You are on page 1of 22

UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2016
TEAM CODE: A-30

THE HONBLE CONSUMER COURT OF DELHI


S.L.P. NO.. OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. SWARN KUMAR


PLAINTIFF

V.

MR. AKHIL SINGHAL


DEFENDANT

PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 6 OF COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND


COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS ACT, 2O15

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

PARTICULARS

PAGE NO.
(ii)
(iii)
(vii)
(viii)
(x)
(xi)
1-18

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I.

WHETHER

THE

DELHI

COMMERCIAL

COURT

HAS

JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE MATTER OR NOT?

I.1

THAT THE DISPUTE IS IN THIS SUIT IS NOT A COMMERCIAL

I.2

DISPUTE.
THAT IT IS NOT UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF

1
2

THE DELHI COMMERCIAL COURT.

II.

WHETHER THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT ARE


FULFILLED OR NOT?
II.1 THAT ALL THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT ARE

II.2

3
3

FULFILLED.
THAT MR. KUMAR WAS A COMPETENT PARTY TO CONTRACT.

III.

WHETHER THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN MR. KUMAR


AND MR. SINGHAL IS ENFORCEABLE OR NOT?
III.1
THAT THIS IS A VALID LOAN
III.2
THAT THIS LOAN CONTRACT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE

IV.

6
6
6

WHETHER INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST MR.


SINGHAL FROM SELLING MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF
THE COMPANY IN THE PRESENT CASE?
4.1 THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOESNT HAVE PRIMA FACIE CASE
4.2 THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY
IF THE INJUNCTION IS GRANTED
4.3 THAT THE BALANCE OF (IN)CONVENIENCE IS IN THE FAVOUR
OF DEFENDANT
4.4 THAT THE ORDER OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT

(1)

8
8
9
10

11
BETWEEN MR. KUMAR AND MR. SINGHAL SHALL BE PASSED

11. PRAYER

(xii)

(2)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. NO.

ABBREVIATION

FULL FORM

1.

&

And

2.

Paragraph

3.

AIR

All India Reporter

4.

Anr.

Another

5.

CPC

Civil Procedure Code

6.

ed.

Edition

7.

HC

High Court

8.

Honble

Honorable

9.

Ltd.

Limited

10.

Ors.

Others

11.

Pvt.

Private

12.

r/w

Read with

13.

SC

Supreme Court

14.

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

15.

SCJ

Supreme Court Journal

16.

SCR

Supreme Court Reporter

17.

S.

Section

18.

Supp.

Supplementary

19.

u/s

Under section

20.

v.

Versus

21.

Vol.

Volume

(3)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES

AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. V. ETHICON LTB1975 AC


M/S RSPL LTD V. MUKESH SHARMA

396..................................................................17

& ANR A.I.R. 2016 DELHI...........................................................2

YOGENDRA SINGH V. PREM LATA & ANR A.I.R.

2013........................................................................5

STATUTES REFERRED
1
2
3
4
5

THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013


THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED


1.

R.K. BANGIA, SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, THIRD EDITION,

2.

MULLA, THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, ELEVENTH EDITION, H. S. PATHAK,

3.

R. K. BANGIA, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT , FOURTEENTH EDITION, ALLAHABAD LAW


AGENCY,

4.

2013.

1999.

2013.

THE COMPANY LAW MANUAL

1927-2012 ; VOL.1 (LEXISNEXIS, BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA

NAGPUR).

5.

CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATIONS ACT,

6.

SEVENTH EDITION, 2016.


RAVI PULIANI; MAHESH PULIANI
HOUSE PVT. LTD.,

1963, C.K. TAKWANI, ESTERN BOOK COMPANY,

; COMPANIES ACT 2013 WITH COMMENTS (BHARAT LAW

20TH ED. 2014).

(4)

7.

BM PRASAD, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY SIR DINSHAH PARDUMJI MULLA

(LEXISNEXIS BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA NAGPUR,18TH ED. REPRINT 2012)


8. SIR JOHN WOODROFFE; AMEER ALIS , COMMENTARY ON CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908 (DELHI LAW HOUSE 5TH ED., 2011)
9. JUSTICE A.K NANDI ; JUSTICE S.P SEN GUPTA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (KAMAL
LAW HOUSE , KOLKATA ; VOL.2 2004)
10. VINAY KUMAR GUPTA THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (LEXISNEXIS BUTTERWORTHS
WADHWA NAGPUR

14TH ED. 2005)

LEGAL LEXICONS REFERRED :


1.
2.

BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (8th


OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2nd ed. 2009).

ed. 2001).

3.

MISH F.C., MERRIAM-WEBSTERS COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (11TH ED.,

WEBSITES REFERRED
1.
2.
3.
4.

www.manupatra.com
www.legalservicesindia.com
www.mca.gov.in
www.indiankanoon.org

(5)

2003)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction to hear this case under Sec. 6 of The Commercial Courts,
Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 in The
Honble Commercial Court of Delhi. Section 6 of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions
and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 states as:
6

The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a
commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over
which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction.

The defendant respectfully rejects this jurisdiction invoked by the plaintiff under Sec. 6 of The
Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts
Act, 2015 in The Honble Commercial Court of Delhi.

(6)

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I
INCEPTION OF CASE SCENARIO
1. Mr. Swarn Kumar, businessman from Delhi with a company of 30 crores dealing in ice
cubes, went on a trip to Goa with his lawyer friend, Mr. Aditya Sahni.
2. He was fond of gambling, socializing and is notorious for womanizing.
3. On 03.10.2016, he lost Rs. 3 crores in poker the Casino Royale, an offshore casino in
Goa.
II
CAUSE OF ACTION
1. After losing money, Mr. Kumar signed a agreement with Mr. Akhil Singhal (money
lender of the casino) for a loan of Rs. 5 crores on 03.10.2016.
2. The agreement contained a clause for paying back double the loan amount(Rs. 10 crores)
at the table and in default, Mr. Kumar would sign over his majority shares in his company
as security.
3. At 2 a.m. on 04.10.2016. Mr. Kumar lost all his money and being unable to return Rs. 10
crores at the table, the shares got transferred to Mr. Singhal.
4. Mr. Kumar immediately contacted Mr. Aditya Sahni, who then contacted Mr. Singhal to
take double the loan but not the majority shares of the company.
5. The video from the casino showed that Mr. Kumar had consumed alcoholic beverages
before signing the contract.
III
INSTITUTION OF SUIT
1. Mr. Sahni on behalf of Mr. Kumar has filed a civil suit before Delhi Commercial Court to
prevent Mr. Singhal from taking over the company.

(7)

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE DELHI COMMERCIAL COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE MATTER OR
NOT?

ISSUE II
WHETHER THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY MR. SWARN KUMAR FULFIL THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID
CONTRACT?

ISSUE III
WHETHER THE CONTRACT SIGNED BETWEEN MR. KUMAR AND MR. SINGHAL IS ENFORCEABLE OR
NOT?

ISSUE IV
WHETHER AN INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST MR. SINGHAL FROM SELLING MAJORITY OF
THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY OR NOT?

(8)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.
WHETHER THE DELHI COMMERCIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN
THE MATTER OT NOT?
This case is not a commercial dispute and is not coming under territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi
Commercial Court.
2.
WHETHER THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY MR. SWARN KUMAR WAS A VALID
CONTRACT OR NOT?
Mr. Swarn Kumar was competent to sign an agreement under section 11 of The Indian Contract Act,
1872 as he was in the state of sound mind and could think rationally.
3.
WHETHER THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN MR KUMAR AND MR SINGHAL IS
ENFORCEABLE OR NOT?
There was a loan agreement signed by Mr. Kumar which fulfilled all the essentials of a valid
contract and is enforceable by law.
4.
WHETHER INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST MR SINGHAL FROM
SELLING MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY IN THE PRESENT CASE
OR NOT?
Temporary injunction should be granted against Mr Singhal from selling majority of the
shares of the company as Mr Kumar is still the owner of the shares. If injunction is not
granted Mr Kumar will suffer irreparable injury and more inconvenience than Mr Singhal
would if temporary injunction is granted.

(9)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. WHETHER THE DELHI COMMERCIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO


ENTERTAIN THE MATTER OR NOT?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that Mr. Swarn Kumar came to Goa with
his friend Mr. Aditya Sahni, an esteemed lawyer from Delhi. Mr. Kumar was fond of
gambling, socializing and notorious for womanizing.
2. On 03.10.2016, Mr. Kumar lost Rs.3 crores while playing poker and went to Mr. Akhil
Singhal for lending him a loan of Rs. 5 crores. Mr. Swarn Kumar entered into a contract
with Mr. Singhal and agreed to payback double the amount of loan, i.e., Rs. 10 crores, at
the security of majority shares of his company.

1.1 That the dispute in this suit is not a commercial dispute.

3. It is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that the contract signed by Mr. Kumar with
Mr. Singhal was dealing with lending of a loan worth Rs. 5 crores. It was simply a loan
agreement between them. Mr. Kumar signed his majority shares of his company of Rs. 30
crores as security for the loan.
4. Section 61 states that the commercial court has the jurisdiction to try all the suits of
commercial disputes with specified values arising within its territorial jurisdiction.
5. The Section 2(c) 2 describes the means of arising commercial dispute.

1 The Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High
Courts Act, 2015.
2 The Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High
Courts Act, 2015.
1

6. In the present case, the subject-matter doesnt fall under any recognized head of
commercial dispute. It is an ordinary loan agreement. Hence it isnt a commercial dispute
and therefore, it doesnt come under the jurisdiction of Delhi Commercial Court.

1.2 That it is under the Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Commercial Court.

7. It is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that the loan contract was signed between
Mr. Kumar and Mr. Singhal at an off-shore casino, Casino Royale, in Goa. Mr. Kumar
took loan in the from casino money lender i.e., Mr. Akhil Singhal. Mr. Kumar lost the
money at the poker table and failed to pay back the double amount of loan, i.e., Rs. 10
crores. Consequently, the majority shares were transferred to Mr. Singhal because those
were signed in as security for the loan.
8. Section 20 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 states the provision that any other suit shall be
instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. It states that(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain,
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
9. The Honble Supreme Court states that the explanation following Sec. 20 (c) is in relation
to a defendant, and not in relation to a plaintiff. Sec. 20 (a) and 20 (b) permit the
institution of the suit where the defendant(s) actually or voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gains3
10. In the present case, the cause of action is the lending of loan by Mr. Singhal to Mr. Kumar
at the Casino Royale, Goa. The contract for the loan was also signed in the Casino
Royale, Goa. The cause of action arose wholly in Goa.
11. Moreover, the defendant in this case, Mr. Singhal carries on his business of money
lending only in the Casino Royale, Goa.
12. Therefore, it is inferred that the cause of action wholly arose in Goa and the defendant
also carries on his business in Goa. So, neither Mr. Singhal is carrying out any business in
Delhi nor the cause of action arose in Delhi.
13. This proves that the Delhi Commercial Court doesnt have territorial jurisdiction over this
suit.
3 M/S Rspl Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma & Anr. AIR 2016 Delhi.
2

2. WHETHER THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT ARE FULFILLED


OR NOT?
14. It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that a contract was signed by Mr. Swarn
Kumar for taking a loan, after he had lost Rs.3 crores while playing poker, from Mr. Akhil
Singhal (money lender of the casino) of Rs. 5 crores on 3.10.2016 at Casino Royale, Goa
and signed the majority shares oh his company as security. The clause in the contract said
that Mr. Kumar would have to pay Rs. 10 crores at the table to pay back the loan. He
failed to do so and subsequently the majority shares transferred to Mr. Singhal.
Immediately after losing his shares at 2:00 a.m. on 4.10.2016, he called up his friend, Mr.
Aditya Sahni, who is an esteemed lawyer of Delhi and was accompanying Mr. Kumar on
his Goa trip.

2.1That all the essentials of a valid contract are fulfilled.

15. It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the contract that was signed, while
lending loan, by Mr. Swarn Kumar is fulfilling all the essentials of valid contract. Mr.
Kumar took a loan of Rs. 5 crores and promised to payback double amount of the loan
i.e., Rs. 10 crores. He signed over the majority of his companys shares as a security to
the loan taken.
16. The Sec. 10 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines all the essential of a valid contract. It
states17. 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 India, and
3

not hereby expressly repealed, by which any contract is required to be made in writing or
in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.
18. In the present case, the agreement was made with free consent of both the parties. Mr.
Swarn Kumar signed the agreement with free consent. Mr. Kumar and Mr. Singhal were
both competent parties as described in Sec. 114 as they were both of majority age, of
sound mind and werent barred by any law to enter into the contract.
19. The agreement involved a lawful consideration and a lawful object, i.e., the loan of Rs. 5
crores with the security of shares of Mr. Kumars company. There was a promise to
payback the double amount of the loan taken (Rs. 10 crores).
20. It was an ordinary loan agreement and such agreements are nowhere expressly declared to
be void.
21. Therefore, the agreement involved fulfilled all the essentials of a valid contract and
henceforth it is enforceable by the law also.

2.2 That Mr. Kumar was a competent party to contract

22. It is humbly submitted that Mr. Swarn Kumar was a competent party to the contract at the
time he had signed the contract. He was of majority age and was in state of sound mind.
He was also not barred by any law to enter into contract. So, he was in full capacity to
enter into the contract with Mr. Singhal.
23. A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if, at the time
when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement
as to its effect upon his interest.5
24. In the present case, Mr. Kumar was in sound mind. He was fully capable of understanding
the contract and forming a rational judgment about it. This is evident from various facts
mentioned in the proposition.
25. The fact to be noted is that Mr. Kumar was habitual of gambling and socializing. This fact
proves that his mind and body were resistant to the alcohol and gamble. And there is no
specific mention of the time when he consumed the alcoholic beverages. It is nowhere
mentioned that he had consumed alcoholic beverages just before the signing contract.
4 Indian Contract Act, 1872.
5 Sec. 12 Indian Contract Act, 1872
4

26. Moreover, even in law, mere drunkenness is not sufficient to dislodge a contract which is
otherwise binding.. it must have the effect of crippling a person's ability to form a
rational judgment.6
27. In fact, when Mr. Kumar lost his majority shares at 2:00 a.m. on 4.10.2016, he
immediately called up his friend, who is an esteemed lawyer of Delhi, Mr. Aditya Sahni.
This fact proves that he was in sane state of mind to judge the situation. When he lost the
shares, he realizes the need to loss he had suffered and to ratify it he called upon his
lawyer friend who had accompanied him to Goa. Mr. Kumar very well understood the
situation thats why he called his lawyer friend to take legal advice from him so that he
could retain his shares.
28. If Mr. Kumar had been too much intoxicated to rationalize the situation, he may not have
called any of his friend at that very time and not specifically a lawyer friend.
29. Mr. Swarn Kumar was in complete sound state of mind to understand the contract and
form a judgment as to contracts effect upon his interest.

6 Yogendra Singh v. Prem Lata and another. AIR 2013


5

3. WHETHER THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN MR KUMAR AND MR


SINGHAL IS ENFORCEABLE OR NOT?

30. It is humbly submitted that Mr. Kumar, a businessman from Delhi with a company of Rs.
30 crores, who enjoys gambling, socializing and is notorious for womanizing, came to
Goa with his friends. He was playing poker at Casino Royale, an offshore casino in Goa.
31. After losing Rs. 3 crores at the table he was desperate for more money and signed an
agreement with Mr. Singhal for a loan of Rs. 5 crores for further gambling and after
losing that money too he did not pay Rs. 10 crores and as mentioned in a clause the the
contract he lost his majority shares to Mr. Singhal.

3.1 That this is a valid loan

32. It is humbly submitted that the facts relevant in this issue are that Mr. Kumar in his
desperation to get more money for further gambling, signed a contract with Mr.Singhal,
on 3.10.2016., for a loan of Rs. 5 crores. The contract contained a clause that Mr. Kumar
would pay double the loan amount to Mr.Singhal.
33. According to section 295 of Companies Act, 1956, The following derivation is made for
loan- delivery by one part to an receipt by another party of a sum of money upon
agreement, express or implied, to re pay it with or without interest.
34. Here essential requirement of a loan is the advance of money upon the understanding that
it shall be returned, and it may or may not carry interest and in our case it is clear that it
was a valid loan and Mr. Kumar was bound to repay it with interest.

3.2 That this loan is enforceable.

35. It is humbly submitted that the facts relevant in this issue are that Mr. Kumar in his
desperation to get more money for further gambling, signed a contract with Mr. Singhal,
6

on 3.10.2016., for a loan of Rs. 5 crores. The contract contained a clause that Mr. Kumar
would pay double the loan amount to Mr. Singhal.
36. In the above sub- contention we have proved that it was a valid contract and now as we
know that it is a valid contract as well as a valid loan, it is enforceable in the court of law.
37. Mr. Kumar had entered into a valid contract with Mr. Singhal for a valid loan according to
section 10 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, and section 295 of Companies Act, 1956. By
proving this, the contract between the parties is enforceable.

3. WHETHER INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST MR


SINGHAL FROM SELLING MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF THE
COMPANY IN THE PRESENT CASE OR NOT?
38. It is humbly submitted that the foundation of every order of injunction rests upon three
pillars. It is also known as triple test for grant of interim injunction. These three pillars
have been elucidated upon by the Honble Supreme Court in a catena of judgements
including in the cases of Best Sellers Retail v. Aditya Birla7, Kishoresinh v. Maruti
Corp.8
1. Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?
2. Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if his prayer for temporary
injunction is not granted?
3. Whether the balance of (in)convenience is in favour of the plaintiff?
39. The above mentioned tests will be addressed hereunder.

4.1 That the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case.

40. It is humbly submitted that the facts relevant in this issue are that Mr. Kumar, a
businessman from Delhi with a company of Rs. 10 crores, after losing approximately Rs.
3 crores while playing poker at Casino Royale(an offshore casino in Goa), had taken a
loan from Mr. Kumar(moneylender of the casino) for Rs. 5 crores. The contract contained
a clause that he would pay him double the loan amount, that is Rs 10 crores, at the table
and in default he would sign over his majority shares in his company as security.
41. As proved above it was a valid contract according to section 109 because it was between
two parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void.
7(2012) 6 SCC 792.
8(2009) 11 SCC 229.
9Indian Contract Act, 1872.
8

42. Mr.Singhal, being a money lender, did not obtain Mr. Kumars consent by undue
influence, or coercion or misrepresentation. Mr. Kumar was aware of the consequences of
not being able to pay back the set amount and still he signed the contract. He was very
desperate for more money even after losing Rs. Three crores because he still believed that
he would have a winning hand. Desperation like this can be expected from a person who
is a frequent gambler.
43. Both the parties were competent to contract at the time of entering into a contract. And
thus, the shares now belong to Mr.Singhal.
44. Thus the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case.

4.2 That the defendant would suffer irreparable injury if injunction is granted

45. It is humbly submitted that the facts relevant in this issue are that Mr. Kumar, a
businessman from Delhi with a company of Rs. 10 crores, after losing approximately Rs.
3 crores while playing poker at Casino Royale(an offshore casino in Goa), had taken a
loan from Mr. Kumar(moneylender of the casino) for Rs. 5 crores. The contract contained
a clause that he would pay him double the loan amount, that is Rs 10 crores, at the table
an in default he would sign over his majority shares in his company as security.
46. Mr. Kumar lost his money and did not pay Rs. 10 crores and as a consequence he lost his
majority shares to Mr.Singhal. Mr.Singhal after acquiring majority shares of the company,
signed a contract with a Delhi base company named A & M Pvt. Ltd. for selling majority
shares of the company because he prefers to invest his property. He can sign this contract
with another company because he has the possession of the shares now according to the
signed contract.
47. Mr.Singhal, if granted injunction against, will suffer irreparable injury because then all
this previous contracts parties will revoke their contract and as a consequence he will
lose all his money and property.

4.3 That the balance of (in)convenience is in the favour of defendant

48. It is humbly submitted that Mr. Kumar, after losing approximately Rs. 3 crores while
playing poker at Casino Royale(an offshore casino in Goa), had taken a loan from
Mr.Singhal(moneylender of the casino) for Rs. 5 crores. The contract contained a clause
that he would pay him double the loan amount, that is Rs 10 crores, an in default he
would sign over his majority shares in his company as security.
49. Mr. Kumar gave his consent to enter into the contract that now he says he did not want to
enter into. It is clear that why a man would admit that he had lost his majority shares
because of his hobby of gambling. He thought he would have a winning hand but after
losing he still did not pay Rs. 10 crores as said in a clause in the contract and as a
consequence he lost his majority shares.
50. After losing the shares of his company Mr. Kumar, in a desperate attempt called his
lawyer friend Mr.AdityaSahni who on behalf of Mr. Kumar then contacted Mr.Singhal to
take double the loan but not the majority of the shares.
51. If Mr. Kumar was willing to pay Rs. 10 crores he would have paid before losing his
shares. Now that shares belong to Mr.Singhal he believes Mr. Kumar can revoke a
contract by his own will. Mr. Kumar was well aware of the fact that he will lose his shares
if he did not pay Rs. 10 crores, still he did not.
52. If a prayer like this will be granted, there can remain no valid contract in India. Everyone
will take law as a joke and will revoke the contracts that they have entered into. This
would cause great inconvenience to Mr.Singhal as even his previous contracts will be
revoked and he would lose everything he had ever owned.
53. Lord Diplock, in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd10said that The court must
weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies

10 1975 AC 396
10

4.4 That the order of specific performance of contract between Mr. Kumar and Mr.
Singhal shall be passed.

It is humbly submitted that Mr. Kumar, after losing approximately Rs. 3 crores while playing
poker at Casino Royale(an offshore casino in Goa), had taken a loan from Mr.Singhal
(moneylender of the casino) for Rs. 5 crores. The contract contained a clause that he would
pay him double the loan amount, that is Rs 10 crores, an in default he would sign over his
majority shares in his company as security.
He lost all his money and did not pay Rs. 10 crores as mentioned in a clause in the signed
contract and as a consequence he lost his majority shares to Mr. Singhal.
As this was a valid contract and a valid loan we request the Honble Court to grant the order
of specific performance of the contract to Mr. Kumar, to legally transfer the shares in the
name of Mr. Akhil Singhal.

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREOF IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WRITTEN PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES
SIGHTED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT THAT IT MAY BE PLEASED

To hold:

That the Commercial Court of Delhi has no jurisdiction to this case.


That the essentials of a valid contract are fulfilled.
That the contract entered between the parties is enforceable.
That temporary injunction should not be granted against Mr. Singhal from selling

majority shares of the company.


That order of specific performance shall be passed.

o To set aside Temporary injunction pleaded by the plaintiff.

.
OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDER IT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

Sd/Counsels for Defendant.

12