TEAM CODE-D3

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT

IN THE MATTER OF:-

R.D PARMANANDKA PVT. LTD..……..……PLAINTIFF

V.
SAPATRANGI PVT. LMD….………………DEFENDENT

CIVIL CASE …………….OF 2017

UNDER SECTION 2(4) 0F THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDENT

 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………..................................................................................... 3

LIST OFABBREVIATION………………………………………………………………..…4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………...………………………………………………..5

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………….6-7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………...……8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………..9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………..………..10-12

1. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL BREACH OF CONTRACT OR NOT?

a. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS DISCHARGED WITH DUE
PERFORMANCE OR NOT?

2. WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE SEEKING CLAIM FROM

SPATRANGI PVT. LTD?
a. WHETHER THE DEFENDENT IS LIABLE FOR CAUSING ANY
DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFF?

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………….....13

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 2
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. STATUTES

 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ,1908

 THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
 THE SALES OF GOODS ACT, 1930
2. CASE LAWS
 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V AAFLOAT TEXTILES INDIA LIMITED
AND OTHERS 2009 11 SCC 18
 TCI DISTRIBUTION CENTRES LTD V OFFICAL LIQUIDATOR , 2009 SCC
MAD 1481.
 ISMAIL ALLARAKHIA V DATTATRAYA R GANDHI, AIR 1916 BOM 209
 KUMAR PAUL V BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND
ORS, 2012 SCC CAL 9431.

3. INTERNET SITES
 http://www.findlaw.com
 http://www.indiankanoon.com
 http://www.indlawinfo.org/
 http://www.jstor.org.
 http://www.judis.nic.in
 http://www.lawsofindia.org
 http://www.manupatra.com
 http://www.scconline.com
 http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 3
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

LIST OFABBREVIATION

ICA Indian Contract Act, 1872

AIR All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
C.P.C. Civil Procedure Code
SC Supreme Court
Sec. Section
ER English Reports
AC Appeal Cases
LR Law Reports

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 4
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Court under
section 2(4) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 2 (4) : "district" means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil
Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a "District Court"), and includes the
local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court.

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 5
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. BACKDROP

A company “R D”, in the name of R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. operates in ladies wear. It
earned huge profits and after some years, decided to expand its business by introducing a
number of varieties for kidswear.

2. CONTRACT OF SALE

In order to achieve abovementioned objective, they approach the Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., a large
manufacturer of garments in kids wear. “R D” entered into contract for the purchase of kids
wear garments.

CONSIDERATION: The contract price was Rs. 6,00,000 and both parties agree upon a
payment schedule.

SCHEDULE AS TO PAYMENT AND DELIVERY: R.D Parmanandka Pvt.Ltd., agreed to pay

Rs.4,00,000 partially upon delivery of the kids wear clothes on 1st January 2017and a
final payment of Rs. 2,00,000/ on 1st march, 2017.

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT: Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the garments to R.D

Parmanandka Pvt Ltd. on the agreed date i.e 1st January 2017 as per the contract.

3. AFTER DELIVERY OF CLOTHES

However, shortly after taking delivery of the clothes, R. D. Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. looses a
profitable contract with its large booking agents which resulted in a significant down in
the demand for their kids wear garments.

Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd, was also suffering from financial difficulties due to a number of legal
actions brought against it.

It was realised by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd that R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd would be unable to
pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000.

On 1st March, 2017, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. agreed to accept Rs. 50,000/ in full satisfaction
of the debt. R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. duly paid such amount on 1st March 2017.

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 6
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

On 3rd march 2017, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the remaining clothes to R.D Parmanandka
Pvt. Ltd.

I. THE PROCEEDINGS AND BACKGROUNDS

On 4th march a notice was sent to Sapatrangi pvt. Ltd., to exchange the low quality clothes.
The notice was acknowledged and accepted by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. However, no exchange
took place. On 20th march second notice was sent, which was neither acknowledged nor
replied.

R.D Parmanandka pvt. Ltd. Filed a suit against Sapatrangi Pvt Ltd and claims Rs. 1,50,000
for breach of contract. Saptrangi Pvt Ltd. contended that it was not bound to pay the amount
claimed in the suit because the clothes were of good quality.

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 7
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL BREACH OF CONTRACT OR NOT?

a. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS DISCHARGED WITH DUE

PERFORMANCE OR NOT?

2. WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE SEEKING CLAIM FROM

SPATRANGI PVT. LTD?
a. WHETHER THE DEFENDENT IS LIABLE FOR CAUSING ANY
DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFF

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 8
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL BREACH OF CONTRACT OR
NOT?
A. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS DISCHARGED WITH DUE
PERFORMANCE OR NOT?

 CONTRACT OF SALE
It is humbly submitted that the contract entered into by the parties was duly performed
as per section 50 of The Indian Contract Act,1872 and hence discharged. Since, the
contract was discharged there stands no breach of such contract.

2.WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE SEEKING CLAIM FROM

SPATRANGI PVT. LTD?
A. WHETHER THE DEFENDENT IS LIABLE FOR CAUSING ANY
DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFF?
 It is humbly submitted that defendant is not liable for any damage caused to the
plaintiff.
 It is humbly submitted that it is the buyers reponsibility to be cautious i.e., the
doctrine of caveat emptor.
 It is humbly submitted that the clothes supplied were of good quality.

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 9
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1.WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL BREACH OF CONTRACT OR
NOT?
A. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS DISCHARGED WITH DUE
PERFORMANCE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted that the contract entered into by the parties Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. and
“R D” for the purchase of kids wear garments.

CONSIDERATION: The contract price was Rs. 6,00,000 and both parties agree upon a
payment schedule.

DATE OF DELIVERY: 1 January 2017

SCHEDULE AS TO PAYMENT AND DELIVERY: R.D Parmanandka Pvt.Ltd., agreed to pay

Rs.4,00,000 partially upon delivery of the kids wear clothes on 1st January 2017 and a
final payment of Rs. 2,00,000 on 1st march, 2017.

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT: According to section 50 of Indian Contract Act, 1872:

“Performance in manner or at time prescribed or sanctioned by promisee.—The performance

of any promise may be made in any manner, or at any time which the promisee prescribes or
sanctions. —The performance of any promise may be made in any manner, or at any time
which the promisee prescribes or sanctions.”

Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the garments to R.D Parmanandka Pvt Ltd. on the agreed
date i.e 1st January 2017 as per the contract.

It is pertinent to mention that the delivery of clothes as on 3 rd march 2017 doesnot form part
of the original contract as per the facts of the case as delivery was due and accordingly made
on 1st january 2017. Whereas, only the payment was to be made in part.

Accordingly with reference section 62 of The Indian Contract Act,1872 ,

In the facts and circumstances of the present case the delivery of remaining clothes as on 3 rd
march, 2017 would amount to a material alteration of the terms of contract which would
further render the contract void.

It is humbly submitted that the same as been held in many cases by the hon’ble court in
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V AAFLOAT TEXTILES INDIA LIMITED AND
OTHERS 2009 11 SCC 18, TCI DISTRIBUTION CENTRES LTD V OFFICAL
LIQUIDATOR , 2009 SCC MAD 1481.

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 10
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

2.WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE SEEKING CLAIM FROM

SPATRANGI PVT. LTD?

A. WHETHER THE DEFENDENT IS LIABLE FOR CAUSING ANY

DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFF?
 It is humbly submitted that defendant is not liable for any damage caused to the
plaintiff. Infact the defendant’s company has duly performed the contract as addressed
in Issue 1. According to the facts and circumstances of the case,shortly after taking
delivery of the clothes, R.D. Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. looses a profitable contract with
its large booking agents which resulted in a significant down in the demand for their
kids wear garments. it was the only significant reason for the the plaintiff’s company
and there are no special damages that the plaintiff can seek through the defendant.

 It is humbly submitted that the clothes supplied were of good quality. Since, the
company Sapatangi Pvt. Ltd was a large manufacturer of kids wear garments they
wouldnot specifically change their quality standards for production of certain lot of
garments only because they are meant to be supplied to the plaintiff’s company. Why
would a company spoil its own reputation by such an activity even when it is already
facing difficulties on grounds of number of legal actions.

 It is humbly submitted that it is the buyers reponsibility to be cautious i.e., the

doctrine of caveat emptor. The legal maxim Caveat Emptor or “let the buyer beware”
means that the buyer relies on his skill and judgment when he purchases. It does not
mean that the buyer should ‘take a chance’, but it means he should ‘take care.’ This
Maxim leads to the presumption that a buyer relies on his quality of skill and
judgment when he purchases a good as he has the opportunity to examine the good
before purchasing it and the seller would not be responsible for any default in the
bought good. This rule is not absolute and is limited to some exceptions but its
exception is not applicable in the present case.

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 11
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

 It is humbly submitted that the same as been held in many cases by the hon’ble court
in ISMAIL ALLARAKHIA V DATTATRAYA R GANDHI, AIR 1916 BOM 209,
KUMAR PAUL V BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND
ORS, 2012 SCC CAL 9431.

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 12
 VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
 There has been no breach of contract.
 The defendent isnt liable to pay any claim.

And pass any other order which this hon’ble court deem fit in the light of justice ,equity and
good conscience.

And for this act of kindness of your lordship ,the defendent shall be duty bound as ever pray.

All of which is humbly prayed,

D-3,
Counsels for the Defendant.

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

Page 13