TMV'S Lokmanya Tilak Law College, Kharghar Moot Cases For Academic Year 2022-23 Instructions
TMV'S Lokmanya Tilak Law College, Kharghar Moot Cases For Academic Year 2022-23 Instructions
TMV'S Lokmanya Tilak Law College, Kharghar Moot Cases For Academic Year 2022-23 Instructions
Instructions
1. The Petitioner and Respondents are supposed to make 3copies of each case.
4. The students shall submit me all the three case memorial for scrutiny on 13th April
2023. After which the copy will be shared to other party.
5. Prepare well with the arguments along with relevant case laws.
7. Take guidance from your senior to whom you have joined for Internship and Moot
Court Subject.
8. All of you need to wear uniform, Black coat and white band of Advocate at the
time of Moot.
9. Those remain absent for the Moot Presentation will be marked Absent.
Family Law case
Bipin married with Prabha on April 20, 2009. Soon after marriage, Prabha
resided in Mumbai with her husband, his parents and two sisters. Till 2013 they lived
happily and they begotten a son. In November 2013 one Mr. Mhendra, a family
friend came to Mumbai for job and started staying with them to their matrimonial
home. In January 2014, Bipin went to the England for business purpose. He came
back in May 2014. On return, he came to know that in his absence prabha became
very close to Mahendra. Bipin’s Father had intercepted a letter by prabha to
Mahendra which he handed over to the Bipin. Bipin asked prabha to explain. She at
first denied of having written any letter but later on she admitted it. She told bipin
that mahendra is better than him. They both love each other.
The next important narrative is what happened on May 24, 2014. On that
morning Prabha is alleged to have told to Bipin that she had packed her luggage and
was ready to go to Jalgaon at her Parents home on the ostensible ground that there
was marriage of her cousin which was take place after six weeks. Bipin told her that
if she made her mind to go, he would send a car to take her station and offer to pay
Rs. 10000/- for her expenses. But she refused the offer and left the Mumbai
apparently in Bipin’s absence for Jalgaon by afternoon train. When Bipin came back
to home from office, he discovered that Prabha has taken away everything with her
and had left nothing behind.
Bipin states that she never came back there after to reside with him, nor sent
any letter. On 15th July 2018 Bipin sent a letter to her through his solicitor asking
her to send back the little son. No answer to this letter was received by Bipin. In
November 2018 Bipin’s mother when came back from Surat informed him that
prabha might be expected in Mumbai a few days later. Thereupon Bipin sent
amessage tohis father in law as “ Must not send Prabha. A detailed letter posted”.
Bipin filed petition for divorce on the ground of Desertion. Prabha’s father
attempted for reconciliation but (it is alleged) the attitude of Bipin prevailed.
Prabha’s stand is that after returning from England, Bipin made her life unbearable
and compelled her to leave the matrimonial home against her wish.
Prepare a divorce petition on the ground of desertion in the family court.
Civil Case
Amit was a middle-class, upper caste Hindu. He married Aruna in the year 1977.
Aruna gave birth to a daughter Mala in 1978, and a son in 1980. They were happy
at the thought that their family was complete. However, in unfortunate turn of events,
their son died in an accident at home when he was two years old. They were very
upset but tried to have another child and with God’s grace, Aruna gave birth to
another son in the year 1983. Looking at his horoscope, the pandit suggested special
ritual to be followed every month for the welfare of this son till the age of five as
there was danger to his life till that time. Despite observance of the ritual with full
reverence by the couple, this son also died in a road accident just as he turned five
years old. The couple was completely devastated. They were apprehensive that
another child may meet the same fate if they tried for another child. However, they
tried and yet another son was born to them third time in the year 1990. On his naming
ceremony, they consulted the astrologers and were advised to give away that child
in adoption to a person of the lower caste if they wanted this child to live. They
named him Kaushal and decided to give him in adoption. Their sweeper, Maina
Devi, a 50 year old widow with no children agreed to take the child in adoption and
to give him back to them for his bringing up as she did not have the means to bring
him up. In a formal ceremony Kaushal was given to Maina Devi by Amit and Aruna
and was taken by Maina Devi. Thereafter, she gave him back to the couple for
bringing him up on her behalf. Maina Devi kept visiting them regularly and gave
something for Kaushal every month till he was ten years old when she died. In the
meanwhile, in the year 1994 another son was born to Amit and Aruna and he was
named Balraj. The fact of adoption of Kaushal was treated by Amit and Aruna as a
formality to save his life and he was brought up by Amit and Aruna as their son with
Mala and Balraj. Amit died intestate in the year 2012. Aruna decided to divide the
property in four equal shares, one each for herself, Mala, Kaushal and Balraj. Mala
and Balraj objected to it and demanded 1/3 share in the property as Kaushal had no
right having been given in adoption to Maina Devi. Aruna’s pleas that the adoption
was a mere ritual carried out on the advise of the astrologer to save Kaushal’s life
but without any intention actually to give him up, had no effect on them. They
maintained that the adoption was legal and complete when Kaushal was given and
taken in adoption with a free will. Unable to resolve their dispute, Mala and Balraj
filed a suit for division of property and declaration that Kaushal was not an heir to
any property of Amit in the absence of a will. The lower court decreed in favour of
the plaintiffs. Aruna and Kaushal filed an appeal against the order asking for an equal
share to Kaushal in the suit properties being the natural born son. They pleaded that
the adoption was not valid in the absence of the intention to really give him in
adoption. Prepare the Appeal.
Criminal Case
A young Software Engineer Nalini working with one BPO Company Pune, 28 years
old Married woman, in the prime her youth, having bright career lying ahead. She
used to travel to her workplace and back by her company transport or Public
Transport of by an Auto Rickshaw. On the evening of 07/10/2009 i.e. the day of the
incident as she was working till late she missed the company transport and therefore
near Reliance Mall on Nagar road she accepted the offer of lift by Sachin Mishra
Accused no. 1 in the cab driven by himself and in which the other two accused viz.
Vikram Jadhav Accused no. 2 (Security Guard) and Aniket Salwi Accused no. 3
werealready sitting and present in the cab. They promised to take her to her house in
Katraj whereupon she placed total trust in these strangers. However, the brutes took
advantage of the fact of her being the only woman in the cab, they abducted her to
satisfy their insatiable lust. She was stripped naked and kept in that condition for
hours committing gang rape on her repeatedly.
They picked up Nalini from Reliance Mall and subsequently drove her to Hadapsar
byMagarpatta and from there onwards to ManjariPhata and then to Abalwadi. There
onwards accused took her to Shankar Parvati Mangal Karyalaya on Nagar Road
where they raped her. In mean time T. Ramlinga (Approver) joined them and he too
raped Nalini. Then they drove to Dargah at Chandan Nagar where the four and
further to Vadu Fata by Markal Road where they raped her again. Thereafter they
drove her to Zarevedi Fata where the accused Sachin Mishra, Vikram Jadhav, aniket
Salwi brutally killed her by first strangulating her by dupatta and then by crushing
her face and head with heavy stones to camouflage her identity in order to destroy
the evidence. Trial took place against all these accused in the Trial Court, Pune. Trio
accused in this case held guilty for the Gang Rape and murder and all the three
accused were sentenced to death U/S 376 (A), 397, 302, 404, 120(B) of IPC for this
horrific crime. But T. Ramalinga (Approver) was acquitted. All the three accused
filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court against the decision of the Trial Court
Pune to set aside the conviction and sentence.
Issues are as follows –
1. Whether the accused conspired to commit the said crimes and in pursuance of this
conspiracy they carried out the criminal acts as charged by the prosecution?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the common
intention of the accused by bringing on record that the said acts were committed
by several persons in furtherance of their common intention?
3. Charges of Kidnapping, Gang Rape and murder.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: