R.D PARMANANDKA PVT. LTD..……..……PLAINTIFF€¦ · 3rd arguendo moot court competition–2017 page 3 index of authorities 1. statutes civil procedure code ,1908 the indian

TEAM CODE-D3

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

3rd ARGUENDO MOOT COURT COMPETITION–2017

VIVEKANANDA LAW SCHOOL 2017


Page 2

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



Page 3

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



Page 4

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



Page 5

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.



Page 6

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.



Page 7

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.



Page 8

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



Page 9

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


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.



Page 10

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 3rd

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 3rd

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.



Page 11

2.WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE SEEKING CLAIM FROM

SPATRANGI PVT. LTD?

A. WHETHER THE DEFENDENT IS LIABLE FOR CAUSING ANY


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.



Page 12

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.



Page 13

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.

Documents

R.D PARMANANDKA PVT. LTD..……..……PLAINTIFF€¦ · 3rd arguendo moot court competition–2017 page 3 index of authorities 1. statutes civil procedure code ,1908 the indian