Moot Court Exercise Memorial

ROLL NO.-

MOOT COURT EXERCISE MEMORIAL

25TH FEBRUARY 2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LUCKNOW

MR. DEEP SINGH…………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS

VS.

THE GIZZY (P) LTD……………………………………………………...RESPONDENTS

ON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE COURT OF LUCKNOW

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

1|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Table of Contents}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

{TABLE OF CONTENTS}

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………..5-6

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………….7-11

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………………..12

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………….13-14

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………….15

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS…....…………………………………………………………16-18

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………..........................19-36

ISSUE: I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIANA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? ……………………………….…………………………......20-23

A. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT HAS BEEN VIOLATED…………………………………...20-21

1.1. Article 32 Enforces Fundamental Rights……...…………………..…………
20-21
B. NO ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS PRESENT…………………………….…………..21-22

C. SUPREME COURT HAS ENOUGH POWER AND PRECEDENTS TO GRANT RELIEF…22-23

3.1 Complete Justice…………………………………………….……………………22

3.2 Scope of Article 32…………………………………………………………...22-23

ISSUE: II: WHETHER THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SEVEN JUDGES OF

HON’BLE SUOREME COURT VIOLATES THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1) (a) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA.............24-27

A. GAG ORDER VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(a)…………………….………………….24-25

1.1 Media Guidelines………………………………………………………….....24-25

2|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

1.2 Media as a Fourth Pillar…………………………………………………….……25

{Table of Contents}

B.RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ARE UNREASONABLE…………..…………………….…25-26

2.1 Proportionality Test………………………………………………….…………..26

C. FAIR AND ACCURATE REPORTING DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT……….26-27
3.1 The Right to Genuine Criticism………………………………………………26-27

ISSUE: III: WHETHER THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED AGAINST A

SITTING HIGH COURT JUDGE UNDER SECTIONS 2(C), 12 AND 14 OF THE CONTEMPT OF
COURTS ACTS 1971 OR UNDER ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA....28-32

A. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE……….………..………………….28-29

1.1. Issue Involves Substantial Question of Law…………………………………28-29

B. ACTS COMMITTED BY JUSTICE SWAMI DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT …...29-30

2.1 Criminal Contempt…………………………...……………………………….29-30

C. PROPER PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED……………………………………...30-31

3.1. Judges Inquiry Act…………………………………………………………..30-31

3.2. Judges Immunity………………………………………………………………...31
D. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA……………...31-32
4.1. Compelled……………………………………………………………………31-32

ISSUE: IV: WHETHER THE SENTENCE PASSED BY JUSTICE SWAMI AGAINST SEVEN
JUDGES OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND AMENDED ACT OF 2015 AND CONTEMPT PROCEEDING
IS VALID OR NOT..............................................................................................................33-36

A. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE ………………..……………….…33-34

1.1. Supreme Court has Discretionary Power to do Justice………………………33-34

B. ACTS COMMITTED BY JUSTICE SWAMI DOES NOT CONSTITUTES ATROCITIES…34-35

C. ACTS COMMITTED BY SEVEN JUDGES DOES NOT CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT…...35-36

3|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

3.1 Justice Swami has himself Violated the Principles of Natural Justice……….35-36

{Table of Contents}

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………37

4|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{List of Abbreviations}

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

{LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS}

AC………………………………………………………………………...…..Appeal Chamber

AIR……………………………………………………………………….….All India Reporter

All…………………………………………………………………………………....Allahabad

All LJ…………………………………………………………………...Allahabad Law Journal

ALT………………………………………………………………………...Andhra Law Times

Anr………………………………………………………………………………….….Another

AP…………………………………………………………………………...…Andhra Pradesh

Art………………………………………………………………………………………..Article

Bom…………………………………………………………………………………….Bombay

Cal………………………………………………………………………………..…….Calcutta

CIT……………………………………………………………....Commissioner of Income Tax

CJI………………………………………………………………………..Chief Justice of India

Cr.LJ…………………………………………………………………..…Criminal Law Journal

Cr.PC………………………………………………………..…….Code of Criminal Procedure

Del………………………………………………………………………………………...Delhi

EHRR………………………………………………………..European Human Rights Reports

FC……………………………………………………………………………...…Federal Court

FCR………………………………………………………………….…..Federal Court Reports

HC…………………………………………………………………………………..High Court

5|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

J…………………………………………………………………………………………Justice

{List of Abbreviations}

Kar……………………………………………………………………………………Karnataka

LLJ……………………………………………………………………..….Law Library Journal

MLJ…………………………………………………………………..……Madras Law Journal

Ors………………………………………………………………………………………..Other
s

¶……………………………………………………………………………………....Paragraph

PC……………………………………………………………………………...…Privy Council

Punj………………………………………………………………………………………
Punjab

SC……………………………………………………………………………….Supreme Court

SCC………………………………………………………………………Supreme Court Cases

SCR…………………………………………………………………….Supreme Court Reports

Sec………………………………………………………………………………………Section

SLP…………………………………………………………………..….Special Leave Petition

UOI…………………………………………………………………………..….Union of India

U.P……………………………………………………………………………..…Uttar Pradesh

U.S……………………………………………………………………………..…United States

u/s………………….………………………………………….…………………Under Section

v…………………………………………………………………………………….……Versus

WLR……………………………………………………………………...Weekly Law Reports

6|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Index of Authorities}

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

{INDEX OF AUTHORITIES}

FOREIGN CASES

1) Al Ravi v. Security Services, 2011 UKSC 34 26

2) Bentham in Scott v. Scott, 1913 AC 417 24
3) Diennet v. France, (1995) 21 EHRR 554 24
4) Cunningham v. Dillard, 20 N.C. 485 (1839) 31
5) Guardian News and Media Ltd., re, 2010 UKSC 1 26
6) Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. 396 24
7) R v. Almon (1765) Wilm. 249 at pg. 254
35
8) S (A Child), re, (2004) 3 WLR 1129 26
9) State ex rel Jacobs v. Sherard, 36 N.C. App 60,64 (1978) 31
10) Telegraph Group Plc., ex p, (2001) 1 WLR 1983 (CA) 26

INDIAN CASES

1) Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 335 33

2) Ashoka Smokeless Coal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2007) 2 SCC 240 35
3) Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Ghose, AIR 1953 SC 75 25
4) Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2), (1990) 1 AC 109 27
5) Ayyub v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 SC 1192 31
6) Bandhua Mukti Morcha, AIR 1984 SC 802 21
7) Bennet Coleman Company v. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 106 25
8) Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 4 SCC 316, 323 29,34
9) Chandrakant Patil v. State, (1983) 3 SCC 38 34
10) Chitranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 21
11) Coffee Board v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1971 SC 870 21
12) Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India, (2006) SCC 23 36

7|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

13) Dalmia, R.K. v. Delhi Administration, 1963 (1) SCR 253 31

14) Daphtary, C.K. v. Gupta O.P., (1971) 1 SCC 626 30
15) Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457 20
16) Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction, (1995) 3 SCC 507 22,29
{Index of Authorities}
17) Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, (1999) 8 SCC 229 22
18) Delhi Judicial Service v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1991 SC 406 28,33
19) Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306 25
20) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 25
21) Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520 33
22) Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (AG), (1989) 2 SCR 1326 (Can.) 26
23) Enagu Ganga Reddy v. State of A.P, 2005 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) 457 (A.P.) 34
24) Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585 33
25) Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2544 20
26) G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, (2002) 2 SCC 712 36
27) Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 (1) SCC (Cri.,) 446 34
28) Govind Sahai v. State of U.P., AIR 1968 SC 1513 35
29) Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v. Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359 (SC) 28
30) Himatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 403 21
31) In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584 28,33
32) Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515 25
33) I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1
21
34) Jaherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, (1999) 2 SCC 635 33
35) Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 34
36) Jhumman Singh v. Central Board of Investigation, AIR 1995 SC 2083 20
37) J.R. Parashar v. Prashant Bhusan, AIR 2001 SC 3395 25
38) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjani, (2005) 3 SCC 248 22,29,34
39) Kannu Sanyal v. D.M., (1973) 2 SCC 674 21
40) Kailesh v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 22
41) Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295 21
42) Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, AIR 1964 SC 925 21
43) Kochunni Moopil Nayar, Kavalappara Kottarathil v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725
21 21

8|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

44) Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Oth, AIR1993 SC 1407 31

45) Laxman v. Keshavrao, AIR 1993 SC 2596 28,33
46) Legal Remembrance v. Motilal Ghose, (1914) ILR 41 Ca. 173 30
47) Leila David(6) v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2010 SC 862 30
48) LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah, (1992) 3 SCC 637 25
{Index of Authorities}
49) M.L. Ohri & Others v. Kanti Devi 2010 (1) Crimes 926 (P& H) 34
50) Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352 25
51) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 22
52) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 1325 20
53) Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & anr., (2011) 5 SCC 496 30
54) Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 24
55) P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar, (1988) 3 SCC 167 29
56) Padmahasini alias Padmapriya v. C.R. Srinivai, AIR 2000 Cri LJ 187 29
57) Pallavolu Ramamohana Reddy v. State of A.P, 2008 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) 368 (A.P.) 34
58) Pritam Pal Singh v. High Court of M.P., 1993 Supp(1) SCC 529 29
59) Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169 29
60) R. Karuppan v. The Ptaron of Chennai Rifle Club, Raj Bhavan Chennai, (2004) MLJ 153
29 29
61) Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association, AIR 2005 SC 2473 25
62) Rama Dayal Markrha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 921 26
63) Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai , (2003) 12 SCC 395 28
64) Ram Babu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 (2) Crimes 193 (M.P.) 35
65) Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 155 34
66) Ramlila Maidan Incident, re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 24
67) Reed Elsevier India (P) Ltd. v. District & Session Judge, Lucknow, (2012) 10 SCC J-1 26
68) Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124 21
69) S. Nagraj v. State of Karnataka, (1994) I LLJ 851 (SC) 22
70) Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI, AIR 2012 SC 3829 24
71) Saij Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujrat, (1999) 2 SCC 366 36
72) Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 24
73) Sanjoy Narayan Ed. In Chief Hindustan v. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad Through
R.G., 2011 (9) Sc. 532 25
74) Saroj Iyer v. Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine, AIR 2002 Bom 97 26

9|Page
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

75) SEBI v. Akshay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2014) II SCC 112

35
76) Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India & Ors. v.
Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr., (1995) 2 SCC 161 20
77) Sharma, M.P. v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 31
78) Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323 29
{Index of Authorities}
79) Smt. Saroj Giri v. Vayalar Ravi & Ors., 1999 CriLJ 498 31
80) State of Assam v. Rajkhowa Upendra Nath, (1975) Cr.LJ 354 32
81) State of Assam v. V.K. Vishnoi, 1993 (23) A.T.C. 581 29
82) State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, (1962) (3) SCR 10 31
83) State of M.P. & Ans. v. RamaKrishna Balothia & Other, 1995 (2) SCC 22 34
84) State of Punjab v. Shamlamurari, (1976) 1 SCC 719 22
85) State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal, (2004) 5 SCC 573 33
86) State of U.P. v. Raj Narayan, 1975 SCR(3) 333 25
87) Sub-committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & Oth., AIR 1992 SC 320 30
88) Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, (1975) 1 SCC 774 22
89) The Fertilizer Corporation case, AIR 1981 SC 344 21
90) Union Carbide v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584
28,33
91) Union of India v. Shardindu, (2007) 6 SCC 276 22

BOOKS & STATUTES

1) Dr. K.N CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (5TH Ed.2012).

2) DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (8TH Ed. 2008).
3) DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VOLUME I (14TH Ed. 2013).
4) DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VOLUME II (14TH Ed. 2013).
5) I.P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (9TH Ed.2017).
6) JUDGES (INQUIRY) ACT, 1968.
7) JUDGES (PROTECTION) ACT, 1985.
8) M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH Ed. 2014).
9) MADHAVI GORADIA DIVAN, FACETS OF MEDIA LAW (2ND Ed.2013).
10) P.M. BAKSHI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12Ed.2014)
11) SAMARADITYA PAL, THE LAW OF CONTEMPT (5TH Ed.2013).

10 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

12) THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

13) THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
14) THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971.
15) THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989.
16) V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (13TH Ed.2017)

{Index of Authorities}

WEBSITES

1) www.indiancurrentaffairs.wordpress.com
2) www.indiankanoon.com
3) www.judis.nic.in
4) www.lawyersclubindia.com
5) www.livelaw.com
6) www.onelawstreet.com
7) www.vakilno1.com

REPORTS

1) REPORT OF THE SECOND PRESS COMMISSION VOLUME, I

OTHER MATERIALS

1. Fact Sheet

11 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Statements of Jurisdiction}

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

{STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION}

THE PETITIONERS HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE COURT OF LUCKNOW

INVOKING ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908.

12 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Statement of Facts}

STATEMENT OF FACTS

{STATEMENTS OF FACTS}

The Gizzy (P) Ltd., a pharmaceutical Lucknow based company, made a multivitamin capsule
called the "Maggots-M". The company claimed that the production of such capsules is purely
for the overall health, wellbeing and vitality of men, and therefore, these capsules are one of
the best diet health supplements as these capsules are very effective and a unique blend of
ginseng, vitamins and minerals. The company announced in public that by taking one capsule
a day, it provides great energy as well as helps to fight against tiredness. It enhances the
stress handling ability.

The Gizzy (P) Ltd. published advertisements in the reputed newspapers and other media
channels on December 01, 2017, claiming the number of benefits for the consumption of
"Maggots-M" capsules such as a diet health supplement for men; a unique combination of
minerals, vitamins and ginseng; Provides energy and fights against tiredness; Perfect for
overall health and vitality; Enhances quality of life; Helps to boost immunity; Strengthens
and rejuvenates body organs; Enhances mental and physical health; Helps to stay fit and
active throughout the day.
II

The statement generated by the Gizzy(P) Ltd. is as under:

“Rs.50,000/- reward will be paid by the Gizzy (P) Ltd. to any person who contracts with the
increasing fatigue, weakness or any disease caused by taking multi-vitamins “Maggots-M”
capsules, after having used one capsule a day, according to the printed directions supplied

13 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

with the pack of 10, 30 and 60 capsules whose expiry period will be of 5 years from the date
of manufacturing. The statement regarding award of Rs.50,000/- was printed on each pack of
10, 30 and 60 capsules.”

Mr. Deep Singh, aged 15 years, suffered from malnutrition; chronic fatigue syndrome and
vitamin deficiency that led to muscle weakness in the entire body system. The doctor
recommended him daily intakes of selected vitamins. He saw the advertisement of the Gizzy
{Summary of Facts}

(P) Ltd., on July 15, 2018 regarding "Maggots-M" multi-vitamin capsules. He bought 5 packs
of capsules bearing the manufacturing and packing date of January 15, 2018. Each pack
contained the dose of 60 capsules.
III

Mr.Deep Singh discovered that on resuming the consumption of these "Maggots-M"

multivitamin capsules as per the usage prescription of the Gizzy(P) Ltd. Company, he got
relief from all types of bodily changes. In the meantime, during January – 2020, the company
again aggressively raised price of each capsule by 50% to Rs.100/- as it found the enormous
success and rise in demand for the product.

Mr. Deep Singh after having been firmly believed that his body cannot smoothly work
without consuming these capsules and his body developed an addiction for such capsules, he
felt himself cheated by the company as he again cannot afford such a high price multivitamin
capsules. He, therefore, claimed Rs.50,000/- and other form of damages from the Gizzy (P)
Ltd.. The company bluntly ignored the claim of Mr. Deep Singh.

IV

After few days, Mr.Deep Singh’s advocate sent notice to the Gizzy (P) Ltd. regarding his
claim of Rs.50,000/- and other damages. On this notice, the company’s officers replied with
an anonymous letter that if it is used properly, the company had complete confidence in the
capsule's efficacy, but "to protect the company against all fraudulent claims" they would need
him to come to the company’s office to use the capsule each day and be checked by the
secretary.

14 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

The Issue is before the Hon’ble Court for hearing.

{Statement of Issues}

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

{STATEMENT OF ISSUES}

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BINDING EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE PARTIES?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION REQUIRED A FORMAL

NOTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER Mr. DEEP SINGH WAS REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE

HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER TO THE GIZZY (P) LTD.?

ISSUE 4: WHETHER Mr. DEEP SINGH PROVIDED ANY CONSIDERATION IN

EXCHANGE FOR THE REWARD OF RUPEES 50,000 OFFERED BYTHE
COMPANY?

15 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Summary of Pleadings}

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

16 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Summary of Pleadings}

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

{SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS}

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BINDING EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE PARTIES?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION REQUIRED A FORMAL

NOTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER Mr. DEEP SINGH WAS REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE

HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER TO THE GIZZY (P) LTD.?

ISSUE 4: WHETHER Mr. DEEP SINGH PROVIDED ANY CONSIDERATION IN

EXCHANGE FOR THE REWARD OF RUPEES 50,000 OFFERED BYTHE
COMPANY?

17 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Summary of Pleadings}

18 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Arguments Advanced}

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

19 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Arguments Advanced}

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

{Arguments Advanced}

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BINDING EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE PARTIES?

It is humbly submitted by the plaintiff before this Hon’ble Court that the promise was not
vague and also the construction of the offer was such that it was clear that in case the product
wasn’t effective the company would reward a certain amount. Also in order to facilitate the
same, the company had printed on the each pack of 10, 30 and 60 capsules regarding award
of rupees 50,000. Thus, their act of printing the award of rupees 50,000 is proof of their
intention to actually form an agreement from one side. The plaintiffs also proved that there
was a consideration in the form of the money paid to buy the Gizzy (P) LTD.

The advertisement was not an empty boast. In fact, it characterized most of the essentials that
attribute a contract and more precisely a Unilateral Contract. Thus, the company has to fulfill
its part of the bargain1.

It is humbly submitted that that previously it was held that an offer must be made to a definite
person. That the case arose out of defendant’s affirmation to the public that he would give
100 euro if he marries his daughter with his consent, it was held by the court that “it is not
averred nor declared to whom the words were spoken” 2. The principle stated by Anson “an
offer need not be made to an ascertained person, but no contract can arise until it has been
accepted by an ascertained person3.

1
Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd [1893] 1 QB 256
2
Weeks vs. Tybald 1605 Noy 11: 74 ER 982
3
Anson’s Law Of Contract,40 (23rd Edn by A.G. Guest, 1971).

20 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

It is humbly submitted that a general offer is made when it comes in the knowledge of
promise as in the present case it is seen4, this principle was also enumerated in the case of
Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt5, in this case the general offer was made to public but
unfortunately the servant who found the boy was not aware of the general offer after which
the court decline to reward him with the general offer as he went before the offer was made
by the father of the missing boy6.

It is humbly submitted that all cases of general offer, which are kind of unilateral contract,
demand some act in return for the promise to pay 7. In express recognition of this principle
Section 8 provides that “performance of the conditions of a proposal, of the acceptance of the
consideration for a reciprocal which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the
proposal”. Acceptance of the money after prior information that higher rates of interest will
be charged and retention of goods sent on approval amount to acceptance of the consideration
offered along with the proposal8.

Therefore the petitioners humbly pleads before the Hon’ble Court that the contract is of
binding nature.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION REQUIRED A FORMAL

NOTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER Mr. DEEP SINGH WAS REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE

HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER TO THE GIZZY (P) LTD.?

4
Refer to Para 5 of the Fact Sheet.
5
(1913) 11 All LJ 489
6
Ibid.
7
Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd [1893] 1 QB 256
8
Gaddar Mal vs. Tata Industrial Bank Ltd., AIR 1927 All 407

21 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

ISSUE 4: WHETHER Mr. DEEP SINGH PROVIDED ANY CONSIDERATION IN

EXCHANGE FOR THE REWARD OF RUPEES 50,000 OFFERED BYTHE
COMPANY?

22 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS
 Moot Court Exercise Memorial

{Prayer}

PRAYER

{PRAYER}

Wherefore it is prayed, in light of issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited,
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Declare that the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana is

Maintainable.
2. Declare that the Restrictions Imposed by Seven Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court
violates the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution of Indiana.
3. Declare that No Contempt has been done by Justice Swami and thereby quashing the
sentence order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court under Contempt Proceedings.
4. Declare that Seven Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court has not done any act which
constitutes Contempt or Atrocities and thereby quashing the sentence order passed by
Justice Swami.

And Pass any other Order, Direction, Writ or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best
Interests Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this Act of Kindness, the Petitioners Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

23 | P a g e
MEMORIALS FOR PETITIONERS