UILS Intra Department Moot Court Competition (2016 17) Group 1 Proposition
KK Luthra Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2016: Best Memorial - Petitioners - NLSIUFull description
Respondent side
University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, ChandigarhFull description
Creative is goodFull description
MemorialsFull description
Moot Court Sample Memorial
memorial on the behalf of petitioner in criminal case. This memorial was presented in state level moot court competition.Full description
NALSAR BR Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition 2016 - Moot Problem
University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, ChandigarhFull description
Best Memorial Team Members : Divya Arora, Priya Gupta , Anshul Singhal (4th year) University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh
The moot team of AIL performed wonders at the 4th KIIT National Moot Court Competition 2016, held in KIIT Institute in Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. Nehmat Sethi, Aman Venugopal and Akanksha, the team of ...
Respondent sideFull description
Amity National Moot Court Competition, 2016: Winners and Best Memorial: Respondents - NLSIU
Sample memorial For Alternative Dispute Resolution
Petitioner side
Amity National Moot Court Competition, 2016: Winners and Best Memorial: Appellants - NLSIU
Runners Up Memo:Shoaib Khan, Fahim Khan and Mohit Verma
Runners up memo:Shoaib Khan, Fahim Khan and Mohit Verma
ICC Moot Court Competition (International Rounds: Finalists): Prosecution Memorial - NLSIU
ICC Moot Court Competition (International Rounds: Finalists): Defence Memorial - NLSIU
m
UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016
TEAM CODE: A-30
THE HON’BLE CONSUMER COURT OF DELHI S.L.P. NO……….. OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. SW S WARN KUMAR KUM AR …PLAINTIFF
.
MR. AKHIL SIN!HAL …DEFENDANT
PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 6 OF COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIISION OF HI!H COURTS ACT, 2O1"
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
PARTICULARS
PA!E NO. (ii) (iii) (vii) (viii) (x) (xi) 1!1"
LIST OF ABBREIATIONS INDE# OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF $URISDICTION STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES RAISED SUMMAR% OF AR!UMENTS AR!UMENTS ADANCED
I.
WHETHER
THE
DELHI
COMMERCIAL
COURT
HAS
1
$URISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE MATTER OR OR NOT NOT&
I.1 THAT THE DISPUTE IS IN THIS SUIT IS NOT IS NOT A COMMERCIAL
1
DISPUTE.
I.2 THAT IT IS NOT IS NOT UNDER THE UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION O
2
THE DELHI COMMERCIAL COURT.
II.
WHETHER THE WHETHER THE ESSENTIALS OF A ALID CONTRACT ARE
3
FULFILLED OR NOT OR NOT&
II.1 THAT ALL THE ESSENTIALS O A %ALID CONTRACT ARE
3
ULILLED.
II.2 THAT MR . &UMAR &UMAR 'A 'AS S A COMPETENT PART TO CONTRACT . 4
III.
WHETHER THE WHETHER THE A!REEMENT SI!NED BETWEEN MR . KUMAR AND MR . SIN!HAL IS ENFORCEABLE OR NOT OR NOT&
III.1 III.2
I. I.
THAT THIS IS A %ALID LOAN THAT THIS LOAN CONTRACT IS NOT IS NOT ENORCEALE
6 6 6
WHETHER IN$UNCTION WHETHER IN$UNCTION SHOULD BE !RANTED A!AINST MR . SIN!HAL FROM SELLIN! MA$ORIT% OF THE SHARES OF
"
THE COMPAN% IN THE PRESENT CASE&
"
4.1 THAT THE PLAINTI DOESN*T HA%E PRIMA ACIE CASE 4.2 THAT THE DEENDANT 'OULD SUER IRREPARALE INJUR
#
I THE INJUNCTION IS +RANTED
4.3 THAT THE ALANCE O (IN)CON%ENIENCE IS IN THE A%OUR 1$
O DEENDANT
4.4 THAT THE ORDER O ORDER O SPECIIC PERORMANCE O CONTRACT (1)
11 ET'EEN MR . &UMAR AND &UMAR AND MR . SIN+HAL SHALL E PASSED
11. PRA%ER
(xii)
(2)
LIST OF ABBREIATIONS S. NO.
ABBREIATION
FULL FORM
,
A-
/
P000
3.
AIR
A I-i0 R8
4.
A-.
A-8
5.
CP C
Civi P9 C
6.
.
Ei8i-
7.
HC
Hi C8
8.
H-*;
H-0;
9.
L8.
Li
10.
O=.
O8=
11.
Pv8.
Piv08
12.
>?
R0 ?i8
13.
SC
S< C8
14.
SCC
S< C8 C0==
15.
SCJ
S< C8 J-0
16.
SCR
S< C8 R8
17.
S.
S98i-
18.
S.
S<-80@
19.
>=
U- =98i-
20.
v.
%==
21.
%.
%<
1. 2.
(3)
INDE# OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
396............................................................... ..........................17 ...17 AMERICAN CYANAMID AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. %. ETHICON LTB LTB1975 AC 396........................................ / S M S RSPL LTD RSPL LTD %. MUKESH SHARMA & ANR A ANR A. I I . R R. YOGENDRA SINGH % SINGH %. PREM LATA LATA & ANR A ANR A. I I . R R.
'HETHER THE 'HETHER THE DELHI COMMERCIAL COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE MATTER MATTER OR OR NOTK
ISSUE II
'HETHER THE 'HETHER THE CONTRACT SI+NED MR . S'ARN &UMAR ULIL &UMAR ULIL THE ESSENTIALS O A %ALID CONTRACT K
ISSUE III 'HETHER THE 'HETHER THE CONTRACT SI+NED ET'EEN MR . &UMAR &UMAR AND AND MR . SIN+HAL IS ENORCEALE OR NOTK
ISSUE I
'HETHER AN 'HETHER AN INJUNCTION SHOULD E +RANTED A+AINST MR . SIN+HAL ROM SELLIN+ MAJORIT O THE SHARES O THE COMPAN OR NOT NOTK
(")
SUMMAR% OF AR!UMENTS 1. WHETHER THE DELHI DELH I COMMERCIAL COMMERCI AL COURT HAS $URISDICTION $U RISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE MATTER OT O T NOT& NOT &
Ti= 90= i= -8 0 9<<9i0 i=8 0- i= -8 9
WHETHER WHETH ER THE TH E CONTRAC CON TRACT T SI!NED SI!N ED B% MR. MR . SWARN KUMAR KUMA R WAS WAS A ALID ALID CONTRACT CONT RACT OR NOT& N OT&
M. S?0- &<0 ?0= 9<8-8 8 =i- 0- 0<-8 - =98i- 11 T I-i0- C-8098 A98 1"72 0= ?0= i- 8 =808 =-
WHETHER THE A!REEMENT A!REEME NT SI!NED BETWEEN MR KUMAR AND MR SIN!HAL IS ENFORCEA ENFO RCEABLE BLE OR NOT& NO T&
'. WHETHER IN$UNCTION IN $UNCTION SHOULD SH OULD BE !RANTED ! RANTED A!AINST MR SIN!HAL SIN! HAL FROM SELLIN! MA$ORIT% OF THE SHARES SHA RES OF THE COMPA C OMPAN% N% IN THE PRESENT PR ESENT CASE OR NOT& NO T&
3. WHET WHETHER HER IN$UNCTI IN$UNCTION ON SHOULD SHOULD BE !RANT !RANTED ED A!AIN A!AINST ST MR MR SIN!HAL FROM SELLIN! MA$ORIT% OF THE SHARES OF THE COMPAN% IN THE PRESENT CASE OR NOT&
'HEREO IN THE LI+HT O ACTS O THE INSTANT CASE 'RITTEN PLEADIN+S AND AUTHORITIES SI+HTED IT IS HUML PRAED EORE THIS HON*LE COURT THAT IT MA E PLEASED :