during their
minority and it would be in the interest of children to be educated in USA under his care and
custody. He further pleaded that the withdrawal of matrimonial company by Saritha was
without any justification and also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in a US
Court against Saritha.

13. Raman secured an order form the US Court for the custody of children and it was ordered
to be served in India to Saritha. Saritha, who received the order of US court, did not obey it.
In October 2015, Raman therefore moved the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru for an
appropriate Writ to be issued to police department to hand over custody of children to him in
compliance with the order passed by the US Court. Saritha contested the said Writ Petition,
and pleaded that the order of US Court was passed without giving her an opportunity to be
heard and hence not binding on her. She also contended that she is the rightful guardian of
the children in India and hence guardianship of the children should not be handed over to her
husband in USA. Simultaneously she moved to the Family Court at Mysuru for an order to
allow her to retain custody of her children. This was moved as an interim application in the
divorce petition filed by her. Pursuantly, the Family Court issued emergency notice to
Raman.

8
14. In view of the contention raised by her husband in the Family Court to the effect that he
has right to custody of children even under Indian law, Saritha was advised to challenge the
very law as being opposed to Constitution of India. Hence she filed a Writ Petition
challenging validity of Sec.19 [b] of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Sec.6 [a] of Hindu
Minority & Guardianship Act 1956. Raman contested the same.

15. The High Court of Karnataka heard both the parties and held on 4th December 2015, that
the father is natural guardian of minors and the order of US court has to be enforced in India,
because that court which had otherwise jurisdiction over citizens of USA could pass such
order. As regards the claim of Saritha regarding custody of the children, the High Court held
that the matter is still pending at the stage of her application in the Family Court. As to the
Writ Petition challenging the provisions of the two afore-mentioned statutes recognizing
father as guardian of children, the High Court held that they do not violate any provision of
Constitution of India.

16. Saritha now approaches the Supreme Court of India, challenging the judgment passed by
Karnataka High Court concerning the validity of the afore-mentioned enactments and also the
scope of obedience in India to the order passed by the US Court, and further her right as
guardian of the children was re-agitated on her behalf in the Supreme Court of India. Raman
contested that the Karnataka High Court order was valid. Pursuant to the notice sent in this
regard, the Union of India also defended the constitutionality of the impugned provisions.

17. Upon preliminary hearing, the Supreme Court framed the following issues:

a. Whether the divorce petition and particularly the interim application for the custody of
the children filed by Saritha in the Family Court at Mysuru are maintainable?

b. Whether the order of the US Court is enforceable in India?

c. Whether Sec.19 [b] of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Sec.6 [a] of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 are constitutionally valid?

Note: Participants are free to frame additional issues on their own, which they can
support on the basis of the above facts and legal principles.

9
 KIMCC RULES & PROCEDURE

A. TEAM COMPOSITION

1. Each team shall consist of three members, comprising of two speakers and one researcher.

2. Any alteration in the names of the team members shall be informed through e-mail before
last date of registration i.e. 20th January, 2017 at [email protected]. However any
such alteration shall be permitted only once.

B. PARTICIPATION AND REGISTRATION PROCEDURE

1. Interested teams should register their team by submitting attached Registration Form to
Mrs. Pratiti Nayak, Asst. Professor (Faculty Convenor) or Prasenjit Ghosh (Student Joint
Convenor) before 20th January, 2017, 5:00 PM.

2. The Moot Propositions are divided into two, the first Moot Proposition (“MOOT
PROPOSITION I”) is for the first and the second year teams and the second Moot
Proposition (“MOOT PROPOSITION II”) is for the third, fourth and the fifth year teams.

3. The Top 20 participants of the MOOT PROPOSITION I shall be allotted the National
Moot Court Competitions from the list mentioned in the Annexure A. The top 20
participants of the MOOT PROPOSITION II shall be allotted the National Moot Court
Competitions from the list mentioned in the Annexure B.

4. In case a team wherein the participants are either from 1st year,2nd year and 3rd
year,4th year,5th year shall be considered to be cross teams. Such cross teams will
have a discretion to participate in either of the Moot Court Competitions to be
conducted. However the allotment of the moot shall be on the basis of the slot (Moot
Proposition I or II) they have chosen during their oral rounds.

5. Memorial submission is mandatory in order to appear for the oral rounds.

6. No person to person query will be entertained, every query will be entertained through
formal email at [email protected].

7. For further information of dates please refer to the Timeline attached.

8. Participants are directed not to approach faculty members of KIIT School of Law,
for consultation purpose. Violation of this rule would lead to disqualification.

10
C. MEMORIAL SUBMISSION GUIDELINES / RULES

The following guidelines for the memorials must be strictly followed. Non compliance will
entail penalties as provided below:

1. Teams have to prepare memorials for both the Appellant and the Respondent.

2. Teams shall submit soft copy at kimcc2017@gmail and 4 (four) hard copies of the
memorials for each side (Appellant & Respondent) (Total 4 X 2 =08 Memorials) on or
before:

2nd March 2017, 5:00 PM for MOOT PROPOSITION I

9th March 2017, 5:00 PM for MOOT PROPOSITION II

to Mrs. Pratiti Nayak (Faculty Convener) in person.

3. The memorials have to be submitted on A4 size paper, printed on only one side, and must
contain the following sections.

I.Cover Page;
II.Table of Contents;
III.Index of Authorities;
IV.Statement of Jurisdiction;
V.Statement of Facts;
VI.Statement of Issues;
VII. Statement of Arguments;
VIII.Arguments Advanced
IX.Prayer for Relief

4. The memorials must be printed in Times New Roman 12 font size with 1.5 line spacing.
The footnotes must be in Times New Roman 10 font size with 1.0 spacing. And should
contain the ‘Team Code’ on cover page. (Top-Right Corner)

5. The arguments advanced should not exceed 15 pages.

6. The memorials as a whole should not exceed 25 pages including the cover page.

7. The memorials should be covered with a plastic cover or a spiral bound.

8. The memorials should have a margin measuring one inch on all sides of each page.

9. The page numbering should be on the bottom of each page.

11
10. The Appellant’s memorial cover page shall be printed on Blue Colour A4 size paper,
and Respondent’s memorial cover page on Red Colour A4 size paper.

11. The teams have to use the latest edition of Blue Book for citation format throughout the
memorial.

12. Footnotes shall contain only the citations. There shall be no speaking footnotes in the
memorial.

13. The maximum scores for the memorial shall be 100 marks. The memorials shall be
evaluated on the following criteria and any non-compliance with above criteria shall
result in penalty of 2 marks per missing section.

PARTICULARS MARKS

1. Knowledge of Law and Facts 30 Marks

2. Proper and articulate analysis 20 Marks

3. Extent and use of Research 20 Marks

4. Clarity and Organization 20 Marks

5. Grammar and Style 10 Marks

TOTAL 100 Marks

D. ORAL ROUNDS

1. Each team will get a total of 15 minutes to present their case. This time will include
rebuttal and sur-rebuttal. Any time exceeding the allotted time shall be penalised. The
penalty shall be of 1 marks for every two minutes exceeded. However extension of time is
permissible at the discretion of the judges.

2. There shall be two oral rounds per team, presenting both appellant and respondent.

3. The division of time per speaker is left for the discretion of the team subject to a minimum
of 5 minutes per speaker.

4. The oral argument should be confined to the issues presented in memorial.

5. The researcher shall be present with the speaker during the oral rounds.

6. Passing of notes/chits to the speaker is not allowed.

7. The participants shall be mandatorily abide by the dress code as per prescribed by the Bar
Council of India.

12
8. Strict Adherence to Court Manners shall be observed by all the participants.

9. Maximum scores for the oral rounds shall be 100 points per speaker.

The oral rounds shall be judges on the following criteria:

PARTICULARS MARKS

1. Knowledge of Law 20 Marks

2. Application of Law to Facts 20 Marks

3. Ingenuity and Ability to Answer 20 Marks

4. Style, Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour 20 Marks

5. Time Management 10 Marks

6. Organization 10 Marks

TOTAL 100 Marks

E. FINALITY OF DECISION

The decision of the judges with regard to the outcome of the rounds shall be final.

F. CLARIFICATIONS

All clarifications regarding the Moot Problem should be sent before 20.01.2016 to
[email protected]. No questions/clarifications over phone/ any means other than e-mail
shall be entertained.

G. AWARDS

1. Winner – KIMCC Winner’s Trophy & Book Hampers

2. Runner’s-up – KIMCC Runner’s up Trophy & Book Hampers
3. 2nd runner’s up – KIMCC 2nd Runner’s-up Trophy &Book Hampers
4. Best Memorial – KIMCC Best Memorial Award & Book Hampers
5. Best Speaker (Male) – KIMCC Best Speaker Medal & Book Hampers
6. Best Speaker (Female) – KIMCC Best Speaker Medal & Book Hampers
7. Best Researcher – KIMCC Best Researcher Medal & Book Hampers

*All the participants would be provided with certificate of participation. Awards shall be
separate Moot proposition I & II.

13
 THE TIMELINE

PARTICULARS DATE

1. Disclosure of Moot Court Proposition 04-01-2017

2.Last Date of clarification 20-01-2017

3. Last Date of Registration 20-01-2017

4. Release of Clarification 25-01-2017

5. Team Code allotment 30-02-2017

6. Memorial Submission (Both Sides)

Moot Proposition I 02-03-2017
Moot Proposition II 09-03-2017
7. Researchers Test
Moot Proposition I 03-03-2017
Moot Proposition II 10-03-2017
8. Party Allotment & Exchange of Memorials
Moot Proposition I 03-03-2017
Moot Proposition II 10-03-2017
Note: Time shall be notified later.
9. Oral Rounds
Moot Proposition I (For the 1st and 2nd Years)
a. Round 1 04-03-2017
b. Round 2 05-03-2017
10. Oral Rounds
Moot Proposition II (For 3rd , 4th & 5th Years)
a. Round 1 11-03-2017
b. Round 2 12-03-2017
13. Declaration of Result 27-03-2017

14. Award Function & Prize Distribution 5-04-2017

#Disclaimer: The KLSMCS, hereby reserves the right to add/modify/alter/repeal any of

the above mentioned rules, dates and time with notification to the same effect.

14
 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Prof. P K Sarkar Prof. (Dr.) N.K. Chakrabarti Asst. Prof. Pratiti Nayak
Chairman Director Faculty Convenor
KLSMCS School Of Law KLSMCS

Ms. Ashna Siddiqui

Student Convenor
KLSMCS
[email protected]

Mr. Prasenjit Ghosh

Student Joint-Convener
KLSMCS
[email protected]
+91 8984399287

“All KLSMCS Faculty and Student Members”

#(All Communications are to be addressed to the below mentioned official e-mail id.)

Email Id: [email protected]

FOR REGULAR UPDATES

www.facebook.com/klsmcs

15
 REGISTRATION FORM
(TO BE FILLED IN CAPS)
PARTICIPANTS DETAIL

SPEAKER 1
FULL NAME: ...................................................................................
ROLL NO & SEMESTER:.................................................................. SIGNATURE
GENDER: .........................................................................................
CONTACT NO: .................................................................................
E- MAIL: ..........................................................................................

SPEAKER 2
FULL NAME: ...................................................................................
ROLL NO & SEMESTER: ................................................................. SIGNATURE
GENDER: .........................................................................................
CONTACT NO: .................................................................................
E- MAIL: ..........................................................................................

RESEARCHER
FULL NAME: ...................................................................................
ROLL NO & SEMESTER: .............................................................. SIGNATURE
GENDER: .........................................................................................
CONTACT NO: .................................................................................
E- MAIL: ..........................................................................................

For Cross- Teams, please select the desired Moot Proposition

MOOT PROPOSITION - I

MOOT PROPOSITION - II

[To be submitted to Ms. Pratiti Nayak (Faculty Convenor) or Prasenjit Ghosh (Student
Joint Convenor) on or before 20th January, 2017 in person]

16