MOOT PROPOSITION-1

Mr. Aniket who is middle class person having 2 children and his wife went to visit his brother
namely Mr Aditya at his place in Amritsar. There Aniket met with some of the friends and
elders of his brother who live in the same society. One such person Mr Chadha got
acquainted with Aniket and over the time showed his interest in getting the marriage of his
son who is settled in Amritsar solemnized with Mr Aniket’s daughter namely Ishita.
Thereafter on 02.11.2012 the marriage of Ishita with Abhishek (Mr Chadha’s son) was
performed at Amritsar.
Unfortunately, there was no issue born to their wedlock. Ishita on number of occasions told
her parental mother that her mother-in-law used to taunt her about bringing less dowry to her
matrimonial house and even doubted her character and used to taunt her about the same.
When she told about this situation to her husband (Abhishek), he, instead of supporting her
slapped her and even went to the extent of throwing her out of the house although she came
back the same day in the evening. Thereafter whenever Ishita used to operate her phone
including all the social media platforms her husband used to taunt and assassinate her
character. Over the time such taunts of not being able to conceive a child and physical
beatings became a matter of daily routine.
Fed up with such behavior of her family members and because of taunts she had to face,
Ishita, while living in her matrimonial house on 20.03.2020 at around 4 pm put herself on fire
by sprinkling Kerosene oil on her body. She suffered severe burns. Ultimately even after the
best of treatment she could not be saved and she died the very next day but before her death
she made a statement before a Magistrate mentioning about her maltreatment by the accused
i.e., her husband and mother-in-law. She even stated that she did not want to live as her
husband and mother-in-law doubted her character. Thereafter a case was registered under 306
of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/husband and he was ultimately convicted under
section 306 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years by the district judge.
For the sake of understanding the statement of Ishita which is treated as a dying declaration is
reproduced as under: “I was married 8 years back and have no child. I was maltreated by my
mother-in-law Kavita Devi and my husband Abhishek. Due to this maltreatment, today at
about 4 p.m. I put kerosene on my body and put myself on fire with matches. My Devrani
Anjali was at house. The neighbors extinguished the fire and my brother Arjun and my
husband brought me to the hospital for treatment. I put myself on fire in room of my house as
I do not want to live in this world because my husband and mother-in-law doubted my
character."
The case is fixed for Final Arguments in the learned High Court.
Argue for the Appellant Abhishek- 1701,1704, 1706, 1708, 1710
Argue for the Respondent-1703,1705,1707,1709, 1711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOT PROPOSITION-2
On 11th of December, 2021, Amit Khetarpal, through a written agreement, agreed to sell 525
sealed bags of one quintal each of wheat flour to Vijaypal at his flour mill on the Cooper
Road in Amritsar. The bags were lying in the store adjoining to the mill and were to be
supplied in 2 equal instalments, first being on 22 nd December and another being 10 days later
as per the call for delivery from Vijaypal. The price per bag was fixed to be Rs. 500 each.
Through a watsapp message on 26th December, 2021, Vijaypal expressed regret on his
inability to take the delivery on 22 nd December and requested Amit khetarpal to agree to
supply 350 quintals of wheat flour at a reduced price of Rs. 490 each instead of earlier
agreement of supply of 525 quintals @500 per quintal. The supply was to be done in 5 equal
instalments as and when called upon by him, most probably after every two weeks but not
exceeding three months from the very day. The next day both the parties met each other at
Vijaypal’s shop and discussed about his request. Amit Khetarpal told Vijaypal that the agreed
250 quintals were to be supplied from the open wheat flour stored in the mill and remaining
100 quintals from the shop of his brother Mohan as and when the delivery is called upon by
Vijaypal.
On 30th December 2021, Vijatpal came to the shop of Amit Khetarpal and asked for delivery
of 70 quintals of wheat flour. Vijaypal insisted on to personally test the quality of the goods
and the measurement and packing into bags which was agreed to by Amit Khetarpal. The
former immediately paid Rs. 34,300 and the loading and carrier were agreed to be arranged
and paid by Amit khetarpal.
Vijaypal came to the mill of Amit Khetarpal on 7 th February, 2022 and refused to take further
delivery of instalments and thereby rescinded the contract. Amit Khetarpal was not at his
shop rather his brother Mohan was managing the mill. After a week, it came to the
knowledge of Mohan that Vijaypal’s financial condition was not good and he was likely to be
adjudged as insolvent. On 17 February, 2022, Mohan, made a phone call to Vijaypal and told
him about his intention to make a re-sale of 180 quintals, however Vijaypal said him to do as
he wanted to do. He was not interested in the matter anymore. Then, Mohan made a re-sale of
the remaining 180 quintals lying in the mill to M/s Harish and Sons, one of his business
dealers, @ Rs. 470 each. The market price was Rs. 475 per quintal on the day of re-sale.
Three days later, he asked Vijaypal to pay the loss occurred to them, being the difference of
contract price and re-sale price. Vijaypal refused to pay rather he questioned Mohan’s
authority to re-sale and demand money from him.
On 20th April, 2022, Amit Khetarpal filed a suit against Vijaypal for damages arising out of
re-sale of 180 quintal made by Mohan under section 54 (2) and suit for price of 100 quintals
under section 55 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and claimed damages for breach of contract
under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In his written statement, Vijaypal denied
the authenticity of re-sale as well as his liability for suit for price for want of fulfilling the
requirements regarding rules of passing of property under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. He
argued that market price on the day of filing of his written statement has risen up to Rs. 500
per quintal and therefore, he is not liable under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act also.
Argue for plaintiff- 1712, 1714, 1716, 1718, 1720
Argue for the Defendant- 1713, 1715, 1717, 1719, 1721
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOOT PROPOSITION-3
Abhishek Kumar is a wealthy man, a hotelier. He lives in sector 16 of Chandigarh. With his
wife and two kids, he usually enjoys lavishing parties with family friends. He has good
relationships with many famous persons of the city who come to his house and attend his
parties too. There have been two attempts of theft in his house, yet the family remains busy
in late night parties.
On the evening of 11.12.2019 too, family was out for a party. They had to return in the early
morning next day, but due to some health issue to the wife, family came back home by 11.30
pm. The kids went to sleep in their room on the first floor. Abhishek also went to his
bedroom on the first floor where wife was already having rest. Two notorious people namely
Raju and Gullu were keeping an eye upon Abhishek from the past 5-10 days and were aware
that Abhishek along with his family would be going to the said party and would only return
the next morning. Accordingly, they decided to break in his house in order to commit theft,
completely unknown to the fact that Abhishek and his family were present in their home
only.
At around 2 pm, both the thieves tried to enter into the house of Abhishek from main gate
side. While they were climbing the main gate, a bunch of four people in the street saw them
and made noises as thieves..theives... Raju and Gullu realized that they might be caught by
people. Raju got off the gate and ran away. Gullu had already climbed the gate and had come
down inside the house. He started climbing back the gate to run away when Abhishek saw
him who became very angry. Abhishek brought his double barrel gun. He shouted at the
thieves that he would kill them. Gullu was about to climb down from the gate in order to run
away when Abhishek fired a bullet which hit his chest and he immediately fell down.
Thereafter people from the colony gathered and called the Ambulance and the Police also
reached on the spot. Despite the best efforts in calling the Ambulance on time Gullu was
declared dead the moment he reached the hospital.
Police arrested Abhishek and recovered his double barrel gun and the live cartridges from
him and thereafter registered an FIR under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section
27 of the Arms Act. But the Police after recovering the weapon i.e the DDBL Gun thereafter
did not send it for the ballistic analysis and it was only after a delay of 2 months such weapon
was sent for the analysis. At the time of post mortem the bullet was extracted from the chest
of the deceased but that bullet was never sent for ballistic examination and no ballistic report
regarding such bullet was ever obtained. The Trial court below after conducting the trial and
after recording the testimonies of the witnesses including the testimony of the ballistic expert
identifying the live cartridges with the gun convicted Abhishek for the offence committed
under section 302 of the Indian penal code along with section 27 of the Arms Act and
sentenced him for life imprisonment. Now Abhishek has approached this forum and has
challenged the Judgement of the trial court convicting him through the present appeal in the
High Court.
Argue for the Appellant- 1723, 1725, 1727, 1729, 1731
Argue for the Respondent- 1722, 1724, 1726, 1728, 1730
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOT PROPOSITION-4
Pritham is a citizen of India. He is an industrialist in the field of textiles and is counted
among the richest in the country. His wife Pushti was also a woman of substance and has
stake in Pritham’s business. The family consisted of Pritham and Pushti’s Daughter Krithi
and her Brother Kranthi, who lives in Pune. Mr. Pritham’s family occupied the 8th and 9th
floors of the ‘Woodside’ building. Kranthi used to usually stay in his room located on the 9th
floor. Kranthi is a simple man with ambitions. He was introduced to the family by Pushti as
her brother. Kranthi developed a liking towards Pushti’s daughter Krithi. Both became
friends and Krithi also started liking Kranthi. But Pushti was not happy with the relationship.
She constantly used to discourage both Kranthi and Krithi. Krithi suffered emotionally for not
understanding her mother’s stance. Now, she has been sent to United States on the pretext of
continuing her studies. Pritham was unhappy with what is happening around and asked Pushti
umpteen times as to what’s the harm if both of them are friendly to each other. Pritham got
furious towards the unreasonable attitude of his wife, Pushti for sending away their daughter
over petty reasons and felt suspicious to know her intentions. On 2nd August 2021, from
reliable sources Pritham came to know the fact that, Kranthi indeed was the biological son of
his wife, Pushti and she has been hiding it all through these years after their marriage. On the
same day at around 10.00 p.m. both husband and wife were seen arguing with each other over
Kranthi and Krithi. This was heard by the neighbours and witnessed by a maid servant named
Ms Sumathi in the house. The maid servant has seen Mr Pritham holding a gun and
threatening Pushti that he is going to kill her son. Kranthi was heard Pritham saying to Pushti,
“I am going to shoot your son and then you”, for what you have done. Pushti was constantly
holding the husband and crying and shouting to calm the husband. At 11.30 p.m. the servants
heard the gunshot with crackling sound of glass of the window. The watchman of the
building had noticed that kranthi’s body was lying on the ground in the ground floor of the
building. And he was found dead. On witnessing the dead body of Mr Kranthi, the watchman
had informed the building secretary who rushed to the spot and immediately informed to the
nearby police station. The Station House Officer (SHO) after arriving to the crime scene,
recovered the dead body which was sent to the city government hospital for the post mortem
and subsequently recorded the first information report (FIR) based on the statement given by
the secretary and gave a copy of the same to him. On 3rd August, 2021, the Investigation
Officer (IO) appointed in this behalf, collected the details of the deceased and his family from
the building secretary. The crime scene was examined and Kranthi’s suicide note purportedly
written by Kranthi, was found in the 9th floor of the apartment from which Kranthi said to
have allegedly committed suicide. It was written in the note that he was very sorry for how he
perceived Krithi who was indeed his sister. He apologized his mother, 2 who strived to give
him all the ambience he ever needed, and because of him her life is plundered and he is
committing suicide and felt sorry for the idea of killing his own mother. It was also
mentioned in the note, the fact of loading the revolver of Mr. Pritham with bullets in order to
kill her. After going through the suicide note, the Investigating Officer has inquired Pritham,
Pushti and their maid, Ms Sumathi. The maid testified that she spotted Pritham holding the
gun and threatening his wife, following the gun sounds. From the statement of the witness, on
suspicion the Investigation Officer took Mr Pritham into custody and confiscated the weapon
(gun) for further investigation. As a matter of fact, the same revolver loaded by Kranthi was
used by Mr Pritham on the night of August 2nd. The post mortem report of Mr Kranthi
revealed that he was shot dead by the bullet injury. The forensic report further confirmed that
the bullet belongs to the Pritham’s gun matching with the Prithams’s fingerprints. Mr.
Pritham was charged for murder of Mr Kranthi under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. But Pritham and Pushti contended that the bullet was fired accidentally through the
window and they had no clue as to how kranthi was found dead on the ground floor with a
bullet that hit him. On further investigation by Investigation Officer the following facts were
found. On the fateful morning of 2nd August, Pritham came to know that Kranthi is the son
of Pushti and not her brother. Pritham got enraged with the heinous act of his wife and
Kranthi and so threatened his wife Pushti that he would kill her and also her son. After
several hours of fighting, Kranthi was found dead with a gun shot. Based on this a charge
sheet was filed against Pritham under section 302 of IPC. There is also one Mr Vishal who is
the resident of an opposite building who came to his balcony and spotted Kranthi falling off
from the 9th floor of the building. Based on this, the couple Pritham and Pushti contended
that Pritam has not murdered Kranti. But the post-mortem report of the deceased showed that
Kranti died due to a gun shot and it was proved that the bullet belongs to the licensed gun of
Pritham. The Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the act amounts to murder and found
Mr.Pritham guilty of the same and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo ten years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Now the case is before the High court in appeal.
Argur for Prosecution - 1731, 1733, 1735, 1737, 1739
Argue for Defence - 1732, 1734, 1736, 1738, 1740
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOT PROPOSITION-5
Mr Ramesh and Ms Sania both were belonging to IAS batch 2012. They were good friends.
They decided to convert that friendship into marital relationship. Accordingly, with the
consent of the parents they got married under Special Marriage Act, 1954 in the year 2014.
Mr Ramesh was an orthodox person and had high religious beliefs and he wanted to have a
male child. Sania was employed as an IAS officer. She took matrimonial leave and delivered
two babies, one Geeta in 2016 and one Sapna in 2018. Due to absence of male child there
were quarrels between husband and wife. This resulted to divorce between them by mutual
consent. During this difficult period Sania was transferred to Delhi. She met Mr
Chandrashekar a smart, Handsome and efficient IAS officer who expressed his wish to marry
her. As Mr Chandrashekar was married they waited for divorce. Immediately after divorce
they got married. Soon after marriage Sania got very busy with administrative work and she
decided not to have children for 5 years. She was not taking proper care of her husband. Mr
Chandrashekar tried his level best to balance the relantionship. Sania told her children Geeta
and Sapna that Mr Chandrashekar is not their father. She always avoided Geeta and Sapna to
spend time with Mr Chandrashekar. In 2020 Sania was transferred from Delhi to Bangalore.
She shifted from Delhi to Bangalore. The behaviour of Sania did not change. She was very
dominant and abusive on phone and in person whenever she was meeting Mr Chandrashekar.
Mr Chandrashekar was alone in Delhi and there was no one to take care of him so he hired a
domestic Servant Ms Rama. Maid servant was asked to stay at home this led to live-in
relationship between them. In June 2021, when Sania visited Delhi she came to know about
their relationship as Rama was pregnant. Being aggrieved with misconduct and extramarital
affair Sania served a notice of divorce. Sania filed divorce petition in Family court, Delhi on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Family court dismissed the petition.
Against the decision of the family court wife filed appeal in Delhi High court claiming the
maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. High Court dismissed the appeal as
there is no specific provision under existing laws. The wife filed Special leave petition in
Supreme Court stating that divorce should be granted on irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Argue for Petitioner - 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745
Argue for Respondent - 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOT PROPOSITION-6
1. Magicland is a Sovereign, Secular, Democratic Republic, having its own written
Constitution, which guaranteed some Fundamental Rights to all its citizens. Right to
equality before the law and protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion
or sex, among others, are part of the Rights to equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
However, the personal laws applicable to the citizens varied depending upon the religion
to which one belongs. As far as Muslims are concerned, they are governed by The
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937. This law deals with marriage,
succession, inheritance and charities among Muslims.

2. Ms. Sadia and Mr. Sulthan, both Muslims and citizens of Magicland got married in 2010
as per the customs of the Muslim personal law. Although they are leading a happy
married life, they could not procreate children, despite appropriate medical treatment.
Except for this fact, Mr. Sulthan and his parents looked after Ms. Sadia very well.
However, on the advice of parents, Mr. Sulthan married another lady by name Ms. Sufia
in 2017, with the consent of Ms. Sadia. Ms. Sufia was informed in advance that she
 would be Mr. Sulthan’s second wife. Ms. Sufia accepted Mr. Sulthan as her husband and
their marriage was performed as per the customs of Muslim personal law.
3. In 2018, Ms. Sadia conceived, and her pregnancy was confirmed by doctors. Later, Ms.
Sadia gave birth to a baby boy. Mr. Sulthan was happy with the child and he decided not
to have any more children from both the wives. Ms. Sufia was not happy with his
decision and she insisted on having her own baby. But for this fact, Mr. Sulthan was
looking after both wives with same affection. However, Ms. Sufia was not happy, and
she filed a petition in the Family Court in 2020 seeking divorce from Mr. Sulthan, under
section 2(vii) (f) of the Dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act 1939. Her contention
was that by refusing to have children through her, her husband failed to treat her
“equitably in accordance with the instructions of Quran.”.

4. The Family Court refused to grant divorce and observed that refusing to beget children
through her by her husband did not amount to failing to treat her equitably. Ms. Sufia
filed an appeal in the High Court and challenged the decision of the Family Court on the
ground that refusal by her husband to beget children through her should be considered as
valid ground for divorce, because it also amounted to mental cruelty. Ms. Sufia has
alternatively pleaded that her second marriage with Mr. Sulthan should be declared as
null and void, as polygamy is unconstitutional under Art 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution. She pleaded that the institution of polygamy violated her Fundamental
right to equality before the law and amounted to discrimination on the ground of sex and
religion.

5. The High Court has observed that the Family Court was wrong in rejecting the petition
for divorce. Further, the High Court has also accepted her contention that the system of
polygamy violated the Fundamental Rights and therefore declared her marriage as null
and void.

6. Mr. Sulthan filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Magicland. He pleaded that he
had not caused any mental cruelty to his second wife and challenged the decision of the
High Court which declared polygamy as unconstitutional.

Advance your arguments on behalf of the appellant and respondent.

Argue for Petitioner - 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755

MOOT PROPOSITION-7
Reena was studying in Little Angel School in Chandigarh and was very bright student. She
had topped Matric Exam and wanted to join IIT and was preparing for JEE exam. She met
Yogesh who also wanted to join IIT. Both became friends with each other. Reena and Yogesh
both cleared the exam and joined IIT Delhi. However, Reena was always ahead of Yogesh in
studies and she was topper in IIT as well. She was outgoing and very bold and had immense
knowledge. However, her classmate Anil was tough competitor for her in studies and later in
Campus placement. Both of them were picked by same company with CTC running nearly
40 lac per annum. Yogesh also got placed but with a package of 20 lacs per annum. Reena
and Yogesh married each other and her matrimonial home was a joint family. Life was very
good as both were doing well in the lives. However, Reena hardly stayed at home she was
travelling because of her job profile. Reena and Anil worked together in the company and
would travel together. She always praised Anil in front of Yogesh which was not liked by
Yogesh. Yogesh used to complaint a lot about Reena spending less time at home. Her family
also started complaining that she was never around for family. Yogesh while fighting with
her would abuse her and accuse her of having affair with Anil. He asked her to change her
company but she did not as she was about to be promoted. In Yogesh’s company new
secretary was appointed in his office. He really liked her as she was bubbly and full of life.
Yogesh liked spending time with her. Both of them started going out together. He used to
call her and would keep talking to her. Yogesh told Reena that her secretary is better than her
as she really cares for him and if he would have met Rita earlier, he would have married her.
Reena told him that he knew from beginning that she was always a career-oriented women
and liked to work. She said he was looser from beginning and he was no match for her. He
told her she was cause these continuous fights between them but she blamed that it because
he has no brain and was narrow minded. However, on discussing her married life with Anil,
Anil suggested her to ignore and asked her to concentrate more on job as she could gain very
high position in the company. She ignored and concentrated on her work and had to travel out
of the town for fifteen days. When she informed Yogesh about same, he got furious and told
her to go but never come back. She again ignored Yogesh and went which was liked by
Yogesh. Yogesh went and shared everything with Rita and she told him that he can come to
her any time for any kind of help. Reena did not call home while she was on trip. Anil told
her that he is there for her and told her to concentrate on work. One day Yogesh called Reena
around 5.30 am. Her phone was answered by Anil. Anil told her that they are going for
meeting. Yogesh got furious and did not like it. When she came back, he fought with her and
in fit of anger slapped her and told her to leave the house She also kicked him. After that she
went to her room. Next day she told anil about the incident who told her to leave the house.
In evening while she was returning home, she saw Yogesh with Rita sitting in a café and
eating together. She went home and packed her luggage and went to hotel. She did not return.
Yogesh called her but she did not answer his calls. Reena files for divorce.
Argue for Petitioner -1761, 1762, 1765,1766, 1770
Argue for Respondent - 1763, 1764, 1768, 1769, 1771

MOOT PROPOSITION-8

The new bakery by the name Rick Bakers came up in sector 35 in 2007. Rick Bakers was a
known name and had branches across India. Rick Bakers was written in on florescent green
color with red background. Bakery was known for its cakes, pastries, brownies and breads.
Bakery was an instant hit because of the variety of products that it was selling and unique
taste of its products. It was known for spongy cakes, pies and tarts, waffles croissants,
sandwiches, nachos, muffin and Doughnuts. In Chandigarh Rick bakers had successful
business and was huge hit as it was one stop shop where people could get to eat variety of
foods and could have different beverages. Cakes were custom made and people really loved
the most and fresh cakes supplies by Rick Bakers. People could sit and dine as ambience
was very nice. New bakery with the name Brick Baker came up in 2017 in sector 22. Bricky
Bakers was written in florescent green color with orange background. Bricky bakers was
drive through as it had no dine in facility. Brick bakers were also dealing in the bakery
products and were selling biscuits, cakes, pastries, tarts, doughnut sandwiches etc. Variety of
biscuits were prepared by the Brick bakers which had a huge demand as biscuits prepared by
them were very unique in their taste and were had huge variety ranging from oats biscuits to
almond crushed cashew crushed some loaded with butter and spices. It was mainly known for
the different varieties of biscuit that was sold by them This new place was liked by people
and soon its business was increasing and saw huge surge in profits. Further it was drive
through which people really preferred during the covid. When Rick bakers came to know
about Brick Bakers, they filled a suit for passing off.

Argue for Plaintiff -1772, 1773, 1776, 1778,1779

Argue for Defendant - 1774, 1775, 1777, 1780