Memorial

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY
INTRA-LAW SCHOOL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS AND GUIDELINES REFERRED..................................................................3

STATUTES INVOLVED..............................................................................................3
LEGAL DATABASES..................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CASES........................................................................................................4
STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................5
STATEMENTS OF FACTS......................................................................................................6
STATEMENTS OF ISSUES.....................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE
AGAINST UNION OF ESSOS AND WINES OF WINTERFELL............................10
II. WHETHER THE MANUFACTURER OF PLENDERS BRIDE IS LIABLE FOR
DAMAGES ACCRUING TO THE PETITIONERS...................................................13
III. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS THEMSELVES VOLUNTARILY CONSENTED
TO THE RISK..............................................................................................................14
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................16
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
PAGE No. 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION
DEFINITION
Para
AIR
All India Reporter
Art.
Article
Asstt.
Assistant
Co.
Corporation
CTAS
The Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies
EIHS
Essos Institute of Health Sciences
ENR
Essos National Rupee
Honble
Honorable
i.e.
That is
Ker.
Kerala
Ors.
Others
p.
Page
pp.
Pages
PIL
Public Interest Litigation
r/w
Read with
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
Sec.
Section
u/a
Under Article
vs.
Versus
PAGE No. 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS AND GUIDELINES REFERRED
S. No.
DESCRIPTION
1.
Supreme Court of India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Guidelines,

(Feb. 19, 2016; 11:17 p.m.)
<http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/circular/guidelines/pilguidelines.pdf>
2.
Mahendra Pal Singh, V.N. Shuklas Constitution of India, Eastern Book

Company Lucknow, 12th Edition, 2013.
3.
Dr. R.K. Bangia, The Law of Torts, Allahabad Law Agency, 23rd Edition, 2013.
4.
Salmond and Heuston, Law of Torts, Universal Book Traders, First Indian
Reprint, 1993.
STATUTE INVOLVED
S. No.
STATUTE/LEGISLATION
1.
The Constitution of India, 1950
LEGAL DATABASES
S. No.
LEGAL DATABASES
1.
Westlaw
2.
Manupatra
3.
SCC Online
TABLE OF CASES
PAGE No. 3

S.
No.
1.
NAME OF THE CASE CITIED
CITATION OF THE CASE
A.V. Venkateshwaran vs.
AIR 1961 SC 1906
Andhra Industrial Works vs. Chief

AIR 1974 SC 1539
12
Jainson Hosiery
AIR 1979 SC 1889
11
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.)
(2002) 2 SCC 333
Controller of Imports and Ors.

3.
4.
Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs.
12
vs. Union of India

5.
6.
7.
No.
11
R.S.Wadhwani
2.
PAGE
Crews vs. Hollenbach

Guruvayur Devaswom Managing
Committee vs. CK Rajan and Ors.
K Sobha vs. Dr. Mrs. Raj Kumari
358 Md. 627, 751 A. 2d 481

(2000)
14
(2003) 7 SCC 546
12
AIR 1999 Ker.
13
Unithan
8.
Pemberton vs. American Distilled
664 S.W. 2d 690 (Tenn.1984)
14
Spirits Co.
9.
Romesh Thapar vs. Union of India
AIR 1950 SC 124
12
10.
Thomas vs. Quartermaine
(1887) LR 18 QBD 685
14
11.
Vidya Sharma vs. Shiv Narain Verma
AIR 1956 SC 108: (1955) 2
12
SCR 983
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble Supreme Court of Essos has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Essos which reads as follows:
PAGE No. 4

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.
Essos, a sovereign democratic republic in south Asia marked by a plural demographic

thriving on youth population who rather enjoy a high standard of living and are regarded
as educationally sound and prudent. People of Essos are open minded and they observe
their festivals in high spirit and majority of them indulge into drinking alcohols. Since
PAGE No. 5

Essos proves to be a lucrative market for alcoholic beverages so there are a large number
of alcoholic manufacturers thriving on such a large number of alcoholics.
2.
Wines of Winterfell valued at approx. ENR 850mn is one such large alcohol
manufacturer. Plenders Bride an economical whisky introduced by Wines of Winterfell in
2006 has become a popular brand because a very little amount of this whisky can induce a
pleasant high. Plenders Bride comes with a warning stating, The pleasure of Plenders
Bride can cause deleterious effects on your health still there was no adverse impact on its
sale.
3.
EIHS an institute of national prominence involved in monitoring healthcare and reputed

for attaining a number of medical breakthroughs in genetic and lifestyle-related diseases
in Essos, in its research about a sudden and staggering rise in cases of Renal Calculus
conducted in April 2014 has found that majority of such patients are frequent consumers
of alcohol.
4.
The same fact was corroborated by The Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (CTAS),
a private institution composed of scientists of international eminence. However, CTAS
went a step ahead and conducted a study of a number of alcohol brands to find out the
real cause for Renal Calculus. After six months they arrived at a conclusion and blamed
Plenders Bride whisky for the same. Their report claims that Plenders Bride contains
traces of oxides, supposedly of metals from the network of pipes use by the distillery.
5.
On the basis of this report, various patients of Renal Calculus filed civil suits in different
courts of Essos as per their jurisdiction asking for damages. In some of the cases, the
court awarded compensation while other cases were decided in favour of Wines of
Winterfell. The treatment and rehabilitation of patients of Renal Calculus costs
approximately ENR 85,000.
6.
A public spirited lawyer who has experience in mass tort litigation against business
enterprises has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Honble Supreme Court of
Essos in an attempt to bring all the matters sub-judice before different subordinate courts.
The Supreme Court of Essos has admitted the PIL and will adjudicate the same in the
second week of February 2016.
PAGE No. 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
THE RESPONDENTS RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF
ESSOS, FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
ISSUE I:
WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST

UNION OF ESSOS AND WINES OF WINTERFELL.
PAGE No. 7

ISSUE II:
WHETHER THE MANUFACTURER OF PLENDERS BRIDE IS LIABLE FOR

DAMAGES ACCRUING TO THE PETITIONERS.
ISSUE III:
WHETHER THE PETITIONERS THEMSELVES VOLUNTARILY CONSENTED TO

THE RISK.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
AGAINST UNION OF ESSOS AND WINES OF WINTERFELL.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that, this petition filed by petitioner was
wrongly admitted and is not maintainable as per the guidelines of the Honble Court.
Also, the petition for early hearing of cases pending in subordinate courts cannot be
entertained as PIL. In the present case the petitioner had an option of alternative remedy
which has not yet been exhausted.
PAGE No. 8

Also, there is no violation of fundamental right and thus the PIL filed by petitioner is not
maintainable before the Honble Court.

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that, the report by CTAS which is the sole
basis of petition is full of ambiguity and has not been able to disclose and identify the real
cause of injury to the petitioners. The cause of injury cannot be directly related to the
respondent as the report uses the term possibly to relate the cause to the respondent. The
Honble Court cannot hold the respondents liable on the basis of such an unreliable report.
III.WHETHER THE PETITIONERS THEMSELVES VOLUNTARILY CONSENTED

TO THE RISK.
The petitioners were aware of the risks involved with the consumption of the liquor. As,
alcohol is infamous for its ill impacts on men and society and the prudent consumers of the
same despite the warning exposed themselves to the risk. Thus, the respondents claim the
general defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AGAINST UNION OF ESSOS AND WINES OF WINTERFELL.
A. VIOLATIVE OF GUIDELINES ISSUED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT
PAGE No. 9

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that, this court in its earlier guideline 1 has
laid down the following 10 exclusive categories of petitions to be considered while filing a
Public Interest Litigation, these are:
1. Bonded Labour matters.
2. Neglected Children.
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers
and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases).
4. Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for (pre-mature release) and
seeking release after having completed 14 years in jail, death in jail, transfer,
release on personal bond, speedy trial as a fundamental right.
5. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and
death in police custody.
6. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, brideburning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc.
7. Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co-villagers or by
police from persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and
economically backward classes.
8. Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance,
drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and
wild life and other matters of public importance.
9. Petitions from riot-victims.
10. Family Pension.
As we can see the PIL filed by the petitioner does not fall under any of the above stated
categories.
Furthermore in the amended guideline the Honble Court has clarified that a petition for early
hearing of cases pending in High Courts and Subordinate Courts will not be entertained as
Public Interest Litigation and these may be returned to the petitioners.
1 Supreme Court of India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Guidelines, (Feb. 17,
2016, 11:17 p.m.)
<http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/circular/guidelines/pilguidelines.pdf >
PAGE No. 10

B. ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES HAS NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED
The respondents humbly submit that the subordinate courts are competent enough to
adjudicate this particular case. Alternative remedy is barred unless there was complete lack of
jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take action impugned 2, however, the existence of the
subordinate courts, questions the maintainability of the writ petition filed. It was held by this
Honble Apex Court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Jainson Hosiery3, where there is
alternative statutory remedy available court should not interfere unless the alternative remedy
is too dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. Thus, the respondents humbly submit that the
present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that alternative remedy has not been
exhausted.
C. NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BY THE STATE
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that Public Interest Litigation can be filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Article 32(1)
when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III., as
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.4
The respondent submits that this Court in the case of Romesh Thapar vs. Union of India5,
held that only if there is a violation of Fundamental Rights can it step under the Jurisdiction
of Article 32. In the present case, there has been no violation of the Fundamental Rights as
such and of all the rights guaranteed under the Part III of the Constitution, Article 21 i.e.,
Right to life and personal liberty has been given widest scope but the same is unavailable in
cases involving infringement of the same right by a private party.
2 A.V. Venkateshwaran vs. R.S.Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1906.
3 Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Jainson Hosiery AIR 1979 SC 1889.
4 Andhra Industrial Works vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1539 10;
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee vs. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546
50; BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
5 Romesh Thapar vs. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124.
PAGE No. 11

This court in Vidya Sharma vs. Shiv Narain Verma6 commented that, that the fundamental
rights are available only against the State; a person whose right to personal liberty is
infringed by a private individual must seek his remedy under the ordinary law and not under
Article 21.
Thus, the respondents submit that the in the light of for the aforementioned reasons present
writ petition in not maintainable before the Honble Court.

With all due respect the counsel would like to establish before the Honble Court that the
manufacturer i.e., Wines of Winterfell is not responsible for the malady of Renal Calculus
suffered by the people of Essos.
As oxidation is one of the quintessential steps of brewing of whisky at distilleries and the
same method is being followed since centuries, the only difference lies in a switch from
manual labour to automated machines but according to the report of The Centre for Tobacco
and Alcohol Studies (CTAS), the traces of oxides found in Plenders Bride are the reason
6 Vidya Sharma vs. Shiv Narain Verma AIR 1956 SC 108: (1955) 2 SCR 983.
PAGE No. 12

behind the increased cases of Renal Calculus. It is impossible to avoid oxidation in the
process of brewing, thus the contention put forth by the aforesaid report loses its credibility.
The report has also failed to establish the identity of the real causes of Renal Calculus. It is
full of ambiguities and vagaries and is based on whimsical notions of CTAS. The report uses
the term possibly to identify the cause of Renal Calculus, the Honble Court cannot hold the
respondents liable on the basis of such report by an organization known widely for
condemning and picketing alcohol manufacturers. If the inferences of negligence cannot be
drawn from the facts of the case or the facts do not indicate negligence in clear and
unambiguous terms then the Court would not consider this to be negligence on the part of
defendant.7
III.WHETHER THE PETITIONERS THEMSELVES VOLUNTARILY

CONSENTED TO THE RISK.
The counsel humbly submits before this Honble Court that the risk of consuming alcohol is
already known to the public at large as it is evident from the fact that the people of Essos are
prudent and educationally sound and without any outside influence are indulge in drinking. In
Pemberton vs. American Distilled Spirits Co.8, the court stated that alcohol has long been
recognized as toxic, and has been used in society during all recorded history. Furthermore,
7 K Sobha vs. Dr. Mrs. Raj Kumari Unithan AIR 1999 Ker.
8 Pemberton vs. American Distilled Spirits Co. 664 S.W. 2d 690 (Tenn.1984).
PAGE No. 13

the Court added that, courts, legislatures, churches, and men have long been aware of its ill
effect on men and society.
In Crews vs. Hollenbach9, the court commented that, If plaintiff in an injury action becomes
aware of a previously created risk and voluntarily chooses to put up with the situation then
his willingness to take a chance is implied and he is barred from recovering for a risk he
chose to assume.
Similarly, in Thomas vs. Quartermaine10, the court of appeal held that, when the risk is
known to the plaintiff or it can be ascertained by him, based on similar happenings in past
and still he has voluntarily consented to the same then under all such circumstances the
defendant cannot be said to be at fault.
No one forced Plenders Bride through the throat of people of Essos. Despite the warning of
deleterious effects, wise people of Essos kept consuming it and as everyone is aware of the
fact that consumption of alcohol will surely affect their health and have consented to its bad
effect which was reasonably foreseeable considering the nature of alcoholic drinks.
In the light of the implied consent and knowledge of risks associated with consumption of
alcohol the counsel requests from the Honble Court to grant the defendant the general
defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria and dismiss this case on the aforesaid merit.
9 Crews vs. Hollenbach 358 Md. 627, 751 A. 2d 481 (2000).

10 Thomas vs. Quartermaine (1887) LR 18 QBD 685.
PAGE No. 14

PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Respondents humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
1. To hold that the petition filed before the Honble Court was wrongly admitted and is not
maintainable and dismiss the same.
2. In the alternative declare and adjudge:
That the respondents have not violated the Fundamental Right of the Petitioners.
That the actions of respondents did not cause any ailment to the people of Essos.
PAGE No. 15

AND/OR
Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,
Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For this Act of Kindness, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall forever pray.
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS
PAGE No. 16

Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

INTRA-LAW SCHOOL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

BOOKS AND GUIDELINES REFERRED..................................................................3

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

All India Reporter

The Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies

Essos Institute of Health Sciences

Essos National Rupee

Public Interest Litigation

Supreme Court Cases

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

BOOKS AND GUIDELINES REFERRED

Supreme Court of India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Guidelines,

Mahendra Pal Singh, V.N. Shuklas Constitution of India, Eastern Book

The Constitution of India, 1950

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

NAME OF THE CASE CITIED

CITATION OF THE CASE

A.V. Venkateshwaran vs.

AIR 1961 SC 1906

Andhra Industrial Works vs. Chief

AIR 1979 SC 1889

BALCO Employees Union (Regd.)

(2002) 2 SCC 333

Controller of Imports and Ors.

Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs.

vs. Union of India

Crews vs. Hollenbach

358 Md. 627, 751 A. 2d 481

(2003) 7 SCC 546

AIR 1999 Ker.

Pemberton vs. American Distilled

664 S.W. 2d 690 (Tenn.1984)

Romesh Thapar vs. Union of India

AIR 1950 SC 124

Thomas vs. Quartermaine

(1887) LR 18 QBD 685

Vidya Sharma vs. Shiv Narain Verma

AIR 1956 SC 108: (1955) 2

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

Essos, a sovereign democratic republic in south Asia marked by a plural demographic

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

EIHS an institute of national prominence involved in monitoring healthcare and reputed

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

WHETHER THE MANUFACTURER OF PLENDERS BRIDE IS LIABLE FOR

WHETHER THE PETITIONERS THEMSELVES VOLUNTARILY CONSENTED TO

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

II. WHETHER THE MANUFACTURER OF PLENDERS BRIDE IS LIABLE FOR

III.WHETHER THE PETITIONERS THEMSELVES VOLUNTARILY CONSENTED

I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE

A. VIOLATIVE OF GUIDELINES ISSUED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

LAW SCHOOL, BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

5 Romesh Thapar vs. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124.