Indian Law Society’s

ILS Law College

Law College Road (Chiplunkar Road)
Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra - 411004
Phone No. 020 2565 6775

ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

MOOT PROPOSITIONS
 ARBITRATION LAW

Arrow-8 Foundation v. Quentin Pangloss

1. Arrow-8 Foundation (Arrow-8/Think Tank) was founded in 1994 as the first legal think tank

in the Republic of Lidea. The laws, religious affiliations, demographic, and overall culture of

the Republic of Lidea are in pari materia with those of India. It is registered as a non-profit

company under the Companies Act, 2013.

2. Over the years, Arrow-8 has worked tirelessly to bring about tangible change in Lidean society.

Most of its efforts have been directed towards the protection of free speech and critical

thinking.

3. Arrow-8 thrives almost entirely on donations. Given its stellar track record, patrons had been

both regular and generous in their contributions. Over the last 18-odd months, however, the

COVID-19 pandemic has left a disastrous impact on the global economy. Arrow-8’s patrons

were no exception. As contributions began to dwindle, a long-term survival for the Think Tank

began to look bleak.

4. Its directors were forced to think of alternative methods to raise funds, whilst also maintaining

the integrity of the reputed organization. In one brainstorming session, a young official, Ms

Lulu Bridge, pitched a rather interesting medium to raise funds.

5. She suggested that Arrow-8 approach Quentin Pangloss for a non-monetary contribution. The

acclaimed artist – also labelled by some as a notorious provocateur - was in fact looking to

provide relief to those who suffered at the hands of the Pandemic. If Pangloss could be

persuaded to donate a fresh piece of art, Arrow-8 could auction it and use the proceeds towards

ensuring its survival. This proposal was welcomed by officials at Arrow-8. Bridge was given

the mandate to make it happen.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Ritvik Kulkarni (Batch of 2017).

Page | 2
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

6. Soon after, Bridge secured a meeting with Pangloss at his studio. Arrow-8 officials also

attended. Pangloss was deeply impressed with Bridge’s detailed presentation. He accepted the

proposal. As a token of its appreciation, Arrow-8 also agreed to grant Pangloss with a lifetime

membership of the Think Tank.

7. All agreed that, for the sake of transparency and compliance with internal tax law, the Parties’

understanding should be recorded in writing once the piece is completed.

8. Pangloss commenced an in-depth research in the prevailing situation of the country –

particularly on instances of arbitrariness, injustice, and the muzzling of citizens’ right to protest

against actions of the State. Two weeks later, his idea had manifested into ‘The Great Wave

Off Mandy’ (the Work). It was inspired by the Japanese style of ukiyo-e. However, instead of

using the traditional method of woodblock printing, Pangloss carved and painted the

woodblock itself. The Work was therefore a three-dimensional painting. A two-dimensional

copy of the Work is reproduced below.

9. The Work was duly handed over to Arrow-8. As agreed, the Parties then executed a formal

contract on 9 February 2021 (Agreement). Key clauses are reproduced at Annexure A.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Ritvik Kulkarni (Batch of 2017).

Page | 3
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

10. No sooner had the Work been advertised in a national daily, than it became an overnight

sensation. The avant-garde piece was met with equal measures of praise and rabid criticism.

Religious groups, in particular, made massive demonstrations against the public display and

sale of the Work by any person. They decried the Work as being deeply hurtful to religious

sentiments and, therefore, its public display as a punishable offence under Section 295A of the

Lidean Penal Code, 1860. Others argue that the Work seriously undermines the independence

of the Lidean judiciary.

11. Unnerved, Arrow-8 maintains that the Work is an expression of free speech. It does not

subscribe to or denounce any interpretation made by members of the public. Arrow-8

confirms that the Work will be auctioned on the scheduled date, i.e., on 10 August 2021. The

Think Tank’s decision and approach are publicly supported by numerous academics, lawyers,

and public intellectuals in and outside Lidea.

12. Given the massive traction garnered by the Work, Pangloss was approached by V3D

Technologies Private Limited (VTPL) with another proposal. VTPL could apply its

proprietary 3D printing technology to make exact replicas of the Work. VTPL proposed to

make 50 limited edition prints of the Work and have each of them personally signed by

Pangloss (Prints). The Prints will then be sold to select buyers in a select market. Pangloss will

be provided with 60% of the profits and the remaining 40% will be retained by VTPL. Pangloss

agreed.

13. Unbeknownst to Arrow-8, all Prints had been made and sold by around 7 August 2021.

Pangloss received his share of the profits and, as a result, emerged richer by roughly USD 1.6

million.

14. Arrow-8 held the auction in Pompei on 10 August 2021. It is sold to the buyer for USD 1.2

million. Before the paperwork could be completed, however, the buyer discovered that signed

replicas of the Work have already been sold to a select group of buyers in and outside Lidea.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Ritvik Kulkarni (Batch of 2017).

Page | 4
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Disgruntled, the buyer reneged on the offer to purchase the Work. He also accused Arrow-8

of misrepresenting in its auction notice that the Work was one of its kind.

15. Arrow-8 was advised not to engage with the buyer in what will turn out to be a long drawn,

and possibly futile, litigation before the district court of Pompei. Instead, the Think Tank was

advised to claim the USD 1.2 million from Pangloss.

16. On 2 September 2021, Arrow-8 addressed a letter to Pangloss stating that:

a. Quentin Pangloss had violated the Arrow-8’s right of ownership in the Work conferred by

the Agreement and under the Copyright Act 1957;

b. This violation had caused a loss of at least USD 1.2 million to Arrow-8;

c. Accordingly, Pangloss was called upon to pay an amount of USD 1.2 million to Arrow-8

within 7 days of the letter;

d. If he failed to comply with the letter, Arrow-8 will commence arbitration for, inter alia,

enforcing its right to claim losses under Clause 7 of the Agreement; and

e. The letter be treated as a notice commencing arbitration under Section 21 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act).

17. Since Pangloss did not respond within the 7-day limit, Arrow-8 addressed a follow up letter

on 10 September 2021. It says that:

a. On account of his failure to comply with the terms of the letter dated 2 September 2021,

Pangloss was in default of his obligations under the Agreement and applicable law; and

b. He was, accordingly, called upon to agree within a period of 30 days to the appointment

of Ms Nandini Lahiri as the sole arbitrator in accordance with Clause 12 of the Agreement,

failing which Arrow-8 will approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief.

18. Pangloss replies to both of Arrow-8’s letters in his letter dated 18 September 2021. He

responds with the following:

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Ritvik Kulkarni (Batch of 2017).

Page | 5
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

a. While it may own the Work and have the right to sell the Work, Arrow-8 does not own

the copyright in the artistic work underlying the Work;

b. Even assuming otherwise, any copyright in the Work is lost after the last Print was made,

since the Work was not registered under the Designs Act, 2000;

c. In any case, the subject matter of the dispute cannot be resolved by arbitration under

Lidean law;

d. Separately, newspapers in Lidea have reported that the Central Government was in the

process of issuing a ban on the use, exhibition, and sale of the Work on grounds that it

was likely to hurt the sentiments of a religious group in Lidea. This would cause the

underlying object of the Agreement, i.e., the Work, to be illegal. The Agreement is

therefore void and unenforceable. Any determination of such work in arbitration, whether

under copyright law or otherwise, would be against the public policy of Lidea. For this

reason, as well, Arrow-8’s claims cannot be resolved by arbitration.

e. The request for mutual appointment of a sole arbitrator is accordingly rejected.

19. In order to avoid a needless back and forth with the artist, Arrow-8 approached the Pompei

High Court with an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act (Section 11

Application); and request seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in the matter.

20. The Section 11 Application is listed for final hearing before the Pompei High Court on 8

October 2021. Participants are to argue either on behalf of the Applicant, i.e., Arrow-8, or the

Respondent, i.e., Quentin Pangloss.

(cont. …)

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Ritvik Kulkarni (Batch of 2017).

Page | 6
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE A

EXTRACTS FROM THE AGREEMENT DATED 9 FEBRUARY, 2021

“Clause 4: Object and ownership

(a) Pangloss (the Artist) has prepared and delivered to Arrow-8 (Think Tank) an original artistic

work titled ‘The Great Wave Off Mandy’ (Work). A two-dimensional representation of the

Work is reproduced at Annexure B to this Agreement.

(b) The Think Tank will own the Work and have exclusive right to sell the Work (by way of auction

or otherwise) and appropriate all proceeds from such auction (Proceeds).

(c) Any and all parts of the Proceeds will be used solely for the non-profit work undertaken by

Arrow-8 (Permitted Use). The Think Tank will provide the Artist with all documentation

necessary to demonstrate proof of use. If the Think Tank uses the Work for any use other than

the Permitted Use, the Think Tank will pay the Artist the entire amount of the Proceeds within

7 days from the Artist’s demand made in writing.

[…]

Clause 7: Indemnities

(a) The Think Tank shall be jointly and severally be indemnified and held harmless by the Artist for

any losses suffered or incurred by the Think Tank arising out of a breach of this Agreement by

the Artist; and

(b) The Author shall be jointly and severally be indemnified and held harmless by the Think Tank

for any losses suffered or incurred by the Artist arising out of a breach of this Agreement by the

Artist.

[…]

Clause 12: Governing Law and Dispute Resolution

(a) This Agreement, and all disputes arising under or otherwise in connection with this Agreement,

will be governed by the laws of the Republic of Lidea.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Ritvik Kulkarni (Batch of 2017).

Page | 7
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

(b) Any dispute in connection with the interpretation, performance, termination of this Agreement,

insofar as it is capable of being resolved by arbitration, shall be referred to arbitration under the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as may be amended from time to time, or any re-

enactment thereof, of a sole arbitrator to be mutually appointed by both Parties.

(c) The seat and venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be Pompei. The courts in Pompei will

have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to this Agreement.

(d) The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the Parties, and enforceable in accordance

with its terms. The arbitrator / arbitration tribunal shall state reasons for his / her / their findings

in writing. The Parties agree to be bound thereby and to act accordingly.

[…]”

ANNEXURE B

(See paragraph 8 of the Moot Problem)

***

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Ritvik Kulkarni (Batch of 2017).

Page | 8
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

COMMERCIAL LAW

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICATION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 666 OF 2021
Billy Boys Investment Holding v. Darby Sabini & Ors.

1. Billy Boys Investment Holding (Billy Boys), is an investment Company incorporated in

accordance with the laws of Mauritius. In or around August 2012, Billy Boys invested Rs. 100

crores in an Indian real-estate company called Peaky Blinders Pvt. Ltd. (Peaky Blinders), and

obtained a 65% shareholding therein. Darby Sabini and Billy Sabini (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2),

hold the remaining 35% shareholding in Peaky Blinders through an entity named Sabini Pvt.

Ltd., that is wholly owned and controlled by the Sabinis.

2. Pursuant to Billy Boy’s investment in Peaky Blinders, Billy Boy and the Sabinis in or around

December 2012, decided to develop a certain property located at Mumbai, through Peaky

Blinders, and construct a commercial building thereon (said Commercial Building). Several

other projects were also commenced. In furtherance of such agreement, it was decided that the

Articles of Association (AoA) of Peaky Blinders be amended in order to provide certain

safeguards to Billy Boy’s investment in Peaky Blinders. Extracts of the AoA are at Annexure A.

3. Billy Boy, being a Mauritian entity, with no Indian presence believed that Peaky Blinders would

be run transparently by the Sabinis and derived comfort and assurance from the various

safeguards provided in the AoA. That being so, Billy Boy did not actively participate in the day-

to-day management of Peak Blinders and simply conducted audits every 3 years.

4. For the purposes of construction of the said Commercial Building, the Sabinis through Sabini

Pvt. Ltd., purchased steel and other construction material from Tommy Shelby Construction

Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of Shelby Company Private Limited (SCPL) (i.e., the Applicant/

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Alefiyah Shipchandler (Batch of 2019).

Page | 9
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Defendant No. 3). Accordingly, Peaky Blinders, through Sabini Pvt. Ltd., was indebted to

Tommy Shelby Construction Pvt. Ltd., up to an amount of Rs. 20 crores. Sabini Pvt. Ltd.

however, was under severe financial stress and unable to repay the said amount of Rs. 20 crores.

5. In or around December 2015, Billy Boy carried out it first audit of Peaky Blinders. Upon a

perusal of the Financial Accounts/ Board Minutes of Peaky Blinders, Billy Boy was shocked to

discover that Peaky Blinders had obtained several terms loans from several NBFCs in complete

contravention of the AoA. As per the AoA these term loans could not have been obtained

without the prior written consent of Billy Boy. During negotiations with the Sabinis, Billy Boy

was assured that the term loans were taken for the best interest of Peaky Blinders. A board

resolution as passed agreeing that no such actions would henceforth, be taken without Billy Boy’s

express written consent.

6. On 5th January 2016, Peaky Blinders executed a registered Sale Deed with SCPL (“Sale Deed”),

and Tommy Shelby Construction Pvt. Ltd., as a confirming party, whereby it was agreed that a

unit in the said Commercial Building would be transferred to SCPL as and by way of an

adjustment against the debts of Rs. 20 crores. The Sale Deed was signed by Darby Sabini in his

capacity as the authorized director of Peaky Blinders. In May 2018, one of the promotors of Billy

Boy, during a vacation with her family in India, happened to visit the Peaky Blinders office and

on perusing the financial statements of the Company saw this sale that was also reflected therein.

However, she believed that the same was an arm’s length transaction with a bona fide purchaser

and did not carry out any further inquiry.

7. In April 2020, Sabini Pvt. Ltd. was admitted to insolvency by the Hon’ble NCLT, Mumbai and

Darby Sabini and Billy Sabini were arrested by the Economic Offences Wing, on charges of

fraud, cheating and siphoning of monies. Alarmed by this turn in events, Billy Boy commissioned

the services of auditors and title investigators to look into the affairs of Peaky Blinders. The

report submitted by the title investigator in or around September 2020 (who carried out an

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Alefiyah Shipchandler (Batch of 2019).

Page | 10
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

extensive search of the Sub-registrar’s office), revealed that the Sabinis had in 2015-2016 in

addition to SCPL Sale Deed referred to above, orchestrated the sale of 5 units in the said

Commercial Building, in satisfaction of debts owed by their various unrelated entities to third

parties, in furtherance of certain software development projects.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, Billy Boy filed the captioned Commercial Suit in January 2021,

for urgent interim and ad-interim reliefs inter alia on the grounds that (i) due to conspiracy and

collision, of the Sabinis with SCPL, Peaky Blinders had received no consideration for the

purported sale of a unit in the said Commercial Building to SCPL; (ii) The sale was not a bona

fide transaction carried out on an arm’s length basis; (iii) Darby Sabini was not authorized to sign

the Sale Deed and authorize the sale, in the absence of Billy Boy’s written consent and (iv) the

Sale Deed ought to be delivered up for cancellation, being void ab initio. Billy Boy filed and

moved an Interim Application in February 2021, for urgent appointment of a Court Receiver

with respect to the said Commercial Building.

9. Pending the final hearing and disposal of the captioned Commercial Suit, SCPL has filed an

Interim Application, under the provisions of Order VII Rule XI, of the Code of Civil Procedure,

for rejection of Plaint on the following basis:

a. Billy Boy had failed to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation under the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as amended in 2018;

b. The Plaint was barred by law under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963; and

c. No cause of action was disclosed against SCPL.

10. Both Applications are to be heard and disposed off together at the next hearing,

(cont. …)

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Alefiyah Shipchandler (Batch of 2019).

Page | 11
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE A
Company Limited by Shares

ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

of

PEAKY BLINDERS PVT. LTD.

“[…]

2. Definitions.

Affirmative Vote Item shall mean (…) (iii) divestment, sale, or disposal of assets of the Company

in excess of Rs. 10 crores; or (iv) lease, letting out, leave and license of assets except in the ordinary

course of business; or (v) entering into any contract, other than in the ordinary course of business.

Arm’s length basis means that the terms are consistent with market practice and/ or arm’s length

basis will mean that the price should be an arm’s length price.

Board shall mean 3 directors appointed by Billy Boy Investment Holding (Investor Director) and

Darby and Billy Sabini.

Business shall mean the construction and development of real estate projects and shall include

selling, leasing, letting out and giving on leave and license and/ or transfer of projects of the

Company.

Managing Director shall mean Darby Sabini

[…]

14. Powers of the Board and Managing Director.

14.1. The Managing Director shall have the power and authority, subject to Clause 20, to enter

and execute any and all transactions occurring in the ordinary course of business.

[…]

20. Required Action and Authority.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Alefiyah Shipchandler (Batch of 2019).

Page | 12
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

In respect of any Affirmative Vote Item, the Company/ Managing Director shall not, without the

affirmative written consent or approval of the Investor Director, which approval may be granted

by any one (1) of the Investor Directors, take any of the actions on the Affirmative Vote Items,

whether by circular, resolution or otherwise or pursuant to a Board Meeting or a General Meeting.

***

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Alefiyah Shipchandler (Batch of 2019).

Page | 13
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

CRIMINAL LAW

Mithu Singh and Ors. v. Republic of Youngistan

1. “Youngistan”, also called as “the Republic of Youngistan”, with a Parliamentary form of

Government and a constitution that upholds the principles of Democracy, Socialism and

Secularism. The legal system of Youngistan is structured on the common law principles with

the Laws of Youngistan being pari materia to the Laws of the Republic of India. It is a rapidly

growing economy which is witnessing unprecedented growth in several sectors. The country

has multi-ethnic and multi-religious population. Zilli is in one of the most developed states in

Youngistan and also the National Capital. The present Chief Minister Mr. Khajuria is leading

the State since last nine years. While N.M. Tughlaq is the Prime Minister of the country,

Shahuddin Singh is the Home Minister. They belong to the ruling party called the TRP (Tyrant

Ruling Party).

2. It’s been a year and more since the advent of the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. Youngistan is

one of the most hit countries to have suffered major loss of economy and population. While

the nation was coping with the extreme effects of the pandemic, the TRP- led Central-

Government introduced three bills vide which major changes were made in the existing farm

laws. These three farm laws were ridiculed by a major population of the country because of the

grave repercussions and long-term ramifications on the farmers of the nation. It was alleged by

the media and the strata of intellectual class of society that for scoring political gains in the

upcoming state assembly elections, the ruling party lacked the will to tackle the pandemic

efficiently and introduced the Farmers’ Bills solely to divert the attention of the citizens which

the opposition party politicized it for their own political gain. Later, the passing of these Bills

by the Parliament and the final assent by the President led to huge uproar and massive hue and

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Oorjasvi Goswami (Batch of 2018).

Page | 14
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

cry by the farmer groups across the country, especially in 3 states having majority of population

as Farmers. These 3 states were: Chenab, Zilli and Yana.

3. According to the farmers, the Government officers and political leaders are running the

Government in collaboration with the business tycoons of the country and exploiting the poor

farmer class by seeking undue advantage.

4. On an eventful day of 09.04.2021, a group of 4 men: Harry Singh, Ginder Singh, Mithu Singh

and Jash Sharma boarded on a car, were travelling from Zilli to Chenab, where these men were

caught at a Police Check-Post for over-speeding. While conversing with the men, a Police

Officer noticed something unusual and demanded to search the vehicle. Upon search, scuffle

took place between the group of men and the police personnel. Therein, the 4 men were asked

to surrender but two men therein i.e., Ginder and Mithu, instead of surrendering to the police,

took out their pistols and pointed towards the police party, particularly at Inspector Langda

Tyagi, to fire. However, before Mithu and Ginder could fire, a Sub-Inspector got a chance to

overpower them. Ginder Singh and Mithu Singh had loaded pistols in their hands but they were

successfully restrained by the sub inspector and the police party from firing.

5. The four accused persons were arrested and an FIR was registered on 09.04.2021 under Sections

353/186/34, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/27, Arms Act. 1959.

6. The relatives of the Accused persons were informed of the entire scenario over call. Mithi’s

girlfriend Julie with his brother Jawan Singh arrived at the police station the next morning and

sought to see the FIR but were refused by the Police. Despite repeated requests from Julie and

Jawan, the concerned Police officials refused to provide the FIR to them claiming that the FIR

was sealed.

7. After waiting for 12 days, Julie and Jawan engaged an advocate who advised them to approach

the High Court of Zilli to seek the FIR by way of a Writ Petition. On 24th April, 2021 the High

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Oorjasvi Goswami (Batch of 2018).

Page | 15
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Court of Zilli was pleased to pass an order for the release of the FIR and directed the SHO,

Special Cell, Zilli to provide the FIR to the Petitioner.

8. On 07.05.2021, the First Bail Application for Mithu Singh was moved before the concerned

CMM, who rejected the bail application citing the offences to be grave and also on the ground

of impending investigation.

9. On 21.05.2021, the Second Bail application of Mithu was moved before the concerned Sessions

Court. However, the concerned Sessions Judge also rejected the Bail Application of Mithu

Singh citing similar grounds as the CMM.

10. After concurrent rejection of Bail Applications by the Ld. Trial Courts, the Hon’ble High Court

of Zilli vide order dated 08.06.2021 also upheld the order passed by the Sessions Judge.

11. The Charge-sheet was duly filed on 09.06.2021 before the concerned Ld. CMM. An additional

charge was imposed on the Accused persons being S. 25(8), Arms Act, 1959. The Ld. Public

Prosecutor also informed the court of a Supplementary Charge-sheet to be filed soon.

12. Argue for/against grant of Bail to Accused Mithu Singh before the Hon’ble Apex Court of

Youngistan.

(cont. …)

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Oorjasvi Goswami (Batch of 2018).

Page | 16
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE A

FIR No. 00786/2021

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)

1. District: SPECIAL CELL PS, ZILLI. YEAR: 2021

FIR No.: 00786 Date: 09.04.2021

2. Act(s) and Offences: Sec. 186/353/34 of the IPC, 1860 and Sec. 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. Occurrence of Offence:

Day: Intervening day Date From: 08.04.2021 Date To: 09.04.2021

4. Type of Information: Written.

5. Place of Occurrence:

(a) Direction and Distance from P.S.: NIL(s) Beat No.: NIL.

(b) Address: Somewhere near Kotwali PS, Zilli

(c) In case, Outside the limit of the Police Station

Name of P.S.: NIL District: NIL

6. Complainant/Informant:

(a) Name: Inspector Langda Tyagi

(b) Date/Year of Birth: Nationality: Youngian

(c) Passport No.: Date of Issue: Place of Issue:

(d) Occupation: Police Inspector

(e) Address: ZILLI SPECIAL CELL 9SB) SPECIAL CELL (SB), ZILLI, YOUNGISTAN.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Oorjasvi Goswami (Batch of 2018).

Page | 17
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

7. Details of Known/Suspect (Unknown accursed with full particulars (attach separate sheet if

necessary.

(a) GINDER SINGH

(b) MITHU SINGH

(c) HARRY SINGH

(d) JASH SHARMA

8. Reason for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant: NO DELAY.

9. Particulars of the properties stolen/involved (attach separate sheet if necessary):

S. No.: NIL Property Type: NIL Est. value (Rs.): NIL

10. Total value of property stolen: NIL

11. Inquest Report/U.D. case, if any: No

12. FIR Contents (attach separate sheet, if required):

To, Duty Officer,

P.S. Special Cell, Lodhi Colony,

New Delhi.

(a) It is submitted that during the campaign against the illegal weapons and illegal weapons

suppliers, number of criminals have been arrested by Special Cell and large number of Arms

and Ammunition have been recovered from them. Informer have been deputed in Delhi to

prevent crime and smuggling of illegal arms and ammunition. On dated 08.04.2021 at around

7.30 p.m. a deputed informer at Lodhi Cell, Lodhi colony, Delhi informed that a smuggler

named Jash Sharma has been supplying arms and ammunition to criminals of Delhi and will be

coming to Delhi along with his accomplices Ginder, Mithu and Harry through Maruti Swift Car

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Oorjasvi Goswami (Batch of 2018).

Page | 18
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

at around 9.30 p.m. to supply illegal weapons to some of the criminals. If action is taken at

times, so he along with his accomplices may be arrested. This information was brought into

the notice of Senior Officers and they ordered to act on it. On receipt of order from Senior

Officers, a raiding party, consisting of police personnel under the supervision of Inspector

Langda Tyagi was formed.

(b) Coincidentally, these four accused were driving the car at a high speed and therefore were

stopped at the police check post for the same, which was being supervised by Inspector Langda

Tyagi. Thereafter, upon conversing with the driver, the constable present there sensed

something unusual and immediately informed Langda Tyagi about. Subsequently, Langda Tyagi

went to the vehicle and asked all the four accused persons to get out of the car and make

themselves and the vehicle available for the search. On seeing this, the three accused got out of

the car and got very aggressive with the police. And, while doing so, “Mithu” pushed Langda

Tyagi and pointed his pistol at him. At the same time, the driver named “Ginder Singh” put on

the ignition and tried to flee from the scene. However, the police personnel present there

successfully restrained them from firing and fleeing away from the scene.

(c) Thereafter, the accused were arrested and one loaded pistol each was recovered from the

conscious possession of “Mithu” and “Ginder”. Thereafter, the car was searched, upon which,

a black bag having 14 pistols, 32 live cartridges and 14 magazines were recovered from the

dickey of the car. Thereafter, immediately, search-seizure memo, Panchanama and spot map

Panchanama were prepared by the police personnel under the supervision of Inspector Langda

Tyagi.

(d) Against all the aforesaid 4 persons, case for obstructing police personnel to perform their duties,

pointing loaded pistol on police personnel and keeping illegal weapons (pistol) was registered

u/s 186,353,34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. For which, a written complaint was being prepared

and sent to the Police Station.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Oorjasvi Goswami (Batch of 2018).
Page | 19
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Date and time of incident: 08.04.2021 at about 9.45 p.m.,

Place of incident: Main Road adjacent to Kotwali Police Station, Zilli.

13. Action Taken Since the above information reveals commission of offence(s) u/s as mentioned

at Item No. 2:

i) Registered the case and took up the investigation: OR

ii.) Directed (Name of the I.O): INSPECTOR LANGDA TYAGI

iii.) Refused investigation due to Transferred to P.S. (name) OR

iv.) Transferred to PS (name) (District):

FIR read over to the complainant/informant admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given

to the complainant free of cost.

(R.O.A.C.): Sd/-

14. Signature Thumb Impression Signature of Officer of the Complainant

Name: XYZ SINGH

Rank: CONSTABLE

No.: 28031390

15. Date and Time of dispatch to the court.

***

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Oorjasvi Goswami (Batch of 2018).

Page | 20
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE CASE CONCERNING STEEL RAIN

The Republic of Banzai v. Shobu

Dossier of Relevant Documents

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 21
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. ANNEXURE A - Statement of Undisputed Facts.

2. ANNEXURE B – Map of the region.

3. ANNEXURE C - Photograph of the wreckage.

4. ANNEXURE D- Image of the roundel.

5. ANNEXURE E - Declaration made by the Republic of Banzai dated 7th December

1973 under article 36 (2) of the Statute of International Court of Justice.

6. ANNEXURE F - Declaration made by Shobu dated 18th February 1975 under article

36(2) of the Statute of International Court of Justice.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 22
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE A

Statement of Undisputed Facts

1. The State of Kalashnikov (Kalashnikov) and the Republic of Banzai (Banzai) are neighbouring

states in the continent of Furutaka. Both are situated in the western part of Furutaka.

Kalashnikov’s population is chiefly dominated by Supra ethnicity. They constitute about 90

percent of the population. The remaining 10 percent population belongs to the Kimchi ethnicity.

Kalashnikov is a highly industrialized and export-oriented economy.

2. Banzai is a mountainous state and majority of its region is covered by forests and mountains

inhabited by people belonging to the Pho ethnicity in majority. The minority population

comprises of people belonging to the Supra ethnicity residing in small region of Syriano sharing

its boundary with Kalashnikov. Since the region mainly comprises of forests, the population is

heavily dependent on the forest produce and tourism for their livelihood.

3. Till 2015 the relationship between the states of Kalashnikov and Banzai appeared to be cordial

but there were alleged reports of human rights violations in Banzai against the Supra population.

In late 2017, one Mr. Ernesto Venturi formed a group ‘Naginata’ to protect the interests and

rights of the Supra population in Kalashnikov. He started gaining support of the Supra

population and began holding rallies and meetings. This led to him becoming a popular figure

revered by the Supra population.

4. Soon, the government of Kalashnikov found out about Mr. Ernesto Venturi and his group

Naginata and imposed a ban on his activities. Following this Mr. Ernesto Venturi went

undercover and started gaining support for his cause.

5. On 1st January 2020 Mr. Ernesto Venturi stormed into the presidential palace in the capital city

of Kalashnikov. There was intense fighting between the Loyalist forces and members of the

Naginata. Following the fight Mr. Ernesto Venturi took control of the presidential palace. It was

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 23
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

soon found out that Mr. Haruko, the elected president of Kalashnikov was nowhere to be found.

Thus, Mr. Ernesto Venturi declared himself to be the leader of the people of Kalashnikov.

6. On 3rd January 2020 a video was played on major news channels around the world of Mr.

Haruko addressing the people of Kalashnikov expressing his concern as well as his intention to

return as the president of Kalashnikov. Soon after this video there was a major upheaval in the

world politics and the opinion of the states were divided on the point of legality of the newly

established government in Kalashnikov.

7. Whereas in Kalashnikov, soon after assuming power Mr. Ernesto Venturi arrested supporters

of Mr. Haruko and implemented conscription for all men between the age of 18 and 65 years.

He started amassing troops at the Kalashnikov-Banzai border and on 22nd February 2020 issued

a warning to Mr. Manolin, the president of Banzai to immediately stop the alleged human rights

violations against Supra population in Syriano. Mr. Manolin however paid no heed to Mr.

Ernesto Venturi ’s warning.

8. On 22nd February 2020 Mr. Ernesto Venturi launched attack on Banzai. The forces of Banzai

were caught unaware and were outnumbered and outgunned and Mr. Ernesto Venturi was

successful in capturing the territory of Syriano.

9. Mr. Manolin, called the attack a blatant violation of international law and an act of aggression.

An emergency session of United Nations Security Council (herein referred to as the UNSC) was

convened on 23rd February 2020 to address the situation and take further action. UNSC issued

a warning dated 25th February 2020 demanding immediate withdrawal of Mr. Ernesto Venturi

’s forces from the territory of Syriano. Mr. Ernesto Venturi took no cognizance of the same and

continued with the occupation. On 27th February 2020, the UNSC passed a resolution

S/RES/1213(2020) directing the State of Shobu to initiate a military operation against the State

of Kalashnikov and liberate the territory of Syriano as the state of Shobu has its military base

‘Fort Ree’ in the adjoining State of Mordor. The UNSC further directed the states of Athenia

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 24
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

and Lusitania to join the coalition against Kalashnikov under the leadership of Shobu and

launched ‘Operation Kino’.

10. On 1st March 2020 ‘Operation Kino’ began at 05:55 hours under the leadership of Colonel

Kurtz (the supreme commander of coalition forces) from ‘Fort Ree’ in Mordor towards Syriano.

Operation Kino was met with fierce resistance from the occupying forces and the battle raged

on for 2 days and still the coalition forces were unable to enter Syriano. On the realization that

the occupying forces had been using the dense forest cover to their advantage, Colonel Kurtz

decided to launch airstrikes to deprive the occupying forces of their advantage. On 3rd March

at about 22:30 hours two B-52 bombers took off from Fort Ree with a fighter escort. The

bombers were armed with canisters called the ‘Steel Rain’ carrying herbicide and defoliant

chemical. However, the occupying forces intercepted the air attack and shot down one of the

bombers with SAM (Surface to Air Missile). But the other bomber delivered its pay load and

returned to Fort Ree.

11. On the following morning at 07:00 hours the troops of the coalition forces crossed into Syriano

and were engaged in a brutal fight with the occupying forces. Finally, the occupying forces were

defeated and the coalition forces handed over the administration of Syriano to Mr. Manolin.

12. Following the defeat in Syriano, Mr. Ernesto Venturi lost public support and this prompted Mr.

Haruko to return back to Kalashnikov. Mr. Haruko assumed office as the President and ordered

the arrest of Mr. Ernesto Venturi. Subsequently Mr. Ernesto Venturi was arrested.

13. On 5th April 2020 a newspaper report was published on the basis of the research conducted by

the National Research Institute of Banzai elaborating the effects of Steel Rain on the vegetation

and plantation of Syriano. This report also highlighted the various instances bought forth by the

inhabitants of Syriano highlighting the damage to their food-crops and the forests and how the

existence of the chemical has affected the soil, water, sediments, the food supply and the health

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 25
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

of the people. This was followed by discovery of a wreckage of a B-52 bomber having Mordor

roundel.

14. On 12th April 2020 the State of Banzai demanded compensation to the tune of 10 million dollars

from the State of Shobu claiming ecocide. This was followed by a series of negotiations between

the governments of Shobu and Banzai wherein Shobu denied the liability and the negotiations

ended in a stalemate.

15. On 19th April the State of Banzai and Shobu approached the International Court of Justice.

For the purpose of this case these are the following issues pending before the

International Court of Justice seated at The Hague:

1. Whether ecocide has been committed in the territory of Syriano?

2. Whether the State of Shobu is solely responsible for committing ecocide in the territory of

Syriano?

3. Whether Shobu has violated the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other

Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1977 (ENMOD Convention)?

4. Whether the coalition forces have violated the principles of International Humanitarian

Law?

5. Whether the State of Banzai is entitled to receive compensation from the State of Shobu?

For the purpose of this case all the states mentioned above have signed and ratified the

following:

1. United Nations Charter, 1945

2. Statute of International Court of Justice, 1946.

3. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental

Modification Techniques, 1977 (ENMOD Convention)

4. Four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

5. Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (AP I, AP II and AP III).

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 26
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE B
Map of the Region

Disclaimer: The image used is for illustrative purposes only and the drafters do not intend
to use them to draw any link to any fact outside the ambit of the problem.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 27
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE C
Photograph of the wreckage

Disclaimer: The image used is for illustrative purposes only and the drafters do not
intend to use them to draw any link to any fact outside the ambit of the problem.

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 28
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE D
Image of the roundel

Disclaimer: The image used is for illustrative purposes only and the drafters do not
intend to use them to draw any link to any fact outside the ambit of the problem

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 29
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE E
Declaration made by the Republic of Banzai dated 7th December 1973 under article 36

(2) of the Statute of International Court of Justice

Declaration made by the Republic of Banzai under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the

International Court of Justice recognising Jurisdiction of the International Court of

Justice as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement.

Date: 7th December 1973

Day: Friday

The Republic of Banzai declares that it recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special

agreement, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in conformity with paragraph 2 of

Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to the Secretary-

General of the United Nations withdrawing this declaration. This declaration shall be effective

immediately and shall include the acceptance of jurisdiction of the Court to disputes brought by

States not party to the Statute of the Court but capable of approaching the Court under Article

35(2) without any further explicit agreement.

DONE at Banzai this 7th Day of December 1973

(Signed)

G. Harper Fitzgerald

Minister for Foreign Affairs,

Republic of Banzai

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 30
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ANNEXURE F
Declaration made by Shobu dated 18th February 1975 under article 36(2) of the Statute of

International Court of Justice

Date: 17th February 1975

Day: Monday

The state of Shobu declares that it recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special

agreement, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in conformity with paragraph 2 of

Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to the Secretary-

General of the United Nations withdrawing this declaration. This declaration shall be effective

immediately and shall include the acceptance of jurisdiction of the Court to disputes brought by

States not party to the Statute of the Court but capable of approaching the Court under Article

35(2) without any further explicit agreement.

DONE at Shobu this 17th Day of February 1975

(Signed)

Emily Lee

Minister for Foreign Affairs,

Shobu.

***

This fictional moot problem is drafted by Prof. Divya Mittal and Prof. Rohit Bokil.
Page | 31
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

CONTACT DETAILS

Official Email Address: [email protected]

Neha Dhavalikar Iha Krishna

+91 9156236234 +91 835596181

Saee Hingmire Anoushka Gahilot

+91 7720035408 +91 9373205338

Priyanka Limaye Ashok Pandey

+91 9819096879 +91 9820110097

Yamini Jain

+91 9156371108

***

Page | 32