TEAM CODE: IMCC -14

UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

Before

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DEHALI

UNDER
SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF
REPUBLIC OF INDIANA

FIRST APPEAL

JACK AND JONES ..........................................................................................APPEALLANT

Versus

JUSTIN WEIBER ........................................................................................ RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER UNDER

ON SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DEHALI ON 26-08-2023

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... (iii)

INDEX OF AUTHOTIRTIES ............................................................................................. (iv)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... (vii)

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. (viii)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................... (x)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................... (xi)

ARGUMENT ADVANCED ..................................................................................................... 1

PRAYER FOR RELEIF .......................................................................................................... 10

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

ii
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

2. ANR ANOTHEAPPEALR

3. APP APPEAL

4. BOM BOMBAY

5. CAL CALCUTTA

6. ICA INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

7. ICC INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT
7. ILR INDIAN LAW REPORTS

8. I.E THAT IS

9. MAD MADRAS

10. MANU MANUPATRA

11. ORS OTHERS

12. P&H PUNJAB AND HARYANA

13. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

14. SC SUPREME COURT

15. SEC. SECTION

16. U.P UTTAR PRADESH

17. & AND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

iii
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

S.NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1. Kunwarlal Daryav Singh v Surajmal Makhanlal, AIR 1963 MP 58 13
2. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1902-03) 30 IA 114: ILR (1903) 30 Cal 539 14
(PC)
3. Srikakulam Subramanyam v Kurra Subba Rao (1947-48) 75 IA 115: AIR 1948 PC 25. 14

4. Durga Thakurani Bije Nijigarh v Chintamoni Swain, AIR 1982 Ori 158 14
5. Jagar Nath Singh v Lalta Prasad, ILR (1908-10) 14
6. Kanhayalal v Girdha(1947-48) 75 IA 115: AIR 1948 PC 25. 14

7. Durga Thakurani Bije Nijigarh v Chintamoni Swain, AIR 1982 Ori 158 14
8. Jagar Nath Singh v Lalta Prasad, ILR (1908-10) 21 rilal, (1912) 9 All LJ 103 14
9. Gadigeppa Bhimappa Meti v Balangowda Bhimangowda, AIR 1931 Bom 561 14
10. Khan gul vs. Lakha Singh (1928) ILR 9 LAH 701 16

11. 16
A.T. Raghava Chariar v O.M. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar, ILR (1916) 40 Mad
308
12. T.R. Appasami Ayyangar vs. Narayanaswami Iyer and Ors. AIR 1930 Mad 945 16
13. Ajudhia Prasad v Chandan Lal, AIR 1937 All 610, 617 (FB 16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

iv
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

STATUTES
S.NO. TITLE YEAR
1. Indian Contract Act 1872
2. Code of Civil Procedure 1908

DATABASES

S.NO. TITLE
1. https://www.manupatrafast.com/
2. https://www.lexisnexis.com/
3. https://www.scconline.com/

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

v
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

BOOKS

S.NO. TITLE
1. The Indian Contract Act, 1872
2. R1- Dr. Avtar Singh: Law of Contract
3. Pollock and Mulla - Indian Contract Act
4. RK Bangia: Indian Contract Act

5. Krishnan Nair, Law of Contract(1999) Orient

6. T.R. Desai-Law of Contracts and Partnerships and Sale of Goods Act

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

vi
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DEHALI INVOKED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 OF INDIANA.

SECTION 96. Appeal from original decree

(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law
for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court
exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions
of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.
(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature
cognisable by Courts of Small Cause, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of
the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS

AND ARGUMENTS.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

vii
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. JUSTIN WEIBER, a 16-year-old, citizen of Indiana was the recipient of the “Sensational Voice of the
Nation” award. He was a phenomenal 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 international music tours. So, he wanted a
multi-purpose, ultra-modern architectural wonder where he could have his recording studio, theatre -
for live musical performances and a roof top pool for hosting parties. He advertised himself by false
pretense of being a major.
2. Jack and Jones were a leading building constructor and infrastructure provider. They offered to do the
entire work for Rs.10,000,000/-. Both the parties knew that this was an unrealistically low-price
contract, and the amount will be paid in instalments in order of the completion of different phases of
the assigned work.
3. Justin accepted their offer and entered a contract for construction of the multi-purpose building and
supply of all of its amenities therein. According to the contract, the first floor was for the music theatre,
the second floor was for the recording studio and the top floor for the roof top pool.
4. Jack and jones completed the construction of the ground floor and first floor and ran out of money and
materials for further construction due to lack of resources. They informed Justin that they could not
complete the construction unless further funding was made available to them.
5. Justin 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.
6. 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 pockets and assured them that the
money would be paid to them as soon as his record was published.
7. The roof top pool was completed, and the party was a success. Justin entered a contract with Y SERIES
Producers who agreed to fund for the fusion albums and international tours.
8. Justin told the Manager of M/S Jack and Jones , “Sir, you have saved my career. Don’t be concerned
about Rs. 7,00,000”. With this as a guarantee, Jack & Jones launched a brand-new undertaking.
9. However, Justin’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. jack and jones
10. On the basis of humanism, both parties resolved to change the contract on Justin’s 18th birthday Justin
accepted the obligation he owed Jack & Jones for previous services rendered, and both parties agreed
that Justin would settle the loan in easy monthly payments (EMIs) of Rs. 20,000 until the whole amount
of Rs. 7,00,000 was paid back
11. Justin believed that Jack & Jones did not complete the work exactly as he had requested. He also
emphasized how poor quality and unsatisfactory the building materials were. He calculated that it
would have only cost them Rs. 3,000,000. He asserted that he had already made the payment.
12. Justin then made the decision to sell his property without giving Jack & Jones a single penny. When
they became aware of all the wrongdoing, they attempted to control him by applying intense pressure
in an effort to recoup the Rs. 7,00,000 they had spent on the building’s construction and amenities.
Even after such a long time and a different form of payment, Jack & Jones were unable to get Justin to
pay back the debt.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

viii
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

13. In desperation, they handed him a court summons demanding that the money be returned within 15
days. Justin, however, didn’t respond to the said notice or send any contact.
14. In this situation, Jack & Jones ultimately chose to seek redress via the Court of Law. Jack & Jones
brought the lawsuit before the Civil Court of Dehali, in the State of Indiana, on the grounds that Justin
Weiber had previously refused to pay the loan made available to him for Rs. 7,00,000 and had accused
him of fraud, despite the fact that the building had been built in accordance with the terms of the
contract. Additionally, they asked for an injunction to prevent Justin from selling the house until the
lawsuit was resolved.
15. After hearing the case, the Civil Court of Dehali ruled that a minor cannot enter into a contract,
supporting the decision in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose to release Justin from all obligations to
Jack & Jones.
16. The Plaintiff’s claim of restitution was denied, and an injunction was not granted. The High Court of
Dehali heard an appeal that Jack & Jones preferred. The High Court decided to consider the matter on
the merits and granted an injunction.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

ix
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether there is a valid contract between Jack & Jones and Mr. Justin Weiber?
2. Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?
3. Whether the Civil Court of Dehali was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

x
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether there is a valid contract between Jack & Jones and Mr. Justin Weiber?

It most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble high court of Dehali that the appellant urges the validation of the
contract as the respondent’s intentional misrepresentation of age amounts to fraud under section 17 of
ICA,1872. This fraudulent act influenced the appellants to enter into a contract based on false premises.
Section 19 of the Act renders the contract voidable due to fraud, and since the appellants continued in good
faith, the contract's validity persists. Moreover, the respondent's contract on his 18th birthday is valid under
Sections 10 and 11, while the precedent of Kuwarlal v. Surajmal establishes that the construction was for his
career advancement, warranting payment; thus, The counsel emphasizes the intention of performance and
urges the contract's validation.

2. Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs

reconsideration?

It most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble high court of Dehali that the appellant asserts the need for
reconsideration of the judgment in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, suggesting that a minor's contract
should be voidable, not void ab initio. Exceptions are highlighted, such as a minor acting as a promisee or a
guardian entering contracts for a minor's benefit, as seen in the Indian Apprenticeship Act of 1850. The
doctrine of estoppel against a minor's misrepresentation of age is debated, with prevailing authorities
indicating no estoppel exists. Notably, the case of Gadigeppabhimappa Meti v. Balangowda Bhimangowda
supports the minor's non-estoppel in fraudulent representation. Ultimately, the respondent should be held liable
for construction costs, given that the contract was made during their majority and the appellants fulfilled their
obligations, benefiting the respondent.

3. Whether the Civil Court of Dehali was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?
It most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble high court of Dehali that the appellant requests the hon’ble court to
reevaluate the dismissal of the restitution plea by the Civil Court of Dehali. Citing Section 64 of the ICA, the
appellants' restitution plea is rooted in altered circumstances due to the respondent's actions. Precedent cases
such as Khan gul vs. Lakha Singh underscore the principle of restitution when a contract becomes void, like
the minor's situation. Drawing from cases like A.T. Raghava Chariar vs O.A. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar and
T.R. Appasami Ayyangar vs Narayanaswami Iyer, the doctrine of restitution protects minors from undue
prejudice, restoring them to their original position. Therefore, the counsel pleads for the court's reconsideration
of the restitution plea's rejection.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

xi
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether there is a valid contract between Jack & Jones and Mr. Justin Weiber?

1. It is humbly submitted that the respondent knowingly and willfully misrepresented his age and
status as a minor in his false advertisement, indicating his intent to deceive.

2. It is submitted that this act is a clear violation of section 17 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.
“Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with
his connivance, or by his agent1, with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to
induce him to enter into the contract:— (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by
one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having
knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (4)
any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be
fraudulent.

3. It is submitted that the respondent’s actions fulfill all the elements of fraud, as his
misrepresentation directly influenced the appellants to enter into the contract under false
pretenses.

4. It is also important to emphasize that the appellants completed a significant portion of the
contracted work, fulfilling their end of the contract despite the unreasonably low contract price.
The completion of the ground and first-floor work attests to the dedication of the appellant’s work
in the project. The contention here is that the respondent’s actions led to the deception,
influencing the formation of the contract.

5. It is humbly submitted that the contract should be declared void under Section 19 of the Indian
Contract Act, —When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, 1 *** fraud, or
misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent
was so caused. A party to a contract whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation
may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed and that he shall be put in the
position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.” Section 19 of
ICA 1872 stipulates that agreements caused by fraud are voidable at the option of the deceived
party. In this instance, the appellants, the aggrieved party, chose not to immediately void the
contract, continuing to fulfill their obligations in good faith.

6. It is also submitted that the contract entered by the respondent on his 18th birthday is a valid
contract as per section 10 of the Indian contract act —All agreements are contracts if they are
made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a
lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. Nothing herein contained shall
affect any law in force in 1 [India] and not hereby expressly repealed by which any contract is
required to be made in writing1 or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the
registration of documents” and also Section 11 of the Indian contract act 1872” Every person is
competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject2 ,

1
See e.g., s. 25, infra; the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), s. 19; the Carriers Act, 1865 (3 of 1865) ss. 6 and 7; the Companies
Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ss 12, 30, 46 and 109
2
See the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT
12
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is
subject.

7. It can be found that there was a valid interest of the respondent in the contract because he ratified
the said contract on attaining a majority, making it a valid contract, and hence the respondent is
liable to pay Rs 7,00,000 to the appellants for the construction work.

8. It is submitted that refers to the judgment of Kuwarlal v. Surajmal3 regarding necessities provided
to minors, it was held that the house was given to a minor on rent for living in it and to continue
his studies is part of necessities, and therefore he is entitled to payment of rent from minor. It can
be seen that the construction work was for the minor’s betterment of his music career, and hence
he is liable to pay the sum of the amount decided for the construction, i.e. 7,00,000.

9. It is humbly submitted to declare the contract a valid one as there was a clear intention of
performance of the contract.

3
Kunwarlal Daryav Singh v Surajmal Makhanlal, AIR 1963 MP 58
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT
13
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

Issue 2-Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs reconsideration?

1. It is humbly submitted that there is a need to reconsider the judgment passed in the judgment
of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose4 as the judgment laid in the case considers the minors
contract void ab initio, but instead, it should be voidable.

2. The contract in which a party is minor could have certain exceptions to it also. A minor cannot
be a promisor, but he can be a promise in a contract. Therefore, if the minor has performed his
part of the promise, but the other party refuses to or simply hasn’t performed their part, then
the minor, in the capacity of a promisee, can enforce the contract.

3. A minor, in almost all cases, has a guardian with him/her to fulfill certain requirements on
behalf of the minor. Such a guardian may be a natural guardian of the minor, such as a parent,
or the court may appoint a person fit for guardianship of the minor. It may so happen that a
guardian may enter into a contract which is for the benefit of the minor. In such a situation, it
is, in fact, the minor who has entered into the contract, but for the purposes of competency, the
guardian acts on behalf of the minor. Under the Indian Apprenticeship Act of 1850, a contract
of apprentice entered into by a guardian acting on behalf of the minor is valid and binds the
minor.

4. Accordingly considering all cases in which a minor is party void ab initio needs to be
reconsidered for such cases. In its subsequent pronouncement in Srikakulam Subramanyam v
Kurra Subba Rao5' the Privy Council overruled earlier decisions and entertained no doubt that
it was within the powers of the mother of a minor as guardian to enter into a contract of sale
for the purpose of discharging his father's debts. Following this decision, the Orissa High Court
held that endowment of property for religious purposes by guardians on behalf of minors,
being within their competence, was specifically enforceable.6"

5. It is humbly submitted that suppose that a minor, by misrepresenting his age, induces another
to contract with him, will there be any estoppel against him, or, in other words, will he be
precluded from disclosing his true age in litigation resulting from the contract. But it is now
settled by a preponderance of authority that there is no such estoppel against the minor7. The
infant is not estopped from setting up the defense of infancy. The reason is very simple. There
can be no estoppel against a statute. The policy of the law of contract is to protect persons
below age from contractual liability, and naturally, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to
defeat that policy. Thus, in a case before the Bombay High Court8," BEAUMONT CI reviewed
the earlier authorities and concluded by saying: "The court is of opinion that where an infant
represents fraudulently or otherwise that he is of age and thereby induces another to enter into
a contract with him then in an action founded on the contract the infant is not estopped from

4
(1902-03) 30 IA 114: ILR (1903) 30 Cal 539 (PC)
5
(1947-48) 75 IA 115: AIR 1948 PC 25.
6
Durga Thakurani Bije Nijigarh v Chintamoni Swain, AIR 1982 Ori 158.
7
See, for example, Jagar Nath Singh v Lalta Prasad, ILR (1908-10) 21 All 21, where the courts said: "the law of estoppel cannot
be invoked in aid to validate that which is void under the law". Kanhayalal v Girdha(1947-48) 75 IA 115: AIR 1948 PC 25.
7
Durga Thakurani Bije Nijigarh v Chintamoni Swain, AIR 1982 Ori 158.
7
See, for example, Jagar Nath Singh v Lalta Prasad, ILR (1908-10) 21 rilal, (1912) 9 All LJ 103 pleading minority against a
promissory note, allowed.
8
Gadigeppa Bhimappa Meti v Balangowda Bhimangowda, AIR 1931 Bom 561, where court reviewed all authorities on this point
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT
14
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

setting up infancy."

6. This was held in a very famous case of Gadigeppabhimappa Meti v. Balangowda

Bhimangowda, it was held that if an infant fraudulently misrepresents himself as a major, then
in an action, the minor is not estoppled from setting up infancy.

7. It is humbly submitted that the respondent should be made liable to pay the amount decided
for the construction work as it was a contract that was made during his age of majority, and
this concept would be applicable thereon as the appellant party has completed their side of
obligation’s and the respondent has benefited by the same.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

15
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

ISSUE 3-Whether the Civil Court of Dehali was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?

1. The counsels humbly prays to the hon'ble court to reconsider the rejection of plea of restitution by the
Civil Court of Dehali.

2. The appellants' plea for restitution is aligned with Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 “When
a person at whose option a contract is voidable rescinds it, the other party thereto need not perform any
promise therein contained in which he is promisor. The party rescinding avoidable contract shall, if he
has received any benefit thereunder from another party to such contract, restore such benefit, so far as
may be, to the person from whom it was received”. This section grants a party the right to claim
restitution when a contract becomes void or is rescinded. The shift in circumstances, exemplified by
the failure of Justin's fusion album and his inability to repay the owed amount, significantly altered the
landscape.

3. In the case of Khan gul vs. Lakha Singh9, the court recognized the principle of restitution when a
contract became void due to illegality. Similarly, here, the changed circumstances warrant a plea for
restitution. This precedent emphasizes the importance of recognizing the changed circumstances and
ensuring restitution in cases where the original contract is rendered void. “It would be sheer injustice
if an infant keeps not only property but also the money received under the contract. As the transaction
is wiped out is only fair that both parties should revert and, in this case, restitution is not provided
because there is a contract instead it is provided there is none and both parties should revert to original
status”. Similarly, in the present case, the appellants' circumstances changed due to the respondents’
actions, warranting restitution.

4. It is humbly submitted that the doctrine of restitution is applicable in cases of minor contracts. The
rationale behind this is that a minor is not competent to enter into a contract and is therefore not bound
by it. The doctrine of restitution ensures that the minor is not prejudiced by the contract and provides
for the return of any benefits received by the other party.

5. In the case of A.T. Raghava Chariar vs O.A. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar10, the Madras High Court held
that a minor who had entered into a partnership agreement was entitled to claim restitution of the
amount invested in the partnership, as he was not bound by the contract. The court applied the principle
of restitution to restore the minor to the same position he would have been in if the contract had not
been entered into.

6. It is submitted that in the case of T.R. Appasami Ayyangar vs Narayanaswami Iyer & Ors11., the
Madras High Court held that a minor who had entered into a mortgage agreement was entitled to claim
restitution of the property mortgaged, as he was not bound by the contract. The court applied the
principle of restitution to restore the minor to the same position he would have been in if the contract
had not been entered into. The same could be traced in case of Ajudhia Prasad & Anr. vs Chandan Lal
& Anr12., the Allahabad High Court held that a minor who had entered into a lease agreement was
entitled to claim restitution of the rent paid, as he was not bound by the contract. The court applied the
principle of restitution to restore the minor to the same position he would have been in if the contract

9
(1928) ILR 9 LAH 701
10
A.T. Raghava Chariar v O.M. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar, ILR (1916) 40 Mad 308.
11
T.R. Appasami Ayyangar vs. Narayanaswami Iyer and Ors. AIR 1930 Mad 945
12
Ajudhia Prasad v Chandan Lal, AIR 1937 All 610, 617 (FB)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT
16
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

had not been entered into.

7. It is submitted that these judgments highlight the application of the doctrine of restitution in cases
involving minor contracts. The rationale behind these judgments is to protect the interests of minors
and ensure that they are not prejudiced by contracts that they are not competent to enter into. The
principle of restitution allows for the return of any benefits received by the other party and restores the
minor to the same position they would have been in if the contract had not been entered into.
8. Hence, the counsel for the appellant humbly submits that there is a need of reconsidering the decision
of civil court of Dehali for rejecting the plea of restitution.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

17
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsels
for the appeallant humbly prays that the Hon’ble High Court of Dehali may be pleased to
adjudge and declare:
1. The contract between Jack & Jones and Mr. Justin Weiber is valid.
2. Reconsider the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose.
3. Reconsider the plea of restitution rejected by the Civil Court of Dehali.

And / Or

Pass any such order, judgement or direction that the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the interest of
Justice.

For this act of kindness, the counsels for the respondent as in duty bound shall forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

_______________________________________________

Sd/-

COUNSELS FOR THE APPEALLANT.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT

18