Moot Proposition 1 (CIVIL)

Mr. Narender Mehta resides in Agra. He is an officer in the Revenue Department of the
Government of Uttar Pradesh and earns a salary of Rs. 80, 000 per month. He called upon Ms.
Niharika Singh to offer to buy his house numbered as B-401 at Mohan Valley in Mathura already
rented to a tenant. On 20th, March 2018, Niharika buys the house for Rs. 25 lacs only, while the
market price being around 65 lacs of rupees. In the sale deed, there is a clause which reserves the
seller’ s right to buy back the house for Rs. 25 lacs, in case Niharika becomes insolvent or
otherwise attempts to alienate the house. Niharika shifted into this newly purchased house.

On April 25th, 2018, Mr. Suraj Gupta arrives at the house of Niharika and warns her to
vacate the house as he is all set to approach the civil court for the attachment of the house for
sale in case Narender Mehta fails to pay his debt amounting to Rs. 45 lacs on the due date of 30 th
April, 2018, although Narender had promised to pay Suraj’s loan out of his salary. Niharika
refused to do so. Jeevan, Niharika’s brother who was present at that time, started scolding Suraj
after which he went off the house. On 30th of April, 2018, Mrs. Suhani Mehta, wife of Narender
also enters the house of Niharika and in a verbal entanglement; Suhani alleges Niharika to have
illicit relations with Narender and cautions her to face dare consequences. She claims that she
has a charge upon the income of this house for her maintenance as decreed by the Court in a
judicial separation petition which has been accrued to her to the amount of Rs. 70,000 and will
accrue furthermore at the rate of Rs. 15000 per month from May, 2018 onwards. After two days,
two other creditors of Narender having a debt of 5 lacs each, named as Ramesh and Suresh,
inform Niharika to have interest in the house in case Narender failed to pay their money which
had become due on 20th, January, 2018. In a significant development, Niharika offers Jeevan to
buy the same house at Rs. 50 lacs which he agrees to and pays the money to her and gets the
possession of the property on 7 th of May, 2018. On being aware of the sale of the house to Mr.
Jeevan, Mr. Suraj Gupta, Mrs. Suhani, Ramesh and Suresh allege it to a fraudulent transfer to
defraud them and therefore want the transfer to be nullified and property be applied to pay their
respective debts as per law. Case is filed against Narender and Niharika. Argue for parties.

Plaintif- 1503, 1505, 1507, 1511, 1513.

Defendant -1515, 1517,1519, 1521, 1523.

 Moot Proposition 2

Rajat Aggarwal, aged 65, is the owner of two textile mills in Ahmadabad where he lives with his
wife and a son, Kartik Aggarwal. Vijay Kaul is the Supervisor-Cum Manager of one of the mills
whereas Kartik Aggarwal is the Executive Chairman of both of the mills. On January 13, 2017,
Rajat Aggarwal told Kartik that he is planning to purchase some land to establish a new textile
mill on the outskirts of Ahmadabad city which he again wants him to manage with Vijay Kaul.
He told him that the market value of these 5 acres of land is 50 lacs of Rupees. On 25 th of
February, 2017, Rajat Aggarwal asked Vijay whether he is interested to sell his land to Kartik
Aggarwal for Rs. 50 lacs for the establishment of a new factory in which he again will be the
manager which was so refused by Vijay Kaul. From April onwards, there was a 5 percent hike in
the salary of employees; however Vijay got a pay hike of 20 percent and now being paid as Rs.
80,000 per month. On 12th of July, 2017, Rajat Aggarwal again asked Vijay to sell his land to
him at 50 lacs of Rupees. Vijay said him that he will tell after sometime.

On 1st August, 2017, Vijay was given an accommodation by Rajat near the mill he worked in.
Vijay shifted with his family in the house. Rajat did not demand any rents and Vijay also did not
bother to ask anything in this regard.

On 20th November, 2017, Rajat came to the house of Vijay and told him that he offers him to buy
his house for 50 lacs of rupees in lieu of him being transferring his land to Kartik. Vijay agreed
to do it and told Rajat that the land is being held by her sister to use the property’s income till she
remains unmarried under a written deed from her father and he has the remainder interest which
he will transfer to Rajat after she gets married. Sister gets married on 30 th of November, 2019.
On December 10, 2019 when asked to proceed with the transfer, Vijay refused to execute
transfer deed. Rajat pleaded in the Court for the specific performance of the contract as Vijay
had exercised the option under section 35 Of the Transfer of Property Act. Argue for the parties.

Plaintiff – 1525, 1527, 1529, 1531, 1533.

Defendant- 1502, 1504, 1506, 1508, 1510.

 MOOT PROPOSITION NO 3

A young Software Engineer Navita working with one BPO Company Pune, 28 years old Married
woman, in the prime her youth, having bright career lying ahead. She used to travel to her
workplace and back by her company transport or Public Transport of by an Auto Rickshaw. On
the evening of 17/10/2012 i.e. the day of the incident as she was working till late she missed the
company transport and therefore near a Mall on Nagar road she accepted the offer of lift by
Sachin Mishra – Accused no. 1 in the cab driven by himself and in which the other two accused
viz. Vikram Jadhav Accused no. 2 (Security Guard) and Aniket Salwi Accused no. 3 were
already sitting and present in the cab. They promised to take her to her house in Katraj
whereupon she placed total trust in these strangers. However, the brutes took advantage of the
fact of her being the only woman in the cab, they abducted her to satisfy their insatiable lust. She
was stripped naked and kept in that condition for hours committing gang rape on her repeatedly.
They picked up Nalini from Mall and subsequently drove her to Hadapsar by Magarpatta and
from there onwards to Manjari Phata and then to Abalwadi. There onwards accused took her to
Shankar Parvati Mangal Karyalaya on Nagar Road where they raped her. In mean time T.
Ramlinga (Approver) joined them and he too raped Nalini. Then they drove to Dargah at
Chandan Nagar where the four and further to Vadu Fata by Markal Road where they raped her
again. Her dead body was found near Markal Road, next day. The post-mortem report revealed
the cause of her death as strangulation by a cloth, which was probably her dupatta. Her face and
head was brutally crushed with heavy stones to camouflage her identity in order to destroy the
evidence.

Trial took place against all these accused in the Trial Court, Pune. Trio accused in this case held
guilty for the Gang Rape and murder and all the three accused were sentenced to death U/S 376
(A), 397, 302, 404, 120(B) of IPC for this horrific crime. But T. Ramalinga (Approver) was
acquitted. All the three accused filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court against the decision of
the Trial Court Pune to set aside the conviction and sentence. Argue for both sides.
Prosecution -1512, 1514, 1516, 1518, 1520.

Defence- 1522, 1524, 1526, 1528, 1530.

 MOOT PROPOSITION 4

A young woman named Sarita of 22 year old, succumbed to injuries at a private hospital in
Guwahati on 1st June, 2018 due to multiple organ failure as she had developed severe health issues
due to swallowing acid. The incident leading to the death of Sarita occurred at Guwahati Railway
station on 1st May, 2018. The gruesome incident had set the local police on their heels as the man
who threw acid had concealed his face at the time of attack. However, investigation by police,
Guwahati crime branch, led to one Sanjay (26) and his accomplice Mahesh Yadav (28) who were
both neighbours of deceased Sarita. Sanjay allegedly flung acid on Sarita at the Guwahati railway
Station when she was getting down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri. Thereafter, Sanjay
boarded the same train back to his home at siliguri.
Accorging to the police, Sarita had secured a nursing job with the Guwahati Medical College and
Hospital (GMCH) in Guwahati. Sanjay Sharma was a hotel management graduate and despite his
best efforts was unemployed. Sanjay’s parents used to taunt him about his failure to get a job
despite completing his education and always praised Sarita because of her education and career.
Sanjay used to confide in Mahesh, who was his childhood friend and used to tell him about how
Sarita once rejected his marriage proposal and also how his parents had ill – treated him for not
being able to secure any job. Apart from this, they were in all praises for Sarita as she could fetch a
very good job in a government hospital. Mahesh treated Sanjay as his younger brother and
therefore could not bear the pain of Sanjay and suggested him that he should find Sarita alone and
pressurize her not to accept the job offer and to accept his marriage proposal. He further, suggested
Sanjay to threaten Sarita with a bottle of acid in order to pressurize her for the same. Sanjay
wanted to disfigure Sarita’s face so as to destroy her career. To teach her a lesson, Sanjay procured
a bottle of acid on 30th April, 2018 as soon as he came to know that Sarita was leaving for
Guwahati to join her new nursing job and he boarded, along with Mahesh, the same train taken by
Sarita and her family members to Guwahati on 1st May, 2018, when Sarita was getting down from
Rajdhani Express from Siliguri at the Guwahati railway station, Sanjay in opening the bottle and
Sanjay allegedly threw acid on her face. Subsequently Mahesh and Sanjay fled easily covering
their faces. Sarita was taken to the hospital by her family members. The doctor immediately
conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous.
F.I.R. was lodged, statement of Sarita was recorded. A case was registered against both the accused
under sections 302, 326 B r/w 34 IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed
offender, while Sanjay was arrested by police from his home at Siliguri and the bottle of acid used in
the crime, was seized from his possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before the sessions
court, at Guwahati where he pleaded not guility and claimed trial. As per the charge sheet Sanjay threw
concentrated sulfuric acid at Sarita as he envied her career growth. The session court held that Sanjay
could not explain the scars which he had suffered as few drops of acid fell on his hands.
The sessions court convicted Sanjay for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326 B of IPC
1860 and awarded him life imprisonment for the offences. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
Sanjay, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement, appealed before High Court seeking acquittal from the
charges. Under the circumstance of the case, the sessios court had wrongly held Sanjay liable under
Sec. 326 B IPC, by invoking Sec. 34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of acid
attack under sec. 326 B could be proved. Whereas, the state also filed an appeal against the decision of
the Sessions Court, for demanding death penalty as the case is one of the ‘rarest of rare cases’.
The case is listed for arguments before High Court. Argue for both sides.
Appellant- 1535, 1537, 1539, 1541, 1543.

Defence- 1545, 1547, 1549, 1551, 1553.

 MOOT PROPOSITION 5

Indiva is a small developing country where the freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed
as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Indiva. Bangistan is the neighbouring country of
Indiva. However, in last few months there have been various instances where freedom of speech
and expression has come under the scanner in Indiva.
Mr. Pappu Yadav filed a criminal case under section 124A of IPC (Indiva Penal Code) against
Kamla Mehta, an actor-politician who is a member of the Indiva National Party, the largest
opposition party for her comment on social media “Minister Mohan Singh said that going to
Bangistan is like going to hell”. It is nothing like that. People there are just like us and there is no
difference. They treated us very well”. On the receipt of the complaint, summons was issued
against Kamla Mehta. Kamla Mehta being aggrieved by these summons challenged the
constitutionality of Sections 124A of the IPC stating it to be violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution of Indiva before the Supreme Court of Indiva.
Lamnesty International, an NGO, conducted a campaign named “Broken Families of Vienna”
(Vienna being a state of Indiva) where they talked about the human rights violations by Indiva
Army on the people of Vienna and invited the victims of these violations to speak. During the
debate the Indiva Peoples Party (IPP, which is the ruling party) was heavily criticized for its
inaction. Moreover at the end of the program the debate got heated and there were heard some
anti-Indiva slogans.
Democratic Students Union (DSU) held protests on the hanging of Faizal Khan convicted of
terror attack on the parliament of Indiva on the campus of Murli Sankar University for which the
permission was refused by the University. Anti-Indiva Slogans and slogans to overthrow the
government were raised in the event. A complaint was filed against Raju Kumar the President of
DSU for the charges of Sedition. The disciplinary committee of the university investigated the
matter to find that the slogans were raised by a group of outsiders wearing masks.
All Indiva Student Organization (AISO) a student body associated with Indiva Peoples Party
(IPP), was responsible for filing the complaint against Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar
under section 124A of the IPC.
National Crime Records Bureau in its report stated that in 2014 as many as 47 cases of sedition
were filed leading to the arrest of 58 people and there has been an alarming increase in the cases
in 2015. In 2016 as many as 21 cases have been filed.
Kamla Mehta, Lamnesty Interntaional and Raju Kumar filed a PIL challenging the validity of
Section 124A as being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
As all the above issues concerns interpretation of Article 19(1) (a), 19(2) and 21 of Indiva
Constitution it was placed before a Special Bench of the Supreme Court of Indiva to decide.
Argue for both sides.

Note: The laws of Indiva are in parity with Indian Laws.

Petitioner – 1555, 15537, 1559, 1561, 1563.

Respondent- 1532, 1536, 1538, 1542, 1544

 MOOT PROPOSITION 6

In a country Naxilia, At a village Ramgarh in Virganj district, there is an abandoned aerodrome

where large quantity of valuable aeroscrap is collected. The Defence Department left two
Choukidars namely, Jishnu and Jitender with a view to prevent pilferage by unauthorized
persons. The aerodrome area is surrounded by many tribal villages which are inhabited mostly
by Mahi tribes, which is an uneducated and orthodox tribe. The tribes have a very strong belief
in existence of ghosts and the abandoned aerodrome earned notoriety in that area as being
infested with ghosts. One day Dushyant Singh from the firm of Singh Brothers, Newcity, visited
to village Ramgarh accompanied by his servant Vir Bahadur for the purpose of purchasing the
said aerodrome. He and his servant stayed in the nearby house of Ravi Kishan, who is running a
tea stall in village Ramgarh. There are several foot-paths cutting across the aerodrome, leading
one village to another. But on account of their fear of ghosts the people would not ordinarily
venture out at night alone on those paths.
When Dushyant Singh and his servant Vir Bahadur were in the village, one Chand Mahi from
Village Rajgarh, which is a nearby village of Ramgarh, went to the tea-stall of Ravi Kishan in
village Ramgarh at about 8:30 pm and took shelter there for a night because he was afraid of
proceeding back alone to his village Rajgarh at that hour of the night for fear of ghosts.
In the midnight Dushyant Singh and his servant thereafter had a conversation with Chand Mahi
and in their conversation Dushayant Singh showed his anxiousness to see ghosts, and Chand
Mahi suggested that “as present is a full moon night the ghost will be most active on this specific
night”, relying on this statement of Chand Mahi, Dushyant Singh and his servant Vir Bahadur
agreed to travel with him at night and offered to drop him back to his village in the process, they
jointly also persuaded Ravi Krishan to accompany them to see ghosts. All four of them thereafter
initiated their on foot journey with torchlight in their hands to Rajgarh village through a foot-
path across aerodrome. While passing through the aerodrome they noticed a flickering light at
distance of about 500 meters from path-way. Strong wind was blowing and the movement of the
light in that breeze created in them an impression that it was not an ordinary light but 'will-o' the
wisp.' They also found some apparitions moving around the flickering light. They thought that
some ghosts were dancing around the light and they all ran towards that place.
Vir Bahadur (Servant) reached first with his 'khukhri' in hand and began to attack ghosts
indiscriminately. Ravi Krishan arrived there some time later, however Vir Bahadur did not notice
Ravi Krishan which lead to striking of one of his Khukuri blows to Mr. Ravi Kishan causing
severe injury. In pain Ravi Kishan screamed loudly that Vir Bahadur had injured him. In the
mean time other injured persons also raised a cry of distress and only after hearing so many cries
Vir Bahadur stopped attacking the people. It was subsequently discovered that the apparitions
that Vir Bahadur attacked were actually some female of the Rajgarh village known to Mr. Chand
Mahi, who were there for collecting Mohua flower at night under a 'Mohua' tree with hurricane
lantern, which they wanted to bring at the Kali Mata temple for fulfilling a local tribal ceremony,
which was a common practice and was done on every full moon night by the ladies of Mahi
tribe. In consequence of indiscriminate attack with his 'Khukhri' one Geeta Mahi was killed, and
two other females namely Ganga Mahi and Sunahri Mahi were grievously injured.
FIR was registered against Vir Bahadur and he was charged under Sec. 302 I.P.C. for murder of
Geeta Mahi, under Sec. 326 I.P.C. for having caused grievous hurt to persons injured and under
Sec. 324 I.P.C. for having caused hurt to Ravi Krishan.
The learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty on the ground that he did not act with 'due
care and attention’. The accused went on appeal before the Hon’ble Naxilia High Court. The
Hon’ble Naxilia High Court held the accused not guilty on the ground that the actions of Vir
Bahadur was consequence of bona fide mistake of fact and under a sincere belief that he was
attacking ghosts and not human beings and hence he was acquitted relying on Section 79 of
I.P.C. Now the State has, as a result of the aforementioned Naxilia High Court’s judgment, filed
an appeal/Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Argue for both sides.

Note: *The Laws of Union of India are applicable in the “State of Naxilia”.

Appellant- 1546, 1548, 1550, 1552, 1554.

Defence- 1556, 1558, 1560, 1562, 1564.

 MOOT PROPOSITION 7
Suseela filed an application for restitution as conjugal rights under Hindu Marriage Act. She got
married with Madhav in temple near Rajpura on 14th March, 2017 by exchange of garlands. She
further stated that she joined her husband and her mother-in-law and they started ill treating her
for reason that their marriage was not an arranged marriage and the marriage performed was not
a marriage at all she further stated that she and her husband went to Patiala and there they had
undergone all marriage ceremonies on 3rd October, 2017 in a temple and thus the marriage was
solemnized. The husband who is under the thumb of his mother deserted her in March 2018 and
she has been living separately ever since.

The contention of Madhav is that he came into contact with Suseela as she was
introduced to him in a function by friend where accidentally a photograph of both of them was
taken. He did not marry by exchange of garlands as alleged by her on and he married his
maternal uncle’s daughter in April, 2017. He further alleged that taking advantage of his state of
drunkenness Suseela took him to the temple and he was not knowing as to what was going on.
He says that Suseela is a Christian and he had produced an affidavit (in which her husband’s
name was also mention) signed by her and attested by a notary to the effect that she is a
Christian and the affidavit was need for securing employment. Madhav had also got hold of a
birth certificate where in it is stated that Suseela gave birth to a male child 3 years prior the date
of marriage and the husband’s name is mentioned as Joseph C. Pratop. Madav therefore contents
that his marriage is not at all performed therefore it not a valid marriage and she is not entitled
for Restitution of Conjugal rights.

Petitioner-1565, 1567, 1569, 1571, 1573.

Defendant side – 1575, 1577, 1579, 1581, 1583.

 MOOT PROPOSITION 8

Mr Amanbir is arrested and tried for offences punishable under S.376, IPC and S..5(i) r/w S.6 of
the POCSOA. As per the first information report, the offence occurred six months prior to the
complaint being made. This was due to the fact that the victim had been too afraid to complain
against the accused. After his arrest, the police investigating the case sent him for medical
examination. Medical examination suggested that Mr Amanbir was capable of having sexual
intercourse. He also had simple injuries on his arm which might have been caused by human
nails. The victim girl was also examined medically. Medical examination suggested no evidence
of recent sexual assault on the victim.

However, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. which was
consistent with the complaint that led to the FIR. Further, statements of the parents of the victim
were recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. which also stated that the victim had been sexually assaulted
by the accused. Upon submission of the chargesheet, the accused filed for discharge in the
present case. The said application was rejected by the court which then proceeded to frame
charge against the accused for offences punishable Section 5(i) read with 6 of the POCSOA. The
charge under S.376, IPC was dropped. The accused entered a plea of not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Thereafter, trial commenced. Opening the trial for the prosecution, the Special Public
Prosecutor refused to lead any evidence before the trial court and instead submitted that the court
was to presume the accused guilty of having committed the offences charged under POCSOA
unless he proves otherwise. Therefore, he submitted, that the prosecution had already discharged
its burden, and the accused would have to lead evidence. The accused led evidence of mutual
enmity between himself and the parents of the victim over a property dispute to prove that the
complaint was falsely and maliciously made. Neighbours and family members of the accused
were examined as witnesses who testified to the existence of such enmity. Thereafter, final
arguments were made and the judgment was reserved. In its verdict, the trial court held that the
accused had been unable to rebut the presumption against him under the POCSOA of having
committed the offences as evidence of enmity did not in fact prove that the allegations were
falsely made. Thereafter, the trial court proceeded to convict the accused for the offences
charged and sentence him to ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000. Mr.Amanbir appeals
his conviction in the High Court.

Appellant -1566,1568,1570,1574,1576

Respondent -1578, 1580,1582,1584