Modern College of Law

(Session 2016-17)

Rules Regarding Practical File

Dear Students
It is to be inform all of you that in order to fulfil the partial requirement of making
a file in the subject Moot Court , Pre –Trial Preparations & Participation in Trial
Proceedings(K-6008) he table of contents and the important dates hereby sending to you.
Make your file as per the given contents and according to the schedules.

All the best.

Law Dept.

NOTE-
1) Part One shall be completed and submitted for evaluation to the Subject Faculty On
or Before 5.03.2017
2) Part Two Problem -1 shall be completed and submitted for evaluation to the
Subject Faculty On or Before 19.03.2017
3) Part-2 Problem-2 shall be completed and submitted for evaluation to the Subject
Faculty On or Before 26.03.2017
4) Part-2 Problem-3 shall be completed and submitted for evaluation to the Subject
Faculty On or Before 9.04.2017
5) Part-2 Problem-4 shall be completed and submitted for evaluation to the Subject
Faculty On or before 23.04.2017.
6) Part-3 Problem -1 which is given by Advocates(assigned by the college only) shall
be completed and submitted for evaluation to the Advocate On or Before
7.05.2017
7) Part-3 Problem -2 which is given by Advocates(assigned by the college only) shall
be completed and submitted for evaluation to the Advocate On or Before
14.05.2017
8) Part -4 Interview session shall be completed and submitted for evaluation to the
Advocate (assigned by the college only) On or Before 21.05.2017
9) Cover Page shall be submitted for evaluation to the Subject Faculty On or Before
28.05.2017

Rules Regarding preparation of Practical File.

1) It is mandatory for all the students to prepare their practice file in his/her own
writing.
2) All students have to prepare their practice files on one sided A4 size Sheet
(without lining page).
3) Students will only use black and blue colour ball pen for writing the practical file.
4) All the students have suggested to left margin on both side of the paper.
5) Acknowledgement, Table of contents, Certificates of Advocates, must be in
printed form.

1|Page
 6) Cover page & Moot court presentation photographs must be printed in colour on
glossy paper
7) Cover pages must be same of all the students.
8) It is mandatory for all the students to give the presentation at least of two cases &
photographs must be their own.
9) Presentation must be given on the due date which will be
provided by the college, no students shall be allowed to
check the file without given the presentation.
10) It is mandatory for all the students that you have to
get checked your practical file within prescribed date,
after prescribed date no file will be checked of entertain.

2|Page
 Modern College of Law
(Session 2016-17)
Civil Case
Moot Court Problem No: 1

Kavitha
Vs
Ramesh

The Marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnized on 31-01-2000 as per
the Hindu Religious Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock a son, namely Rahul was born
and he is 12 years old now. At the time of marriage the Respondent was Business Man at U.S.A.
After marriage the Appellant and the Respondent lived together for 3 months and thereafter lived
separately because of the misunderstanding between them. Since the harassment and cruelty of the
Respondent crossed the extreme extent, the appellant was compelled to file a petition for divorce
on the ground of cruelty. The Respondent filled an original petition under the Guardians and
Wards Act for the custody of the 11 years old minor child, and a petition under section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Right. The main allegation of the Respondent was that,
the Appellant was having illegal intimacy with another person. The second contention was that, if
the child is in the company of the Appellant, it would affect the education of the child. The
Respondent also contended that he is financially better than the Appellant and hence the custody
of the child be given to him. The Appellant defended the matter and filed a written statement
denying all the allegations.

In the meantime, the Subordinate Judge of Ghaziabad passed an exparte decree of divorce
infavour of the Appellant and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the Respondent
was dismissed for default. After considering the oral evidence adduced by the parties and
examining the documentary evidence and also interviewing the child the trial court came to the
conclusion keeping in view that welfare of the child the custody should be given to the mother and
dismissed the original petition of the father filed under the Guardians and Wards Act.

Against the order of the Trial Court, the Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court of Uttar
Pradesh. The contention of the Respondent was that, contrary to the deposition made by the
Appellant before the trial court that, she would not remarry, immediately after the judgment of the
petition filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, she remarried. It is, therefore, contended that

3|Page
the continued custody of the child with the Appellant would be detrimental to the interest,
progress and welfare of the child.

The High Court, without giving an opportunity to express the willingness of the child, allowed the
appeal on the ground of remarriage of the Appellant, i.e., Mother of the child. The High Court also
held that the Respondent – Father is a Business man in U.S.A and the father is more apt and
suitable to protect the interest of the minor child and also in imparting education to the required
standard of the child.

Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court, the Appellant has preferred the Civil
Appeal to this Moot – Court.

Argue from both sides

4|Page
 Modern College of Law
(Session 2016-17)
Criminal Case
Moot Court Problem No: 2

Rambabu
Vs
State of Uttar Pradesh

The Police, Ghaziabad Rural arrested the Appellant and his brother Subba Rao for offences
punishable under sections 302 and 109 read with sec34 of IPC, 1860, for Committing Murder of
one of their close relative by name Raju and for Abatement of Murder his brother on 25-08-1991.
They have been sentenced to imprisonment for Life under sections 302/34 IPC and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-. For offence under section 109/34 IPC, Subba Rao has sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation both
the accused brothers respectively.
On Appeal, the High Court of Uttar Pradesh has upheld the conviction of the Appellant and
acquitted another accused – Subba Rao.
Hence, the Appellant – Rambabu filled an appeal in the Supreme Court against Judgment dated 6-
11-2009 delivered by the High Court of Uttar Pradesh.
The Appellant submitted in the Appeal to the Supreme Court that since at the time of commission
of the said offences, the Appellant had not completed 18 years of age, he was a Juvenile within the
meaning of section 2(K) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000). In
support of his submission, he submitted the school leaving certificate dated 2-12-2009.
The Solicitor- General on behalf of the State argued that, the appellant who was admittedly not a
Juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, when the offence was committed,
but had not completed 18 years of age on that date, will not be governed by the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, of 2000 and cannot be declared as a Juvenile in relation to
the offences alleged to have been committed.
He further contended that, a claim of juvenility cannot be raised before any Court at any stage of
appeals except if it is claimed in lower Court at the time of starting the Trial proceedings.
The appellant however prayed the court that, he should be considered as a juvenile under the Act,
of 2000 and he may be released as per the section 15 of the said Act, Appellant has already
undergone an actual period of sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 4 days and is now aged about 35
years. Argue from both sides

5|Page
 Modern College of Law
(Session 2016-17)
Criminal Case
Moot Court Problem No: 3
State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs
Rahul
The “Ghaziabad College of Education” is an Educational Institution in Uttar Pradesh. This is a
multi-faculty institution with strength of 3000 students at its campus. There was great enthusiasm
in the Students’ Organizations to contest elections in the College General Body Elections. The
main contest was between Indian Communist Party (ICP) and Indian Socialist Party (ISP). Both
the groups worked hard to secure students’ support and their votes. Mukesh Singh was the
candidate for the President ship from the ICP. He was also having the support of a National
Political Party. Therefore, that Party’s prestige was also involved in the success of this candidate.
Mukesh Singh spent a lot on throwing parties and also adopted other means and methods to
garnish the support of the students. The candidate from ISP, Rahul was quite popular amongst the
students for his honesty, integrity and always been working for students’ welfare. After a month
long campaign, the elections were held on 15th September 2016. Casting of vote went on
peacefully. The result was declared on 17th September 2016 and Mukesh Singh won the elections
by a margin of just two votes. Wave of joy went around in the Indian Communist Party. Indian
Socialist Party was disappointed and was sensing that victory of Mukesh was only due to money
flow and unfair practices adopted by Mukesh.
On 19th September 2016, at about 7:00 PM at the College cafeteria Mukesh invited Rahul to his
dinner party. Rahul flatly refused the invitation by saying that he will never attend a party hosted
by a forged person. Mukesh insisted by explaining to him, “Let us forget our past animosities and
work for the welfare of the students together” but Rahul again said “No! I do not wish to join your
dinner party as I know how you have won the elections by fraudulent means. I will not go to the
party of a scoundrel.” At this Mukesh got annoyed and felt insulted in the public. He told Rahul
“You know that I can adopt any means for what I want”. Rahul left the cafeteria by saying, “Hell
with you!” Rahul left the cafeteria and went away with his friend Sanjay. At about 8.30 PM
Sanjay drove out in his Jeep from the parking area with Rahul seated in the jeep beside him. When
their jeep was passing through the main gate of the college, Mukesh and his friend Sameer were
standing in wait for them. Now Mukesh was having a pistol in his hand. Mukesh signaled Sanjay
to stop the vehicle but Rahul told him not to stop there. Then, Mukesh fired in the air. Rahul asked

6|Page
Sanjay to drive fast. Mukesh and Sameer chased the jeep on their bike with Sameer driving and
Mukesh riding the pillion. Mukesh fired indiscriminately while chasing the jeep. One bullet hit
Sanjay in his right upper arm. Rahul asked Sanjay to stop the vehicle and got down from the jeep.
Sameer stopped the bike where Rahul was standing. Mukesh got off the bike tried to shoot at
Rahul. But he could not as there was no cartridge in the pistol. Then Rahul took out an iron rod
out of the jeep and aimed a hit at Mukesh. But Mukesh ducked and the rod fell on the head of
Sameer who was sitting on his bike just next to Mukesh. Sameer started bleeding profusely and
fell unconscious. Both Rahul and Sanjay left the scene immediately. Mukesh took Sameer to
hospital. Sameer died after 12 hours in the hospital.
A case was registered against Rahul under section 302 read with Section 301 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Post mortem report disclosed the cause of death was head injury which was ante
mortem in nature. Investigating officer recovered the iron rod used by Rahul from a pond near
where crime took place, upon information given by Rahul, while in police custody. Rahul pleaded
right to private defense, grave and sudden provocation and accident.
Argue the Case on behalf of “Prosecution” and “Defense” before the Trial Court

7|Page
 Modern College of Law
(Session 2016-17)
Civil Case
Moot Court Problem No: 4

Modern School of Environmental Studies

Vs
Union of India

The present environmental problems in Delhi, India, are a threat to the well-being of the city's and
area's inhabitants as well as the flora and fauna. Delhi, the sixth-most populated metropolis in the
world, is one of the most heavily polluted cities in India, having for instance one of the country's
highest volumes of particulate matter pollution. This was corroborated by an announcement by the
World Health Organization, in May 2014, that New Delhi was the most polluted city in the world.

Overpopulation and the ensuing overuse of scarce resources such as water have put pressure on
the environment. The city suffers from air pollution caused by road dust and industry, with
comparatively smaller contributions from unclean engines in transportation, especially diesel-
powered city buses and trucks, and two-wheelers and three-wheelers with two-stroke engines.
Besides human and environmental damage, pollution has caused economic damage as well.

On April 8, 2015, picking up several points brought out in the ‘Death by Breath’ series, an
ongoing investigation on the quality of air in Delhi, the Delhi Green Tribunal (DGT) issued a fresh
ban on all diesel buses and trucks more than 5 years old from plying in the National Capital
Region. A day after that, the Delhi government came up with a unique order of the era whereby
the vehicles with odd and even registration numbers will be allowed on alternate days from
January 01, 2016. It also passed an order to requisition school buses to ply as commercial, public
buses after school had ended in order to encourage the commuters of Delhi to take public transport
rather than rely solely on their private vehicles.

The Modern School of Environmental Studies, Delhi was plying school buses running on diesel
purchased in 2005 for school purposes, and coincidently, all the buses were of the odd number
series. This order of the Delhi government proved to be the last nail in the coffin for the school.

The Modern School of Environmental Studies was not the sole victim of the ban and thus got the
support of all the private schools of Delhi. And so, aggrieved by the orders of DGT and the Delhi

8|Page
 government, the Action Committee for Unaided Recognized Private Schools, Delhi has filed a
Writ petition in the Supreme Court against the DGT ban and the Odd-Even formula order of Delhi
government on the following grounds:

 That taking the schools' own buses is in violation of Education Act which stipulates that school's
assets cannot be put to commercial use. The school buses are the assets of the schools and
allowing them for use as commercial vehicles shall amount to violation of basic principles and
provisions of DSEAR (Delhi School Education Act and Rules) 1973.
 That the insurance of school buses stipulates use of buses for students only. The school buses are
not permitted to be used for general public nor should the school buses be used for hire.
 That the road tax exemption also stipulates the buses shall not be used for any commercial
purposes.
 That the Motor Vehicles Act prescribed a fitness test, and not the vehicle’s age, to ascertain
whether it should be allowed to ply or not. They also contended that the DGT could not substitute
by its order what has been written in the Motor Vehicles Act, which did not put a ban on vehicles
older than 5 years.
 That it is further contended that such a ban is completely arbitrary, and raised the argument that it
is not the College who is responsible for making Delhi a gas chamber.

A group of public-spirited individuals also filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme
Court of India, Delhi. While the ban on diesel buses and trucks older than five years did not
directly affect private individuals, the Odd-Even formula did, especially those who have to
commute to work and also persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups who rely on their
personal means of transport to get by. The writ petition was based on allegations of the violation
of the fundamental rights of the citizens – including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. They also averred that the decision was made without any informed public discussion or
debate, and without paying attention to the particular circumstances of India which are different
from those of other countries where this rule has previously been implemented. The individuals
approached the court to issue a writ that would restrain the Delhi government from implementing
the Odd-Even rule on private vehicles and cars in Delhi. The two petitions have been clubbed
together to be heard by the Apex Court.

9|Page