Moot Court Problem 1

Parshuram v/s Bheemsen

Bheemsen and Parshuram have been long standing acquaintances who regularly
had business dealings with one another. On October 1 st, 2020, Bheemsen from
his home address in Hyderabad, wrote an email to Parshuram (at his address in
Nagpur), offering to sell him his customized Volkswagen Polo motor car for Rs.
5,00,000 /- (Rupees Five Lakh only/-). The offer was mentioned to be valid till 5 th
October, 2020.

On 1st October, 2020, Parshuram left Nagpur on a business trip for Kanpur.

On 1st October, 2020 Bheemsen sold the car to Ramesh and posted to Parshuram
a revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Parshuram’s Nagpur home on 3 rd
October, 2020. On 4th October, 2020 Parshuram posted an acceptance of the offer
from Kanpur, addressed to Bheemsen at his business address in Kundalpur,
Hyderabad (i.e. the address from which Bheemsen usually conducted dealings
with Parshuram). It was delivered on the 5 th October, 2020 but Bheemsen was
absent from his office on that day, it wasn’t read by him until 6 th October, 2020.
On 7th October, 2020 Parshuram came home and read the letter of revocation.

Parshuram filed a case in the civil court claiming that a contract had been formed
between himself and Bheemsen, as he had accepted the offer on 4 th October
when the letter was delivered to Bheemsen’s place of business. Both the events
took place before the offer lapsed and therefore Bhemmsen’s letter of revocation
was not communicated to him. Hence Bheemsen selling the car to Ramesh was a
breach of contract.
 Moot Court Problem 2

Amreen Siddhiqui v/s Union of India

Internet is the biggest worldwide communication network in todays time. It is

the most convenient method to communicate and to share information. Ms.
Amreen Siddhiqui like crores of other citizens of our country is a user of Internet
and of social networking sites. She is a user of Friendsbook ( a social networking
site). She is an author and a social activist.

Ms Amreen Siddhiqui on 15 th August, 2014 posted a cartoon and a comment on

Friendsbook . This post related to a political leader of a National party named
Sangh Political Party (SPP). In wake of the comments posted or pictures posted
by Ms Amreen Siddhiqui, the party activists filed an FIR against her on 16 th
August, 2014 in the city of Mumbai, Maharashtra.

The FIR was filed under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, (IT Act),
2000, which provides for a cognizable offence. Taking cognizance of the FIR the
police arrested Ms Amreen Siddhiqui and later released her on bail.

Few days after the above incident, on 5th September, 2014 another incident took
place wherein two employees of the Steel Authorities of India were arrested and
held in custody for 7 days by the police in Maharashtra under inter alia Section
66A of the IT Act for putting up a content on Friendsbook against a trade union
leader and some politicians.

On seeing such similar incident and being aggrieved by the actions of the police,
Ms Amreen Siddhiqui filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on 18 th September, 2014,
seeking the Section 66A of the IT Act and certain provisions of the Information
Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, as unconstitutional, as
violative of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms guaranteed under the
Constitution.
 Moot Court Problem 3

Rashmi D’costa v/s Gavin D’costa

Rashmi and Gavin liked each other since they were in college. On 2 nd November,
2014, Rashmi ( a Hindu) married Gavin ( a Christian) under the provisions of the
Special Marriage Act. The marriage wasn’t against the consent of Rashmi parents.
Gavin works as a Banker and earn Rs. 2,00,000/- a month. Rashmi is a
housewife.

For few months the couple lead a happy married life. But suddenly Gavin
behavior started changing after 1st year of marriage. He was always irritated. He
started drinking and smoking and often raised his hand on Rashmi. He tortured
her psychologically and demanded sex every night. In case Rashmi refused to
have physical relation, she had to suffer physical torment and was beaten up
badly. She was even subject to use of sexual devices and instruments against her
will.

On 12th March, 2015, Rashmi was again beaten up by Gavin for refusing to have
physical relation. She was beaten so badly that her whole hand and face swelled.
Rashmi then decide to leave Gavin and file a complain against him.

She left her home immediately and filed an FIR in the Thane police station
against Gavin for forcing her to have physical relation every night, subjecting her
to cruelty and domestic violence. Gavin was immediately arrested and was
rejected bail permission.

The case is now in Family Court. Rashmi D’costa has now filed a divorce petition
and levied criminal charges against Gavin D’costa.
 Moot Court Problem 4

Nivedita Agarwal v/s Rajeev Agarwal

Mr. Rajeev Agarwal and Mrs. Nivedita Agarwal were married in the year 2015.
After 4 years of their happy married life Mrs. Nivedita Agarwal came across few
secret reports of her husband. According to these reports her husband was had
some serious congenital medical problem that may pass on to his child. Mrs.
Nivedita realized that she could never have a healthy baby.

Mr. Rajeev Agarwal and Mrs. Nivedita Agarwal then had a big fight in this regard.
Mrs. Agarwal was angry on the fact that her husband never disclosed his health
problem to her either prior to marriage or thereafter.
After 2 months from this incident Mr. Rajeev learnt that his wife desirous of
having a healthy child, developed an extra marital affair with her colleague Mr.
Sameer Anand. However he did not object to the same.

Mr. Sameer however, confessed to his wife, Mrs. Rakhi Anand that he had an
illicit relationship with Mrs. Nivedita . Mrs. Rakhi furious about the matter
complained against her husband as main accused and Mrs. Nivedita as second
accused and also against Mr. Rajeev as an abettor a he through his silence
facilitated and encouraged his wife and her husband to indulge in Adultery.

Meanwhile under a PIL filed by an NGO, that provision for Adultery under
Section 497 of I.P.C. is gender discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court declared Adultery no longer a crime.

Mrs. Rakhi Anand then filed a divorce petition in the Family Court for divorce
from her husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Inspired from Mrs. Rakhi Anand, Mr. Rajeev left his home to reside in another
apartment and also applied for divorce from his wife under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 to which Mrs. Nivedita Agarwal objected that it is strange that he,
instead of her, filed for a divorce when in reality non-disclosure of his serious
health problem has brought forth this state of affairs. Mrs. Nivedita denies to give
divorce to her and claims for the restitution of conjugal rights.
 Moot Court Problem 5

Society of Preachers v/s Union of India

China is the world most populous country, known for its powerful government,
pervasive surveillance and stringent policies. On 7 th January, 2020, the Chinese
authorities identified a new strain of virus which caused the disease of COVID 19.
On March 19th, 2020, WHO declared it to be a pandemic. About 1.5 million people
were infected and 85,000 lost their lives. There was no vaccine in place, the
world economy crippled due to lockdown that had to be crippled across the
countries.

India being one of the most densely populated countries and a neighboring
country to China, reported 5500 infections and 150 death within the 1 st week of
March, 2020. Following the social distancing guidelines issued by the WHO, a
lockdown of 21 days from March , 2020 was imposed in the entire State. This
immediately adversely impacted all sectors of the economy and all strata of the
society.

While the Government of India had started cancelling all activities in mass
gathering. The Society of Preachers (SOP), an independent minority institution
conducted an event of almost 2000 people within their own premises on 13 th
March, 2020. It was later discovered that more than half of these who were
present at the event were tested and put into quarantine. The Ministry of Health
in India, commented in its official statement that those who attended the SOP
event had become one of the biggest causes of the spread of COVID-19in the
country as most of them who are found positive had travelled to the different
parts of the country even before the lockdown was declared.

Media reports claimed that the gathering included citizen from the countries that
already had an outbreak of the virus in February, 2020. It was reported across
national media that it appeared that the SOP members were spreading the virus
in the country as there were instances of them defying the lockdown and also
non- declaration of travel history.
An FIR against Maulana Tabdili ( the head of SOP) and 7 other leaders was filed
under The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 3c and Indian Penal Code Sec
269, 270, 271 and 120B. Also relevant provisions of the National Security Code,
1980 were invoked against the SOP members as it was alleged that they were
non co-operative with the State departments and health officials. Resultantly
creating a terror by contributing to the spread of disease to remote areas of the
State and thus infecting more people.

The members of the SOP filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court,
submitting that even though similar violations were reported from other parts of
the country by the members of other social, political and religious groups, but
National Security Act was not invoked in those cases and that this is
discrimination.
 Moot Court Problem 6

Amit Upadhyay v/s Union of India (Writ Petition)

Shweta (aged 16 years) was left in a vegetative state after she was raped and
strangled in 2007 at the hospital where she worked. In 2015 a journalist and
right activist named Amit Upadhyay filed a case before Supreme Court, seeking
that Shweta be allowed to die.

The Bench in this case faced challenge to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
relating to abetment of suicide which sort to rely on the earlier ruling in P.
Raitham case which had been Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code as being
violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution. However, in 2017, the Court
rejected the plea of Amit Upadhyay since the Centre opposed the recognition of
living will. The Court held that the Right to Life under Article 21 of Constitution
does not include Right to die.

Amit Upadhyay then approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, praying
for the declaration that the Right to die with dignity is a Fundamental right under
Article 21. It also prayed the Court to issue directions to the Union Government
to allow terminally ill patients to execute “living wills” for appropriate action in
the event that they are admitted to hospitals. As an alternative for Shweta he
prayed to sought guidelines from the Court on this issue. He further prayed for
appointment of an expert committee comprising lawyers, doctors and social
scientists to determine the aspect of executing living wills.

Amit Upadhyay argued that terminally ill persons or those suffering from chronic
diseases must not be subjected to cruel treatments. Denying them the right to die
in a dignified manner extends their suffering. It prayed the court to secure the
right to die with dignity by allowing such persons to make an informed choice
through a living will. An individual’s right to execute advance medical directives
is an assertion of the right to bodily integrity and self- determination and does
not depend on any recognition or legislation by a State.
 Moot Court Problem 7

Meenakshi Sundra v/s Hitesh Nadar and Ors.

Meenakshi Sundra (aged 29) married Hitesh Nadar in 2016. The marriage was
an arranged marriage with demands for additional dowry. After marriage, she
was often beaten up by her husband and father– in –law (FIL). Following the
beatings she began to have some neurological problems.

When she became pregnant with the child sex determination was done illegally.
Knowing the child gender was feminine, her in laws and husband pressurized
her to abort it. On refusal to such vindictive demands, she was allegedly
administered some unknown substance/ poison by her mother –in- law (MIL).

During this time there were two more episodes of violence by her husband and
FIL wherein she was hit on her neck with a danda and strongly beaten up by belt
following which her condition start deteriorating. She was taken to a local
hospital who referred her to Neurology Dept.

During her treatment she was kept in ICU for 2 months. Even while she was
hospitalized, she was threatened by her husband and in laws to not disclose the
truth and to get addl. Dowry once she was discharged in order to avoid any
further torture. After 1 month she was discharged with following diagnosis :
LMN Quadriparesis with diaphragmatic weakness.

After discharge despite of such diagnosis she was not taken care properly in her
in laws house and so she went back to her parents home. She is currently bed
ridden and residing at her parent’s home.
She has now lodged an FIR with the police against her husband and in-laws,
alleging domestic violence and torture with the demands for additional dowry. A
medical board of doctors was formed to opine whether her condition was a
result of physical violence meted to her. Her treatment papers were reviewed
and samples were also collected for toxicological analysis. The papers clearly
showed physical injuries.
 Moot Court Problem 8

Naveen Kohli v/s Neelu Kohli

The Appellant Naveen Kohli got married to Neelu Kohli in 2012. A daughter was
born out of the wedlock of the parties.

According to the Appellant, the respondent is an ill-tempered women and a

women of rude behavior. After marriage she started quarrelling and
misbehaving with the Appellant and his parents and ultimately, the Appellant
was compelled to leave the parental residence and started to reside in a rented
premises from May 2014.

In addition, the Appellant also alleged that in the month of May 2014 when he
along with the respondent and their daughter visited Mumbai to attend the
golden jubilee marriage anniversary of his father in law, he noticed that the
Respondent was indulging in an indecent manner and also found her in a
compromising position with one Sukesh Rout. Immediately thereafter the
Appellant started living separately from the respondent since May 2014. He
alleged that that he suffered intense physical and mental torture.

According to the Appellant, the respondent had withdrawn Rs. 9,50,000/- from
the Bank account of the Appellant and deposited the same in her account. The
appellant alleged that the respondent got a false FIR registered against him
under Section Sections 420/ 467/ 468 and 478 of IPC. This was registered in
police station of Panki, Kanpur city. She also tried to get the Appellant arrested
under Sections 323 and 324 of I.PC.

Hence the Appellant had filed for a divorce on grounds of cruelty in the Trial
Court. The Trial court recorded specific finding about wife harassing and
torturing husband mentally, physically, and financially. Decree of dissolution of
marriage was passed by the Trial Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act.

Wife appealed in the High Court and the High Court held evidence on record not
properly appreciated by the Trial Court. A finding that husband immorally
cohabited with another lady recorded by the High Court. On that ground held
that it amounted to misconduct and was unconscionable for the purpose of
Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and suit for divorce was dismissed.

The Husband has now appealed in Supreme Court for the decree of divorce.
 Moot Court Problem 9

Indus is a secular and democratic country, with a dynamic and liberal economy.
It witnesses a lot of social and cultural diversity and has a progressive society
nurturing its liberal views. In the year 2017 the Supreme Court of Indus had
pronounced a judgement in a landmark case, invalidating Triple Talaq as a form
of divorce under Muslim Personal Laws as the same being against the basic
principles of the Constitution of Indus and infringes the Fundamental Rights of
the women as enshrined under the Constitution. The Apex Court further directed
the Union of Indus to make laws invalidating Triple Talaq and also to make it a
criminal offence. The Bill has been passed by the Lok Sabha of Union of Indus but
is still pending before the Rajya Sabha due to political issues.

A young couple named Jawed (aged 24) and Swati (aged 21), from Kanpur, a city
in Uttar Indus, were in relationship and they wanted to marry each other but the
families of Jawed and Swati were against the relationship, as they both belonged
to different religion. Jawed persuaded Swati to embrace Islam and with the
pretext that once she embraces Islam his family would agree for their marriage
and the same will not be against his religion.

Accordingly, after much persuasion after Jawed, Swati agreed to convert her
religion to Islam and on 20 th June 2016, Swati was given the name Shazia in a
ceremony of “Qubul Islam”, by the Maulvi and the couple got married on 21 st
August of the same year after duly complying with the formalities of Nikah.

After the marriage Swati and Jawed lived separately from their families . The
marital life of the couple was going smooth and they were happy together.
However due to excessive family pressure Jawed forced Shazia to shift to his
parent home along with him. For few days things remained cordial but slowly the
couple started to have regular fights. Shazia was forced to leave her job.

On 15th November, 2017 there was a family function at Jawed place, in which
many family members and neighbors were present. Suddenly Shazia and Jawed
got into an heated argument and in a fit of rage Jawed pronounced Triple talaq
on Shazia in presence of family and the neighbors. Immediately after the incident
Shazia left her marital home and went back to her parents home.

After the incident, Shazia was completely in a state of shock and she stopped
talking to Jawed. In between, Jawed tried to communicate with Shazia but she
avoided any kind of contact with him.

On the evening of 21st November, 2017, Jawed texted Shazia , requesting her to
meet him and discuss their problems . Shazia replied that she will be alone that
day as her family will not be home and she did not want to meet Jawed and that
she needs more time to evaluate their relationship. On the same evening, Jawed
in an intoxicated state visited Shazia’s parental place, where Shazia was alone as
her family members had gone out for a ceremony. Shazia and Jawed both had an
heated argument, this angered Jawed who lost his control and forced himself
upon Shazia against her will and consent. Shazia being alone feared for her life
and did not resist much and therefore surrendered to the will of Jawed.
Thereafter, Jawed left the place.

The very next day, Shazia in a state of shock narrated her ordeal t her family who
immediately, went to the nearest police station and lodged a complaint against
Jawed for committing a Rape with Shazia. The police registered an FIR against
Jawed for committing Rape under Sec 375 and cruelty u/s 498A, Assault or use f
criminal force to women with intend to outrage her modesty u/s 354, voluntarily
causing Grievous hurt u/s 321 under Indus Penal Code on November, 2017.

Please note the laws applicable in Indus are same as of India