6th RBUSL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
PROPOSITION
Sam Malhotra, a sixteen-year prodigy, was the recipient of the “Sensational Voice of the
Nation” award. He was an astounding singer, extremely talented not only in Rap, Rock, Hip-
Hop and Jazz but also in Classical and Folk. He wanted to develop his musical career by
releasing fusion albums combining different genres and by engaging himself on world music
tours. So, he wanted a multi-purpose, ultra-modern architectural marvel where he could have
his recording studio, theatre - for live musical performances and a roof top pool for hosting
parties. He misrepresented himself as a major and put the task out to tender. M/s. Singh &
Sons was a leading building constructor and infrastructure provider. They offered to do the
entire work for Rs.10,00,000/-. Both the parties knew that this was an unrealistically low-
price contract and the amount will be paid in installments in order of the completion of
different phases of the assigned work. Sam accepted their offer and entered into a contract for
construction of the multi-purpose building and for providing all amenities therein. According
to the contract, the ground floor was for parking, the first floor was for the music theatre, the
second floor was for the recording studio and the last floor for the roof top pool. M/s. Singh
& Sons completed the construction of the ground floor and first floor and ran out of money
and materials for further construction. They informed Sam that they could not complete the
construction unless further capital was made available to them. Sam had arranged a poolside
party to which he had invited top music directors, producers and other renowned individuals
in the music industry whom he believed would fund for his dream music albums and music
tours. So he was desperate to have the construction of the roof top pool completed as
stipulated. He had requested for the continuance of the construction work and further
requested to spend the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on the work out of their own funds
and assured them that the money would be paid to them as soon as his album is released. The
roof top pool was completed and the party was a success. Sam entered into a contract with
Veenaghaana Producers who agreed to fund for the fusion albums and world tours. Sam told
6th RBUSL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
PROPOSITION
Mr. Singh, the Manager of M/s. Singh & Sons “Sir, you have saved my career. Don’t worry
about Rs.7,00,000/-.” Having this as a promise, M/s. Singh & Sons started a new project.
However, Sam ’s new fusion music album was a disastrous flop. Social media enthusiasts and
meme pages massively trolled him for his raucous and bizarre fusion music. He then found
himself unable to pay the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to M/s. Singh & Sons . Mr. Singh
compelled Sam to render a music performance in her daughter’s birthday party. Apart from
relatives and friends she had also invited rich people, in order to secure contracts regarding
building, construction etc. and in return she agreed to release Sam from paying the debts of
Rs.7,00,000/-. Sam agreed on this point and was ready for the music performance in the
party. He also wanted to get back his lost reputation and start his career afresh. However
before the party, he suffered from a severe sore throat due to over-repetition of rehearsals.
Then he did not perform in Ms. Asha’s party on the advice of his doctor. On Sam ’s
eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on grounds of humanity, decided to alter the contract.
Sam acknowledged the debt taken from M/s. Singh & Sons for rendering past services and
further both agreed on the same point that Sam would pay the debt through easy monthly
installments (EMIs) of Rs. 20,000/- per month till the repayment of the amount of
Rs.7,00,000/-. Sam , later on, felt that the work done by M/s. Singh & Sons was not
performed as he had specified. He further pointed out that the material used for constructing
was substandard and not satisfactory. He estimated that this would have cost them
Rs.3,00,000/- only. He claimed that he had paid the money already. Sam then decided to
dispose off his property, without paying a single dime to M/s. Singh & Sons . When all this
foul play came to their knowledge, they tried to restrain him by putting enormous pressure in
order to recover their money amounting to a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- which they spent on
the construction and amenities. Even after such prolonged period and altered mode of
payment, M/s. Singh & Sons could not recover the debt from Sam . As a last resort, they sent
6th RBUSL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
PROPOSITION
him a legal notice, stating that the money shall be repaid within 15 days. However, Sam did
not send any correspondence or reply to the said notice. In this context, M/s. Singh & Sons
finally decided to seek remedy from the Court of Law in this regard. The suit was filed by
M/s. Singh & Sons before the Civil Court of Chandigarh, on the ground that they had
constructed the building as per the terms of the contract and had taken all the diligent steps to
recover the loan made available to Sam Malhotra for Rs.7,00,000/- but now he refused to pay
the said amount and alleged fraud against him. They also prayed for injunction restraining
Sam from selling the property until the suit was disposed off. The Civil Court of Chandigarh
heard the matter and held that a minor’s contract is void ab initio and thus set Sam free from
all his liabilities towards M/s. Singh & Sons by upholding the judgment passed in Mohori
Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. The plea of restitution raised by the Plaintiff was rejected and
injunction was not granted. M/s. Singh & Sons preferred an appeal before the High Court of
Chandigarh. The High Court granted injunction and decided to hear the case on merits. The
following are the issues framed for consideration :
i. Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Singh & Sons and Mr. Sam Malhotra?
ii. Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?
iii. Whether the Civil Court of Chandigarh was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?
