LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Team Code:-102

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

OF

MANTE

CIVIL SUIT

UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908

‘IROL’ COMPANY PVT. LTD.

(PETITIONER)

VERSUS

MS. ISHIKA

(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF THE HIGH COURT OF MANTE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
PRAYER

1. THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT.

1.1 SUITABLE SECTION OF CPC

1.2 MS. ISHIKA SHOULD BE TREATED EXCEPTIONALLY

1.3 THE SUIT BEFORE MANTE HIGH COURT IS MAINTAINABLE

1.4 THE CASE MUST BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY

& GOOD CONSCIENCE.

2. THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT AMONG THE PARTIES

3. ON ACCOUNT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE PLAINTIFF IS

ENTITLE TO RECIEVE DAMAGES.

2|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOK AND REFERNCES

 Avtar singh, Contract & Specific Relief (Eastern Book Company , New Delhi),

12th edn., 2020

 Pollock & Mulla, The Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts (Lexis Nexis), 16th Edn,

2019

 C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 (Eastern Book Company),

9th edn. 2021

ACT AND STATUTES

 Civil Procedure Code Act,1908

 Indian Contract Act, 1872
 Specific Relief Act, 1963
 Indian Majority Act, 1875

ARTICLE AND LEGAL JOURNALS

 SCC Online data Base

 Manupatra,
 Blog.ipleaders.in
 Legalservicesindia.com

3|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

& And

AIR All India Reporter

V. Versus

C.P.C. Code of Civil Procedure 1908

No. Number

Def Defendant

ICA Indian Contract Act

Ltd. Limited

Sec. Section

Edn. Edition

Pvt. Private

Org. Organisation

SRA Specific Relief Act 1963

Hon’ble Honourable

Rs. Rupees

i.e That is

4|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for plaintiff has endorsed their pleadings before the Honourable high Court of
Mante under Sec. 151 reads with Sec. 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in which the
Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction.

Section 151 CPC

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the
Court to make such Orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court.

Section 9 of CPC 

According to Section 9 of CPC 1908 ststes that section deals with the jurisdiction of civil
courts in India. It says that the courts shall subject to the provisions herein contained have
jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either
expressly or impliedly barred.

5|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ms Ishika is a 17 year old girl from the City of Mante. She is great wizard in field of
computer science. She came across an advertisement on internet for creating freelance
software for ‘Irol’ company.
2. She Contact the company regarding this opportunity. She spoke to Mr. Siddhartha,
and she told him that she would like to give an interview to vice president of company
via a phone call regarding this, and eventually she was interviewed by Vice president
and then selected hence, she got the contract. This contract was reported in
accordance of the policy of the company, company had a policy of not contracting
with minor.
3. She signed the contract on January 16th 2021 and same was uploaded on the official
site of company. Company told Ishika that she will be paid Rs. 1,00,000 for
submitting the prototype on 21st April 2021.
4. For the development of prototype she ordered few hardware pieces from China. But
was unable to receive on time due to spike of covid cases in India which made it quite
difficult for Ishika to complete the prototype on time.
5. Now, on 23rd March Ishika turns 18, after recognizing that she won’t be able to
complete the prototype on time as she was down with covid on 20th April 2021. She
asks for extension of 2 weeks and promises to submit the same on 5th may 2021,
meanwhile she also request for Rs. 40,000 in order to finish her prototype.
6. But the company was not in capacity to give more time to Ishika as company suffered
great lose as the huge amount was spent on advertisement and other promotional
activities because of such delay, also the company suffered loss because it has to
cancel its meetings due to non – availability of the prototype.
7. Finally, on 21st June 2021 company ‘Irol’ filed a suit of 2,50,000 against Ishika to
claim damages from her in Mante High Court for breach of contract.

6|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE SUIT BROUGHT BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.

1.1 SUITABLE SECTION OF CPC

1.2 MS. ISHIKA SHOULD BE TREATED UNEQUALLY
1.3 THE SUIT BEFORE MANTE HIGH COURT IS MAINTAINABLE
1.4 THE CASE MUST BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY & GOOD CONSCIENCE.

II. IS THE CONTRACT VALID OR VOID.

2.1 TIME IS THE ESSENTIAL

2.2 THE CONTRACT IS A VALID CONTRACT , AND DEFENDANT

IS LIABLE :

III. WHETHER THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE DAMAGES.

7|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

.
1. ISSUE 1 – THAT THE PRESENT SUIT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the suit is maintainable as
the plaintiff has sufficient Locus Standi as High has jurisdiction under section 151
which is read with section 9 of C.P.C 1908.

2. ISSUE 2 – WHETHER THE CONTRACT IS VALID OR VOID.

2.1. The plaintiff contends in lieu of cited judgements that the contract is valid.

2.2. Factors making the contract valid between company ‘irol’and Ishika.

ISSUE 3 – WHETHER THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE

DAMAGES.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there was a breach of contract
as all the essentials of a valid contract was there but there was only partial
performance. On the part of the defendant. Time was the essence of the contract
but the it was not performed on the due date. Also, the company invested in
promotional activities, leading them to believe that it will earn them good revenue
if the prototype was made available on time as well as affecting the company’s
goodwill in the market. Hence it is humbly pleaded in this court of law to allow
the damages to the plaintiff.

8|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE IN THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

MANTE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the suit is maintainable as
the plaintiff has sufficient Locus Standi as High has jurisdiction under section 151
which is read with section 9 of CPC 1908.

Section 151 CPC 1908

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the
Court to make such Orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse
of the process of the Court.

Section 9  CPC 1908 

This Section deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It says that the courts
shall subject to the provisions herein contained have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil
nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

1.2 MS. ISHIKA SHOULD BE TREATED EXCEPTIONALLY

This is humbly submitted before the Lordship that this case contains some special
circumstances and must be treated Accordingly, as Ishika is prodigy in field of computer and
also recognised as a computer science wizard. According to 14 of the indian constitution
equals must be treated equal and unequal must be treated unequal. So she must be made
liable for the breach of contract as she made the contract just 3 months before obtaining the
majority as per section 3 of Indian Majority Act, 1875. As the date of making contract and
date of obtaining the majority varied only with a little difference and that is why, here in this
case, minority shall not be the criteria. As in present scenario, time is changing day by day

9|Page
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

and even 17 years old human being get that much capacity to understand his good and bad.
As the concept of freelancing and internships gaining popularity and no. Of minors get
engaged in such activities so, it is High time to realise that in such case minority should not
be treated as a complete defance.Hence this case should be treated as an exception to section
11 of Indian Contract Act 18721.

1.3 THE SUIT BEFORE MANTE HIGH COURT IS MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted before the Mante high court that the suit is maintainable which is
filed by plaintiff in court of law. As high court have jurisdiction over all cases. Section 15
of CPC 19082 only deals with the procedure not with the jurisdiction. The institution of a
suit in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, it does not oust the jurisdiction of
the Court of a higher grade; even if the Court of a higher grade tries and disposes of a suit
which could have been instituted in a Court of a lower grade, the decision rendered is not
without jurisdiction and is not a nullity. The same was held in case of Subhashini Malik3
it was held that Section 15 of the CPC enjoins the institution of a suit in the Court of the
lowest grade competent to try it, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court of a higher
grade; even if the Court of a higher grade tries and disposes of a suit which could have
been instituted in a Court of a lower grade, the decision rendered is not without
jurisdiction and is not a nullity. Section 15 CPC 1908 is only to prevent superior Courts
being flooded or overcrowded with suits triable by Courts of inferior grade and it merely
regulates procedure and not jurisdiction. Same was held in KesavarapuVenkateswarlu
Vs. Sardharala- Satyanarayana4 it was held that Section 15 CPC 1908 lays down a rule
of procedure and not of jurisdiction of the superior Court. In case TaranJeet Kaur vs.
G.S. Bhatia5 it was held that the pecuniary jurisdiction and that the minimum pecuniary
jurisdiction does not mean that the Court has no jurisdiction over suits, valuation whereof
for the purposes of jurisdiction is below its minimum pecuniary jurisdiction. The rule of

1
Avtar Singh, 12th edn.
2
Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it
3
Subhashini Malik vs S.K. Gandhi &Ors on 6 September, 2016
4
AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 49
5
2009 (108) DRJ 89

10 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

institution of suit in Courts of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 15 of the

CPC 1908, as aforesaid has to be read along with Section 21 of the CPC 1908.

1.4 THE CASE MUST BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY &
GOOD CONSCIENCE.

As it is known that Ishika is a minor but still she had a will to complete her work and
moreover she asked for extension of 2 weeks and all these shows that she had a will
to do but could not submit the prototype on time. Hence Counsel humbly request the
court to set this case as an precedent for all other court as well as cases related to
minor. If the honourable court makes Ishika guilty and, understands, today’s need in
modifying the law which was made in 1872 and is more or less not up to mark of
today’s generation. This case is an exception and must be decided on the bases of
equity, justice and good conscience in favour of plaintiff as it was said in case of
Privy Council in WaghelaRajsanji v. Shekh Masludin6 the council expresses the
opinion that if there is no rule of 'Indian law which could be applied to a particular
case, then it should be decided by equity and good conscience, and the council
interpreted equity and good conscience, to mean the rules of English law ,if found
applicable to Indian society and circumstances. And the same view was confirmed
by the Lordships of the Privy Council in Muhammad Baza v. Abbas BandiBibi 7.
Hence, the suit is maintainable in Honourable High Court of Mante.

6
1887 L.R. 14 I. A. 89
7
34 Bom. L.R. 1048

11 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

II. THE CONTRACT IS VALID.

Ishika entered into the contract on 16th January 2021 by signing the contract. When she
entered into the contract, she was a minor. She became a major on 23 rd March 2021. On 20th
April 2021. Ishika asked the company for 2 weeks extensions and Rs.40,000 to complete the
contract. It can be noted that, her request for extension & demand of extra money signifies
her intention to perform the contract, which was entered by her during her minority.

If the contract is entered during the period of minority and the person who have entered into
the contract, on becoming major does not cancel or repudiate the contract, the contract
becomes binding on such person.

2.1 TIME IS THE ESSENTIAL

In the contract, the plaintiff & Defendant had affirmed that the date of submission to be 21 st
April 2021 & hence Defendant need to submit the prototype by same.

There are two conditions for making out that time is the essence of contract:

a) Where delay operates as injury8.

Company suffered a loss as because the prototype was not submitted on the decided date
& further delay had led to the loss to the company like the money spent on the
adversiting activities and also the company suffered the loss as because it has to cancel
its meeting due to non- availability of prototype, hence, delay caused an injury to the
company.

b) Where defendant asked for extension of time for the completion of performance9.

8
Avatar Singh, Contracts & Specific Relief, 377, 12th Ed, Eastern Book Company 2017.
9
Avatar Singh, Contracts & Specific Relief, 377, 12th Ed, Eastern Book Company 2017.

12 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

When Ishika realized she would not be able to complete the prototype, she asked for 2
weeks extension & extra money to perform the contract.

These are the two conditions validating that time being the essence of the contract.

Hence, by lapse of time, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the plaintiff
under the Sec. 55 of the ICA 1872 as,

“Effect of failure to perform at a fixed time, in contract in which time is essential.—

When a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time,
or certain things at or before specified times, & fails to do any such thing at or before
the specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes
voidable at the option of the promisee, if the intention of the parties was that time should
be of the essence of the contract”10.

Furthermore, the contract stands cancelled under Sec. 27 (a) of the SRA 1963 as

“Any person interested in contract may sue to have it rescinded, & such rescission may
be adjudged by the court, where the contract is voidable or terminable by the
plaintiff””11.

And the plaintiff is justified so as to cancel the contract since it is voidable at its option.

In the case of Yanalla Malleshwari & Ors. v. Ananthula Sayamma & Ors, the Andhra
High Court impressed upon the conditions necessary for Sec. 31 of the Specific Relief
Act as,

“It is a misconception that in every situation, a person who suffers injury by reason of a
document can file a suit for cancellation of such written statement. Two conditions must
exist before one invokes Sec. 31 of SRA 1963. -These are: the written instrument is void
or voidable against such person; & such person must have reasonable apprehension that
such instrument if left outstanding may cause him serious injury”12

10
The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
11
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
12
Yanalla Malleshwar & ors vs Ananthula Sayamma & ors AIR 2007 AP 57

13 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

2.2 The contract is a valid contract,

1. The company was of the intention to create legally binding and full- fledged
contract as Ishika’s interview was taken by the Vice – President of the company
and also the company provide the legal contract to Ishika in online mode so as to
bind her and to get it signed by her , as because the company wants to create a
legally binding relationship between itself and Ishika , there was no reason for the
company so as to believe that Ishika was a minor , and if company came to know
about such fact, the company would never done the contract as it has the policy of
not doing the contract with minors and also because the company promised Ishika
to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000, if the contract is completed by her till April 21 st,
2021.
2. As the company ordered the creation of prototype to Ishika, there is no liability of
the company to pay Rs. 40000 to Ishika as hardware is such kind of equipment
which has to be possessed by a computer science wizard with herself to perform
her projects. The company liability would have arised if Ishika would have told
the company that she is lacking in hardware and had to purchased it from China ,
as it was not locally available in India , as being a computer science wizard she
would have knew that what all will be needed to create a prototype.
3. The contract is not frustrated as Covid cases were increasing in India, which can
only affect the delivery of the hardware from China which were ordered by Ishika,
but it not the business of company to provide Ishika with the hardware or with the
money to purchase hardware. That is why company has nothing to do which the
hardware, and the company also provided the extension of 2 weeks for the
completion of the prototype but then also, she has not completed the prototype.
Hence, it is a clear breach of contract.

14 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

4. Ishika requested for the extension of 15 days in order to complete her prototype
only one day before from the date of submission of the prototype as fixed by the
company i.e., 21st April , 2021 , this was the clear mistake of Ishika as because she
was down with Covid on 20th April,2021, but the symptoms of Covid might have
appeared days before 20th April, 2021.She would have told the company about
such circumstances on the day on which she was feeling uneasy, if she would
have told earlier than the one day before of the date of submission , the company
would not have suffered the losses which it has suffered because of delay in the
submission of prototype.

15 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

III. The defendant is liable to pay damages

The council on behalf of the Appellant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that the respondent is liable to pays damages of two lakhs fifty thousand
(2,50,000) to plaintiff as the defendant ,later on after attending the age of majority refused
to submit the prototype on the given date & instead asked for extension and an additional
money of Rs 40,000 all of these shows the clear intention on the part of Ishika that she
was willing to enter into a valid contract & intended to be legally bound by his part.

Moreover, we can claim that there has been a breach of contract on the part of the
defendant.
A cause of breach of contract claim has four elements:

1. The existence of a contract;

2. Performance by plaintiff

3. Failure to perform the contract by the defendant.

4. Resulting damages to the plaintiff.

Therefore, there was a breach of contract.

Sec. 73 in the ICA, 1872

Damages for loss or damage caused by breach of contract- When a contract has been
breached, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has

16 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

breached the contract, Damagesfor any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which
naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew,
when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.

The plaintiff is entitled to general as well as special damages. Since the promotion related
activities were basis of the assumption that the prototype would be ready on the given date &
there is no way the company could have thought an extension for 15 days would be asked, the
company lost the amount spent in promotional activities and also loss of a possible revenue
that would have been earned if the prototype would had been made available to the company
on the given date . Thus calculating the amount Rs. 2,50,000 is just a fair Damagesfor the
plaintiff.

Time is the essence of contract, there is no way that the company could have anticipated
any possible delay before the date of completion & that too a delay of 15 days. Defendant
clearly hid the fact of his inability to complete the prototype & if he had informed the
company further expenses in promotion & other app related activities would not have
occurred, not to mention the loss of goodwill of the firm in the market , it takes years for
a firm to build goodwill in the market place , the failure of the defendant to complete the
prototype made the company look incompetent in front of the its customers and the
competitors can utilise the scenario to take over market share of the plaintiff & thus it
should be on the defendant to compensate the company for the damages occurred due to
him hiding the facts related to completion of the job assigned to him & also he was an
adult at the time when he hid the facts & he cannot plead negligence of law & says its
assumed that every adult has knowledge of the consequences of his activities & thus it is
prayed that the plaintiff may receive Damagesfor the damages incurred by him due to the
negligence of the defendant.

17 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

PRAYER

In light of law the issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited, the counsel Behalf
of the Plaintiff humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court to be pleased to adjudge by appropriate
order or direction, hold & declare:
1. the formation of a valid contract took place.
2. the defendant had breached the contract so formed. & that the defendant must be held
liable for the distress caused by them.
3. the plaintiff is entitled to damages. &that, the defendant must pay Rs 2,50,000 for
damages.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the light of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience.

And for this, the Petitioner, as duty bound as ever, shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

18 | P a g e
 LAW INFORMANTS 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

19 | P a g e