12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ROLL NUMBER: 24LLB093

12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Before

THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT OF ARYAVART

IN THE MATTER OF

CIVIL SUIT NO. 205 /2023

LIFE SMART SOLUTIONS………………………………………………………Plaintiff

Versus

ULTRA GREEN PVT LTD……………………………………………………...Respondent

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION

ON THE BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …...............................................................................................iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................viii

ISSUES RAISED .....................................................................................................................x

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...........................................................................................xi
ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED............................................................................................................................. 1
(1) CIVIL COURT’ HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THIS
CASE........................................................................................................................1
(1.1) That the nature of current matter is not barred to be heard in this court under Section 9
of CPC and the adjudication of the current matter by this court is not ultra-vires to Section 15
of the CPC

(1.2.) That the consumer dispute redressal commission is not the appropriate forum to deal
with this matter.

(2) THAT URBAN GREEN PVT. LTD BREACHED THE CONTRACT

....................................................................................................................................................5

(2.1) That time is the essence of the contract.

(2.2) That the plaintiff was not bound to accept the deliveries in instalments.

(2.3) That the respondent did not make its best efforts to complete the contract.

(3) THAT LIFE SMART IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF

CONTRACT………………………………………………………………………....11
(3.1) That Life Smart is not barred to claim damages as it is a consumer.

(3.2) There was an inadequacy in delivery of the product.

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff ii

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(4) THAT LIFE SMART IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DAMAGES UNDER CONSUMER

PROTECTION
ACT…………………….…………………………………………………………………….14
(4.1) That it would be reasonable to order for the specific performance of contract.

(4.2) That the doctrine of restitution shall apply.

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................xiv

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff iii

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

1. & And
2. Ors Others
3. § Section
4. ¶ Paragraph
5. AIR All India Report
6. Anr Another
7. CCA Commercial Courts Act
8. Cl. Clause
9. Co. Company
10. CPC Code of Civil Procedure
11. CPA Consumer Protection Act
12. DCDRC District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission
13. Ed. Edition
14. Etc. Et cetera
15. ICA Indian Contract Act
16. Ltd. Limited
17. NCDRC National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission
18. Pvt. Private
19. SC Supreme Court
20. SCC Supreme Court Cases
21. SCR Supreme Court reports

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff iv

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1) THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019. ACT NO. 35

2) THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872, NO. 09
3) THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, NO.05
4) THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, NO. 47
5) THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, NO. 04
6) THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930, NO.03

CASES

1) Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs Registrar General Orissa, High Court, Civil Appeal No.
6876 of 2022 (S.C. Oct 19, 2022).
2) Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 Live Law (SC) 678.
3) Bipan Kumar v. Sham Sunder, AIR1977 HP90.
4) C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai, (2007) 14 SCC 183.

5) Mis. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals vs Mis. Ramaniyam Real Estates P. Ltd. & Anr, AIR
2011 SC 3351.
6) Arjan Singh vs Punit Ahluwalia, AIR 2008 SC 2718.

7) Standard Retail Pvt. Limited & Ors. v. G.S. Global Corp & Ors, No. 404 of 2020.
8) Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited versus Raghachand Associates, 2024 (SC) 368.
9) Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute,1995 SC 248.
10) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 Law Suit (SC) 441.
11) B. Santoshamma & Anr. v. D. Sarala & Anr, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3575-3577 OF
2009.
12) The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. vs Madura Coats Private Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 634.

WEB ARTICLES

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff v

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

1) Karl Shroff, Specific Performance — Principles Revisited, Scc Online Times,(June 18,
2020), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/06/18/specific-performance-
principles-revisited/
2) Editor_4, ‘Jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred from adjudicating a contractual
dispute’ says Delhi High Court in case against Yes Bank Ltd., Scc Online Times,
(October 10, 2024), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/10/delhi-hc-
jurisdiction-civil-courts-not-barred-from-adjudicating-contractual-dispute-case-
against-yes-bank/

BOOKS

1) BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11TH EDITION 2019)

2) MARIAM-WEBSTER’S 3RD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 1999

DATABASES REFFERED

1) SCC ONLINE- https://www.scconline.com/

2) MANUPATRA- https://www.manupatrafast.in

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff vi

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff (LIFE SMART SOLUTIONS) humbly submits the
memorandum of case under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Hon’ble Civil
Court of Aryavart in the case concerning. The Plaintiff completely submits to this
jurisdiction:

SECTION 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908-

Courts to try all civil suits unless barred--- 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

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff vii

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

¶ [1] Aryavart, a country in the Asian continent, is home to over 1.3 billion people from various
ethnic groups and traditions. Its laws are pari materia to the laws of India. The country faces
environmental problems such as deforestation, pollution, and climate change, which are
exacerbated by modernization. The government is promoting a shift towards renewable energy.

¶ [2] Aryavart aims to generate 50% of its renewable energy from solar and wind sources by
2030, targeting a significant reduction in carbon emissions and promoting green hydrogen.

¶ [3] Ultra Green Pvt. Ltd (Ultra Green), a well-established company in Aryavart, specializes
in eco-friendly gardening products and is committed to sustainability. This commitment has
helped it cultivate a reputation for delivering high-quality items.

¶ [4] Life Smart Solutions (Life Smart), a retail chain known for its extensive selection of
ecofriendly products aimed at environmentally conscious shoppers.

DISPUTE

¶ [5] In June 2023, Ultra Green signed a contract with Life Smart Solutions. According to the
contract, Ultra Green agreed to supply 10,000 units of organic fertilizer by September 1, 2023,
for a total payment of ₹5,00,000. Life Smart paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been paid in
advance, and the total amount shall be paid once the shipment is delivered.

¶ [6] The contract also includes a clause that deals with the penalty of ₹10,000 for each week
of late delivery of all units past the due date. It ensures that Ultra Green would meet its
commitment to the timely execution and accountability of the contract.

¶ [7] In July 2023, Ultra Green faced certain problems that affected its operations. The reason
was the shortage of certain raw materials caused by supply chain disruptions.

¶ [8] By mid-August, after 1.5 months, Ultra Green realized they would be unable to complete
the obligation by September 1, 2023.

¶ [9] On August 15, 2023, Ultra Green informed Life Smart of significant delays in their
delivery timeline and proposed an alternative delivery plan. The alternative plan by Ultra Green

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff viii

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

was to deliver 5,000 units of fertilizers by September 1, 2023, followed by the remaining 5,000
units by September 15, 2023.

¶ [10] Life Smart rejected the offer and insisted on the complete delivery of all units by the
original date, failing which the contract would become null and void.

¶ [11] On September 1, 2023, Ultra Green delivered only 5,000 units, along with a letter
reiterating the proposal for staggered deliveries, which was denied by Life Smart.

¶ [12] Life Smart rejected the partial shipment, claiming it was inadequate, and declared Ultra
Green in breach of contract. Subsequently, Life Smart found an alternative supplier in the
market but at a significantly higher cost.

¶ [13] On September 10, 2023, Life Smart filed a lawsuit against Ultra Green in the Civil Court,
seeking compensation for financial losses due to the breach of contract, lost profits, and
additional expenses incurred due to the purchase of fertilizers from the alternative supplier,
amounting to ₹1,50,000. The case is currently listed in the civil court.

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff ix

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUES RAISED

Counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff humbly submits the following issues before the hon’ble
court: -

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER ‘CIVIL COURT’ HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THIS CASE?

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER ULTRA GREEN BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO

DELIVER ALL UNITS ON TIME?

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER LIFE SMART IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DAMAGES FROM ‘ULTRA

GREEN’ UNDER ‘CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT’?

ISSUE 4:

WHETHER LIFE SMART CAN SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF

CONTRACT UNDER THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT?

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff x

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

(1) WHETHER ‘CIVIL COURT’ HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THIS

CASE?
The legal counsel asserts that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this case as
per Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows civil courts to handle
all civil suits unless explicitly prohibited. They maintain that no specific statute bars
this suit, making the Senior Division of the Civil Court the appropriate venue, as the
Consumer Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. The dispute involves a commercial
transaction of five lakh rupees between Ultra Green and Life Smart Solutions, well
within the Civil Court's pecuniary limits. The counsel cites the Commercial Courts Act,
2015, and relevant case law to support the claim that civil courts can address
commercial disputes. They contend that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
is an inappropriate forum, as the issues at hand—breach of contract and specific
performance—are fundamentally contractual, not consumer-related, thus underscoring
the Civil Court’s suitability for this case.

(2) WHETHER ULTRA GREEN BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO

DELIVER ALL UNITS ON TIME?
The plaintiff, Life Smart Solutions, asserts the existence of a legally binding contract
with Ultra Green for the delivery of 10,000 units of organic fertilizer by September 1,
2023. However, Ultra Green failed to honor the agreement, delivering only 50% of the
contracted quantity and proposing a revised delivery date of September 15, 2023, which
Life Smart rejected due to the contract's emphasis on timely fulfillment. Life Smart
maintains that it was not obligated to accept partial deliveries and was compelled to
procure the remaining units from an alternative supplier at a higher cost. The plaintiff
contends that Ultra Green did not exert reasonable efforts to fulfill the contract and
failed to provide prompt communication regarding any potential delays. Furthermore,
Life Smart argues that Ultra Green cannot invoke force majeure as a defense since the
contract lacks such a provision. Consequently, Life Smart seeks compensation for
breach of contract under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to recover the
losses incurred.

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff xi

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(3) WHETHER LIFE SMART IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DAMAGES FROM

‘ULTRA GREEN’ UNDER ‘CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT’?
Life Smart underscores the paramount importance of punctual delivery as stipulated in
its agreement with Ultra Green, emphasizing that it was not bound to accept deliveries
in installments. Owing to Ultra Green's failure to deliver the complete quantity within
the specified timeframe, Life Smart was compelled to procure the remaining units from
an alternate supplier at a higher cost. Life Smart asserts that Ultra Green did not exert
sufficient efforts to honor the contract, neglected to communicate any delays, and
cannot invoke force majeure as a defense since the contract does not contain such a
provision. Consequently, Life Smart seeks compensation for breach of contract under
Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to recover the incurred losses.
Furthermore, Life Smart asserts its status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019, contending that its primary objective was not profit generation but rather the
launch of an innovative product, thereby warranting damages for the inadequate
delivery of goods..

(4) WHETHER LIFE SMART CAN SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF

CONTRACT UNDER THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT?
Life Smart Solutions hereby seeks specific relief under the Specific Relief Act and
compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. Life Smart advanced a
payment of ₹25,000 to Ultra Green Pvt. Ltd. for the delivery of 10,000 units of organic
fertilizer. However, Ultra Green only delivered 5,000 units, thereby partially fulfilling
the contract. Life Smart contends that the remaining portion of the contract is still
feasible for execution and requests the court to mandate the specific performance of the
outstanding 5,000 units. Additionally, Life Smart seeks compensation for the delay
incurred due to Ultra Green's partial delivery.
Life Smart's claim is supported by the legal principle of restitution, which requires a
party who has benefited from another party's actions or delivery to provide
compensation. In this instance, Ultra Green has retained the advance payment despite
not fulfilling the entire contract, thereby deriving a benefit. Life Smart also cites the
case of B. Santoshamma & Anr. v. D. Sarala & Anr., in which the court ordered specific

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff xii

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

performance of the feasible portions of a contract and awarded compensation for

breach.
Therefore, Life Smart asserts that it has a valid basis for seeking specific relief and
compensation due to Ultra Green's insufficient delivery and the benefits gained from
the advance payment.

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff xiii

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(1) CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE CASE.

¶ [1] It is humbly submitted that counsel is approaching the hon’ble civil court under the
jurisdiction of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 which contends that Courts to
try all civil suits unless barred— 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

¶ [2] On the same grounds, the presence of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC)2 mandates the rejection of a plaint where a suit is barred by law, indicating that there is
no absolute right to file a civil suit if barred by a specific statute.

¶ [3] It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble civil court Senior Division Civil Judge has the
jurisdiction to adjudicate over this matter as consumer court does not has the appropriate
jurisdiction as firstly (1.1),under the section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter CPC)
the suits under the commercial nature are not barred to be heard in this court, and it is not ultra-
vires to section 15 of CPC, and secondly(1.2), the consumer redressal commission cannot deal
with the expanded nature of this dispute.

(1.1) That the nature of current matter is not barred to be heard in this court under Section
9 of CPC and the adjudication of the current matter by this court is not ultra-vires to Section
15 of the CPC3.

¶ [4] As per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, the Court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) may be designated as a Commercial Court at the District Judge level.
Furthermore, in accordance with Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, commercial disputes encompass
agreements for sale of goods or provision of services. While the Commercial Courts Act does

1
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No.05, § 9
2
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1980, No. 05, Order VII Rule 11(d)
3
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No.05, § 15

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 1

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

not explicitly prohibit civil courts from adjudicating commercial disputes, it establishes a
specialized forum for such disputes with the objective of ensuring their expeditious resolution.

¶ [5] In the case of Jaycee Housing (P) Ltd. v. High Court of Orissa4, the Supreme Court
affirmed the view that the objects and reasons for the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act
and the establishment of Commercial Courts would become otiose if all applications/appeals
arising were to lie before the Principal Civil Court of a district.

¶ [6] In the Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd5. The Supreme Court
reaffirmed that the Commercial Courts Act, as amended, was designed and intended to ensure
the swift and efficient resolution of commercial disputes by the designated Commercial Courts

¶ [7] The current dispute involves a dispute about an agreement for sales of goods between
Ultra Green and Life Smart Solutions for a transaction amount of five lakh rupees. This suit is
neither expressly nor impliedly barred from being heard in a civil court. Therefore, the Hon’ble
Civil Court of Senior Judge has the jurisdiction to adjudicate over this dispute.

¶ [8] Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the monetary threshold that determines a court's authority
to adjudicate cases. A court lacks the authority to hear cases that exceed its pecuniary
jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that legal
proceedings should be initiated in the lowest competent court. -“Every suit shall be instituted
in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.”

¶ [9] The main purpose of establishing pecuniary jurisdiction is to prevent the court of a higher
level from getting burdened and to provide assistance to the parties. However, in the case of
Bipan Kumar v. Sham Sunder6, the court emphasised that filing a plaint in a court of higher
jurisdiction than prescribed i.e. District Judge instead of Senior Subordinate Judge, does not
invalidate the filing, as the higher court is competent to entertain the suit, and the date of filing
in the higher court is deemed the date of institution.

¶ [10] The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge's Court extends to fifty lakh rupees,
while that of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court is limited to twenty lakh rupees. Given
that the transaction in question involves five lakh rupees, it is evident that both courts possess

4
Jaycee Housing (P) Ltd. v. High Court of Orissa, High Court,Civil Appeal No. 6876 of 2022 (S.C. Oct 19,
2022).
5
Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678.
6
Bipan Kumar v. Sham Sunder, AIR1977 HP90

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 2

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. However, this does not preclude
this hon’able court from hearing the matter.

(1.2.) That the consumer dispute redressal commission is not the appropriate forum to deal
with this matter.

¶ [11] The legislative intent of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is to safeguard the interests
of consumers by establishing authorities for the timely and effective administration and
resolution of consumer disputes, along with addressing related or incidental matters. It is
humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
is not the appropriate forum to deal with the current matter as

(1.2.1) Firstly, the present dispute deals with multiple areas of law.

¶ [12] In instances where disputes involve broader legal matters that extend beyond the purview
of specific acts, it is appropriate for the civil court to assume jurisdiction over the specialized
forum to ensure comprehensive adjudication of all relevant issues.

¶ [13] As exemplified in the case of C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai7, the civil court's jurisdiction is
not automatically relinquished simply because an alternative remedy exists under a specialized
statute such as the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The court recognized that in cases
involving complex legal questions or matters of pure contract law that fall outside the scope of
consumer protection, civil courts retain the authority to exercise their jurisdiction..

¶ [14] In the present matter, the dispute involves various aspects of law, including consumer
protection, breach of contract, and specific performance. The consumer court, being a
specialized forum, is limited to handling consumer disputes. On the other hand, civil courts
possess broader jurisdiction and are well-equipped to adjudicate over all these legal aspects.

7
C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai, (2007) 14 SCC 183

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 3

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(1.2.2) Secondly That the hearing of this case in consumer forum will be ultra-vires to the
doctrine of dominus litis

¶ [15] The primary issue or the most significant aspect of the case often determines the most
appropriate forum for its adjudication. The doctrine of dominus litis8, allows the plaintiff to
choose the forum if more than one is available.

¶ [16] Currently, the cause of action of this dispute is the breach of contract by Ultra Green
Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, the primary nature of this dispute is contractual and not consumer.

¶ [17] Hence, it is humbly submitted that the civil court is more appropriate to adjudicate over
the current dispute.

8
Doctrine of Dominus Litis, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 4

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(2) THAT URBAN GREEN BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO

DELIVER ALL UNITS ON TIME.

¶ [18] Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act9 that—

“Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract—When a contract has been
broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has
broken the contract, compensation for 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. Such compensation is not to
be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.”

Section 73 stipulates that in the event of a breach of contract, the aggrieved party is entitled to
receive compensation from the defaulting party for any losses or damages incurred as a direct
and natural consequence of the breach. This includes damages that were foreseeable and within
the contemplation of the parties at the time of contract formation.

¶ [19] It is humbly submitted before the Hono’able Civil Court that Ultra Green has violated
the terms of the contract by failing to deliver all units within the agreed-upon timeframe.
Consequently, Life Smart is entitled to seek damages from Urban Green for breach of contract.
Firstly, time is of the essence in this contract (2.1). Secondly, the plaintiff was not obligated to
accept the deliveries in installments (2.2). Lastly, the respondent did not exert sufficient efforts
to fulfill the contract (2.3).

(2.1) That time is the essence of the contract.

¶ [20] The section 55 of the Indian Contract Act10 states that—

“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, and 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.”

9
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, No.09, § 73
10
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, No.09, § 55

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 5

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶ [21] In the case of Mis.Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals vs Mis.Ramaniyam Real Estates P. Ltd.
& Anr11., the Supreme Court clarified that when time is a crucial factor in a contract, failure to
fulfill the obligations within the specified timeframe grants the non-breaching party the right
to terminate the contract and seek compensation for the breach.

¶ [22] In the present dispute, the contract explicitly stated that Ultra Green was to supply 10,000
units of organic fertilizer by September 1, 2023. The clear specification of the delivery deadline
demonstrates that both parties had agreed to a fixed timeframe for performance. Additionally,
the contract included a penalty of ₹10,000 for every week of delayed delivery beyond the
agreed deadline. This provision aimed to guarantee timely execution and accountability from
Ultra Green regarding its contractual commitments.

¶ [23] Also, LifeSmart’s rejection of the staggered delivery proposal reinforces the fact that
full and timely delivery was essential to them. The urgency of LifeSmart's need for the
fertilizers is reflected in their immediate action to purchase from another supplier, even at an
increased cost. This shows that the timely delivery of the products was directly linked to
LifeSmart's ability to meet their business needs and contractual commitments, further
indicating that time was of the essence.

¶ [24] Additionally, LifeSmart's rejection of the staggered delivery proposal underscores the
criticality of complete and punctual delivery. The urgency of LifeSmart's fertilizer requirement
is evident in their prompt decision to procure from an alternative supplier, despite the higher
cost. This action demonstrates the direct correlation between timely product delivery and
LifeSmart's ability to fulfill its business objectives and contractual obligations, reinforcing the
significance of timeliness in this matter.

¶ [25] In addition, when Ultra Green notified LifeSmart that they could only deliver 5,000 units
by the deadline and suggested delivering the remaining 5,000 units by September 15, 2023,
LifeSmart promptly rejected this proposal. LifeSmart emphasized that they required the
complete delivery of all 10,000 units as stipulated in the original agreement. Furthermore,
LifeSmart clearly communicated its intention to nullify the contract in the event of complete
non-performance by Ultra Green.

11
Mis.Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals vs Mis. Ramaniyam Real Estates P. Ltd. & Anr, AIR 2011 SC 3351

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 6

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶ [26] Hence, LifeSmart, in this case, has chosen to treat the contract as voidable because Ultra
Green’s failure to deliver on time caused financial losses. LifeSmart, therefore, is entitled to
claim damages for the loss of profits and additional expenses incurred as a result of purchasing
the fertilizers from another supplier.

(2.2) That the plaintiff was not bound to accept the deliveries in instalments.

¶ [27] Section 38(1) of the sales of goods act12 states that—

Unless otherwise agreed, the buyer of goods is not bound to accept delivery thereof by
instalments.

¶ [28] The case of The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. vs Madura Coats Private Ltd.13,
discussed the implications of delivering goods that do not correspond with the description in
the contract. It was emphasized that the buyer is entitled to refuse such goods if they do not
meet the contractual description, which aligns with the principle that a buyer is not bound to
accept partial or instalment deliveries unless agreed otherwise.

¶ [29] As per the contract between LifeSmart and Ultra Green, the delivery of 10,000 units of
organic fertilizers was clearly outlined with a deadline of September 1, 2023. It is important to
note that there was no agreement in place for installment deliveries. Given the absence of any
mention regarding staggered deliveries or installments in the contract, LifeSmart was not
obligated to accept partial delivery.

(2.3) That the respondent did not make its best efforts to complete the contract.

¶ [30] The "best efforts14" principle stipulates that a contracting party must exert its utmost
efforts, encompassing all customary, essential, and appropriate actions, to guarantee the
venture's success. We respectfully submit to this Honorable Court that the respondent failed to
make its best efforts to fulfill the contract, as

(2.3.1) Firstly, it did not communicate the delays promptly.

12
The Sale of Goods act, 1903, No.03, §38(1)
13
The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. vs Madura Coats Private Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 634
14
Best Efforts, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.2019)

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 7

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶ [31] Arjan Singh vs Punit Ahluwalia15, the court deliberated on the responsibility of parties
to engage in communication and address potential breaches. It acknowledged that even in the

15
Arjan Singh vs Punit Ahluwalia, AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2718

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 8

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

absence of a formal signature, the consensus ad idem (mutual understanding) could be deduced
from the contemporaneous correspondence exchanged between the parties. The court
underscored the significance of interpreting the parties' intentions based on the expressions
used in the correspondence and their subsequent actions in response to those expressions.

¶ [32] Nevertheless, Ultra Green did not inform LifeSmart until August 15, 2023, that they
would be unable to fulfill the entire order of 10,000 units by September 1, 2023. By this time,
Ultra Green was already aware of the material shortage but failed to communicate promptly.
Ultra Green should have provided early notification of the potential delays, enabling both
parties to address the issue more expeditiously. By delaying communication, Ultra Green
limited LifeSmart's ability to explore alternative options. This demonstrates poor management
of contractual obligations and a lack of prioritization of timely delivery.

(2.3.2) Secondly, there was a Sufficient Lead Time in Contract, and hence it is not a force-
majeure event.

¶ [33] The term "force majeure16," as defined by Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary,
refers to a situation of "(1) Superior or irresistible force. (2) an event or effect that cannot
reasonably be anticipated or controlled." Consequently, a party may invoke the "force majeure"
clause in circumstances that are unforeseen, unexpected, occur suddenly, and are beyond
human control.

¶ [34] In the present context, the agreement between LifeSmart and Ultra Green was executed
in June 2023, providing Ultra Green with approximately three months to organize production
and delivery by the stipulated deadline of September 1, 2023. Ultra Green had sufficient time
to foresee and address potential supply chain disruptions, especially considering the prevalent
supply chain challenges during that period. Their inability to act within this timeframe
demonstrates a lack of proactive planning and prioritization of the contract.

¶ [35] It is not surprising that this event occurred, given the ample time available to make
alternative arrangements. Consequently, the force majeure clause is not applicable in this
situation.

16
Force majeure, Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 9

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(2.3.3) Thirdly, in arguendo, there exists no force-majeure clause in the contract.

¶ [36] In Indian jurisprudence, the principle that the defense of force majeure cannot be invoked
in the absence of a force majeure clause in the contract is well-established. In the case of
Standard Retail Pvt. Limited & Ors. v. G.S. Global Corp & Ors.17, the court emphasized that
the absence of a force majeure clause in the contract means that the parties cannot claim force
majeure as a defense.

¶ [37] The contract between LifeSmart and Ultra Green lacks a force majeure clause. Ultra
Green did not formally invoke force majeure as a defense during their communication
regarding delays. Since the contract does not contain a force majeure clause, Ultra Green
cannot claim protection under this defense for the raw material shortage that caused their
delivery delays.

¶ [38] Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Ultra Green has breached the contract by
failing to deliver all units on time, and LifeSmart is entitled to claim damages from Ultra Green
for breach of contract.

17
Standard Retail Pvt. Limited & Ors. v. G.S. Global Corp & Ors, No. 404 of 2020

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 10

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(3) LIFE SMART IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DAMAGES FROM ‘ULTRA GREEN’

UNDER ‘CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT’

¶ [39] It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Life Smart is entitled to seek
damages from Ultra Green under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. Firstly, Life Smart is
not precluded from claiming damages as it qualifies as a consumer (3.1). Secondly, there was
a inadequacy in the delivery of the product (3.2).

(3.1) That Life Smart is not barred to claim damages as it is a consumer.

¶ [40] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines a ‘consumer’18 as a person who—

buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and
partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such
goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or
partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is
made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such
goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;

¶ [41] In the case of Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited versus Raghachand Associates19,
the Supreme Court determined that when a service provider asserts that a service was acquired
for a commercial purpose, the burden of proof rests solely on the service provider to
substantiate this claim. The court underscored that the Consumer Protection Act serves as a
pro-consumer legislation designed to safeguard consumer rights. Consequently, it is
unreasonable to expect a complainant to demonstrate the absence of commercial intent. The
responsibility remains exclusively with the service provider to establish the commercial nature
of the service rendered.

¶ [42] Consequently, in the present situation, Life Smart is not obligated to demonstrate the
absence of a commercial motive. The burden of proof lies with Ultra Green to substantiate that
Life Smart acquired the fertilizers exclusively for resale or commercial purposes.

¶ [43] With respect to the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute20, the
Supreme Court determined that the interpretation of "commercial purpose" must be specific to

18
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, § 2(7)(ii).
19
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited versus Raghachand Associates, 2024 (SC) 368
20
Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute,1995 INSC 248

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 11

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

each case and dependent on the details presented in each individual case. The Court noted that
individual purchasing goods to conduct any large-scale activity with the intention of extracting
profit would not be categorized as a "consumer" under the Act.

¶ [44] In the matter at hand, it was explicitly stated that the primary objective of this partnership
was for Ultra Green to introduce a novel and groundbreaking range of organic fertilizers that
cater to the growing demand for sustainable gardening solutions. The primary motivation
behind the transaction was not profit generation, but rather to facilitate the launch of an
innovative product in the market.

¶ [45] It is important to note that this was a novel product, and therefore there was an inherent
risk involved in its sales, and profits were not guaranteed. The primary objective of the
partnership was to facilitate the other party's product launch, which aligns with our broader
social and environmental goals of promoting sustainability. Given that the transaction was
driven by these larger objectives and profit was uncertain, it cannot be classified as a purely
commercial purpose.

(3.2) There was an inadequacy in delivery of the product.

¶ [46] Deficiency21, as defined in Section 2(11) of the CPA, refers to any imperfection,
inadequacy, or shortcoming in the quality, nature, or manner of performance that is required by
law or undertaken by an individual pursuant to a contract or other service-related agreement.

¶ [47] In the case of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor22, the court issued
an order mandating the developer to reimburse the consumer for the amount paid with interest
due to the failure to deliver the apartment within the stipulated timeframe. The court
acknowledged the consumer's right to seek reimbursement and compensation for the deficient
service, which includes inadequacy in the performance of the contract.

¶ [48] In the current matter, Ultra Green failed to fulfil the agreed-upon delivery of 10,000
units by the specified deadline, delivering only 5,000 units. This shortfall represents a
deficiency in performance, as LifeSmart had explicitly rejected any proposal for partial
deliveries.

21
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No.35 § 2(11)
22
Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 Law Suit (SC) 441

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 12

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶ [49] Accordingly, we humbly submit that there was a deficiency in the performance of the
day, and therefore, Life Smart is entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 13

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(4) THAT LIFE SMART CAN SEEK SPECIFIC RELIEF UNDER THE
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT.

¶ [50] It is humbly submitted to this Honorable Court that Life Smart may seek specific relief
under the Specific Relief Act. Firstly, it would be equitable and just to order specific
performance of the contract (4.1). Secondly, the doctrine of restitution should apply (4.2).

(4.1) That it would be reasonable to order for the specific performance of contract.

¶ [51] Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act23—

(3) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, and the
part which must be left unperformed either— (a) forms a considerable part of the whole,
though admitting of compensation in money; or (b) does not admit of compensation in
money;

¶ [52] It is essential to interpret this section in a manner that serves its intended purpose and
provides the Court with the authority to compel the defaulting party to fulfill the feasible
aspects of the contract.

¶ [53] In the case of B. Santoshamma & Anr. v. D. Sarala & Anr.24, it was determined that a
party to a contract who intentionally breaches the agreement through their own wrongful
actions cannot avoid the consequences of their behavior. The court ordered the specific
fulfillment of the feasible portions of the contract and awarded compensation.

23
The Specific Relief Act, 1963, No. 47, § 12(3)
24
B. Santoshamma & Anr. v. D. Sarala & Anr, CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3575-3577 OF 2009

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 14

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶ [54] With respect to the present case, despite Ultra Green's partial fulfillment of the contract
by delivering only 5,000 units out of the agreed-upon 10,000, the remaining portion of the
contract remains feasible for execution. The primary objective of the contract, which is to
provide LifeSmart with organic fertilizers, has not been entirely thwarted. Consequently, it is
respectfully suggested that the court mandate the specific performance of the outstanding 5,000
units, given that delivery is still practicable. Additionally, compensation should be awarded for
the incurred delay, thereby ensuring that LifeSmart is not deprived of a suitable remedy.

(4.2) That the doctrine of restitution shall apply.

¶ [55] Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act25 deals states that—

Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him,
not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof,
the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the
thing so done or delivered.

¶ [56] In the present case, Life Smart Solutions advanced a payment of ₹25,000 to Ultra Green
Pvt. Ltd. for the delivery of 10,000 units of organic fertilizer. This payment was made with the
expectation of receiving the complete quantity of fertilizer, and not as a gratuitous act. By
delivering only 5,000 units, Ultra Green has derived a benefit by retaining the advance payment
of ₹25,000 made by LifeSmart.

¶ [57] Our analysis indicates that LifeSmart has a legitimate basis for seeking compensation
and specific relief under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. This is due to the insufficient
delivery and the advantages gained by Ultra Green as a result of the advance payment.

25
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, No 09, § 70

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 15

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶ [58] Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Life Smart may pursue specific relief in
accordance with the Specific Relief Act.

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff 16

 12TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel
on behalf of the plaintiff humbly pray before this Hon’ble Civil Court of Aryavart that it may
be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

• The Civil Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.

• The Life Smart must be awarded compensation under Consumer Protection Act.
• The Life Smart must be awarded compensation under Specific Relief Act.
• The Life Smart must be awarded for damages of ₹1,50,000 under Breach of Contract.

And/or

Pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, equity,
fairness and good conscience.

On behalf of the Plaintiff

Counsel for plaintiff

-SD-

Memorial on the behalf of the Plaintiff xiv