JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2017

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CRYSTALDEN

In the Proceedings Between

(WRIT PETITION NO_____/2017)

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SHADOWMOOR

MR. JADEN (GINGER PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD…PETITIONER

VERSUS

CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION…..RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT OF CRYSTALDEN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 1

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………........04

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………….........06

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………09

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………10

ISSUES INVOLVED………………………………….…………………………………….12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………….………………………..14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………16

1. WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY CITIZEN HAS BEEN

AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOARD (RESPONDENT).………..……….......16
1.1. Whether Mr. Jaden is a citizen of the State………………………………….……………16
1.2. Whether the Petitioner can take the plea and stand of Fundamental Rights………...17
1.3. Whether Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. is a citizen and hence complies with the
Fundamental Rights………………………………………………………..…….…………….…18

2 WHETHER THE MOVIE ‘RICKY PONTO- A STORY TO BE TOLD’ SHOULD BE

CATEGORIZED WITH AN ‘A’ RATING……………………………………..…….………..….22
2.1. Whether the movie ‘Ricky Ponto- A Story to be Told’, is an obscene movie as
mentioned in Section 292 of the SPC………………………………………………………...…22
2.2. Whether the movie is ‘harmful’ and ‘an offense’ to children as guaranteed under
‘The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956 and Section 293 of the SPC…….24
2.3. Whether the movie affects the ‘religious-moral standards’ of the citizens of
Shadowmoor……………………………………………………..…….………………………..…25
2.4. Whether the movie is ‘obscene’ as it has caused an annoyance to Mr. Ponto on whom
the movie is made under the ambit of Section 294 of the SPC……………………………...26

3. WHETHERTHE INTERVENING ACT OF MR. PONTO IN THE WRIT PETITION

SUPPORTING THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENT IS JUSTICIABLE….……………..28
3.1. Whether there is a reasonable contemplation……………………………………...…...28

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 2

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

3.2. Whether the movie depicted on the life of Mr. Ponto was an ‘obscene libel’
publication………………………………………………………………………………………….…29

4. WHETHER THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CRYSTALDEN SHOULD REFER THE

PARTIES TO ARBITRATION……………………………….…………………..…………….…31
4.1. Whether the dispute is arbitrary…………………….……………..…………………….31
4.2. Whether there is a breach of contract by the petitioner…………..…………………..32

PRAYER…………………………………………………….……………………………..35

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 3

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R : All India Reporters

Anr. : Another

Art., Arts. : Article, Articles

Cl., cls. : Clause, Clauses

FRs : Fundame ntal Rights

Govt. : Government of

H. C. : High Court

Hon’ble : Honorable

Ibid : Ibide m

i.e. : That is

J. : Justice

No. : Number

Ors. : Others

P., pp : Page, Pages

s.s : sub-section

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

SC : Supreme Court of India

Sd/- : Signed

SCR : Supreme Court Reporter

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 4

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

SPC : Shadowmoor Penal Code

v. : Versus

Vol. : Volume

Viz. : “as follows”

& : And

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 5

 JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952

2. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

3. COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957

4. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

5. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

6. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

7. THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

8. The CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955

9. THE YOUNG PERSONS PUBLICATION ACT, 1956

10. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (Thomson West, Eight Edition, 2004)

2. Dr. Rega Surya Rao, Lectures on Constitutional Law, (Asia Law House, Hyderabad,
Second Edition, 2016)

3. H. K. Saharay, The Constitutition of India – an Analytical Approach, (Eastern Law

House, New Delhi, Fourth Edition, 2012)

4. Mahendra Pal Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, (Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow, Twelve Edition, 2015).

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 6

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

5. P.M. Bakshi, The constitution of India, (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd, New
Delhi-India, Twelfth Edition, 2015),

6. Prof. M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (Lexis Nexis ButterWorths, Wadhwa,

Nagpur, Sixth Edition, 2009)

7. Prof. S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, (Central Law Publication, Eight Edition, 2012)

8. Inder S. Rana, Law of Obscenity in India, USA & UK, (K. M. Mittal for Mittal
Publications, New Delhi, First Edition, 1990)

9. Dr. S. C. Tripathi, Modern Company Law, (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, Second
Edition, 2006)

10. Susan Barber, Company Law, (Old Bailey Press, London, Third Edition, 2001)

11. A.K Majumdar & Dr. G. K. Kapoor, Company Law and Practice, (Taxmann Publications
Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Thirteenth Edition, 2008)

12. David Hay, Halbury’s Law of India, Butterworths India, New Delhi, Vol. no. 9, 2001)

13. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, New
Delhi, Thirtieth Edition, 2004)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Barium Chemical v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295.

2. Bath v. Standard Land Co., (1910) 2 Ch 408.

3. M/S Electronics Corporation of India Ltd v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government

of A.P and others, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1734.

4. Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. v. The Central Board of Certification, Writ Petition (L) 1529 of
2016.

5. R. v. Hicklin, (1868) LR 3 QB 360.

6. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills v. Kanhayalal, (1961) AC 12 (PC).

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 7

 JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

7. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 1 SCR 65; SC 881.

8. Reginald Mengi v. Sarah Hermitage, (2012) E.W.H.C. 3445 (Q.B.).

9. Rex v. Curl, 93 Eng. Rep. 849 K.B. (1727).

10. State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2012 (Arising out of
S.L.P (Criminal) No. 5667 of 2008).

11. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 184.

12. Stoeck v. Public Trustee, [1921] CH 67 at 78, convention relating to the status of
stateless person (New York, 28th September 1954).

13. Tennant v. Stanley; in re Stanley, (1906) 1, Ch. 131

14. Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors, (1999) 8 SCC 686.

15. Zafar Ahmad Khan v. The State, AIR 1963 All. 105.

ARTICLES/JOURNALS

1. J.E. Hall Williams, Obscenity In Modern English Law, available at

[Link]

2. Betsy Bozdech, Parenting, Media, and Everything In Between, available at

[Link] family- movies-that-could-traumatize-
[Link]

3. Henkin, Morals and the Constitution - The Sin of Obscenity, Columbia Law Review, Vol.
63, Issue no. 3, March 1963

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 8

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This writ Petition is being filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Crystalden
under the Original Writ Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are
based.
The Respondent humbly submits before the Jurisdiction of this Court.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 9

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background of the State: Shadowmoor is a country located in the continent of Fogcoast

having Crystalden as its capital which is also the home to Windwood, the film industry of
Shadowmoor. It is a vast country with a population of almost a billion people and movies are
revered as a religion in the country.

Mr. Ricky Ponto: A 29 years old famous football player and a success youth icon of
Shadowmoor. He had a very tough childhood as a Child and since he was an orphan he had to
work in a firecracker factory and was treated badly by his masters.

Mr. Jaden: The owner of Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the
Companies Act of Shadowmoor, 2013 with its headquarters in Crystalden.

Central Board of Film Certification: A Statutory body under Ministry of Information

and Broadcasting of Shadowmoor, which regulates the public exhibition of films under the
provisions of the Shadowmoor Cinematograph Act, 1952. As per the provisions of this Act,
films can be publicly exhibited in Shadowmoor only after they have been certified by the
Board.

Mr. Jaden approached Mr. Ricky and requested for rights to make a biopic on him. Mr. Ponto
sold the rights to make the movie for consideration of one dollar. As per the agreement,
Ginger productions had full liberty to dramatize Mr. Ponto’s life and make the movie
economically viable. Mr. Ponto also made an oral request that since he was a youth icon, the
movie to be made in such a manner that children could after watching be inspired. Mr. Jaden
orally promised to keep this in mind while making the movie. The contract also contained the
clauses that;
(i) In case any dispute arises in connection with the agreement, it shall initially be attempted
to be resolved in an amicable manner. If the attempt fails, the matter shall be re solved
through arbitration before a panel of 3 arbitrators.
(ii) Both parties agree not to raise any dispute in relation to this agreement before any court
or tribunal without first attempting to resolve the dispute in accordance with clause (i)
hereinabove.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 10

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

(iii) In case, either party breaches any term or provision of this agreement, the other party
shall be entitled to claim liquidated damages amounting 10 million dollars.
(iv) The agreement may be amended or waived only with consent of both the parties, and any
such amendment will be binding on the parties. Such amendments may be oral or written.

Before the release of the movie ‘Ricky Ponto – A story to be Told’, the Board after
examination, recommended 52 excisions and directed that 112 dialogues to be deleted, and
the film was approved for release to the public with ‘Adult’ rating. Most of these scenes,
were showcasing the life of Mr. Ponto as an orphan working in the firecracker factory and
being mentally and physically exploited by the factory owners. Since Ginger Productions was
very keen to show the hardship suffered by Mr. Ponto during his early years in an accurate
manner, it filed an appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal upheld the order of the
Certification Board. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Ginger Productions
through Mr. Jaden filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Crystalden. The
Certification Board was also made a party to the dispute and it contends that no fundamental
rights of any citizen were being violated.

When Mr. Ponto heard that the Board had recommended that the movie be given an ‘Adult’
rating was upset considering his request to Mr. Jaden regarding the movie to be an inspiration
to children, he decided to file an intervention in the writ petition supporting the stand of the
Certification Board and also alleging breach of contract by Ginger Productions and claiming
damages of 100 million dollars.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 11

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

ISSUES INVOLVED

CONTENTION 1: WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY CITIZEN

HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOARD (RESPONDENT)

1.1. Whether Mr. Jaden is a citizen of the State.

1.2. Whether the Petitioner can take the plea and stand of Fundamental Rights.

1.3. Whether Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. is a citizen and hence complies with the
Fundamental Rights.

CONTENTION 2: WHETHER THE MOVIE ‘RICKY PONTO- A STORY TO BE

TOLD’ SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED WITH AN ‘A’ RATING

2.1. Whether the movie ‘Ricky Ponto- A Story to be Told’, is an obscene movie as
mentioned in Section 292 of the SPC

2.2. Whether the movie is ‘harmful’ and ‘an offense’ to children as guaranteed under
‘The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956 and Section 293 of the SPC

2.3. Whether the movie affect the ‘religious-moral standards’ of the citizens of
Shadowmoor.

2.4. Whether the movie is ‘obscene’ as it has caused an annoyance to Mr. Ponto on
whom the movie is made under the ambit of Section 294 of the SPC.

CONTENTION 3: WHETHERTHE INTERVENING ACT OF MR. PONTO IN THE

WRIT PETITION SUPPORTING THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENT IS
JUSTICIABLE.

3.1. Whether there is a reasonable contemplation.

3.2. Whether the movie depicted on the life of Mr. Ponto was an ‘obscene libel’
publication.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 12

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

CONTENTION 4: WHETHER THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CRYSTALDEN

SHOULD REFER THE PARTIES TO ARBITRATION

4.1. Whether the dispute is arbitrary.

4.2. Whether there is a breach of contract by the petitioner.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 13

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION 1: THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS HAS NOT

BEEN AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOARD (RESPONDENT)
As per the facts of the present case, Mr. Jaden is an American citizen. Taking into
consideration that the Petitioner is a foreigner in the State of Shadowmoor, and thereby
enjoys a number of rights, yet he cannot take the plea of Fundamental Rights of Free Speech
and Expression under Art. 19, as guaranteed by the State of Shadowmoor under Part III of the
Constitution. Further, even though the company, i.e., Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. has been
registered under the Shadowmoor Companies Act, 2013 and having its headquarter in
Crystalden, however, it cannot claim the protection of Fundamental Rights since it is not a
natural person, even though it enjoys a certain legal rights. According to Part II of the
Constitution of Shadowmoor only natural persons can c laim citizenship. This right cannot,
therefore, be exercised by artificial or juristic persons, i.e., the Company.

CONTENTION 2: WHETHER THE MOVIE ‘RICKY PONTO- A STORY TO BE

TOLD’ SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED WITH AN ‘A’ RATING

The movie made by the Petitioner in this case, is solely based on the life story of Mr. Ricky
Ponto. Mr. Ponto as a child had to work in a firecracker factory where he was exploited
physically and mentally by the owners. The term ‘physically exploited’ indicates that the
child was either physically harassed (i.e. beating), or that he was harassed sexually. The
Petitioner while depicting such scenes in the movie has shown it in an exaggerating manner
which in turn becomes harmful if such scenes is shown to children. Thus, it is an offence to
distribute such material to persons of minority age under the Young Persons (Harmful
Publications) Act, 1956 and under S. 293 of the SPC, 1860. Further, such scenes affect the
moral values and religious sentiments of the people of Shadowmoor since they revered
movies as religion in the county.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 14

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

CONTENTION 3: THAT THE INTERVENING ACT OF MR. PONTO IN THE

WRIT PETITION SUPPORTING THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENT IS
JUSTICIABLE.

The intervening act by Mr. Ponto is quite justiciable in the present case as the Petitioner had
full knowledge and contemplation that the movie should be made in such a manner so it
could inspire the youths of society. However, the scenes used by the Petitioner in the movie
had affect Mr. Ponto’s interests and personal life. Therefore, though Order II and Rule XXIV
of the CPC, Mr. Ponto has exclusive rights to intervene as the matter which is in disputes
revolves around his character and interest. Further, the movie made by the Petitioner is
‘defaming’ in nature and he therefore has the right to protect his image and reputation from
being defamed as protected under S. 499 of the SPC. The movie should therefore, be
subjected to alterations and excisions of the scenes and dialogues as recomme nded by the
Board, i.e., the Respondent.

CONTENTION 4: THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CRYSTALDEN

SHOULD NOT REFER THE PARTIES TO ARBITRATION.

The dispute which arises in the present case is not a civil matter but a criminal matter as the
movie was given an ‘A’ rating as categorized by the Board implying to obscene scenes under
s. 292 of the Shadowmoor penal Code. Since an arbitral tribunal can only hear matters of
civil disputes, therefore, this matter should be resolved through the proceedings of this
Hon’ble High Court. Further, the Petitioner totally ignored the interests of Mr. Ricky Ponto to
inspire the youth though the movie and his action has defeated this interest by making the
movie in a manner restricted to only the ‘Adult’ audiences which serve only his own personal
economic interests. Therefore, there is a clear breach of contract by the Petitioner and Mr.
Ricky Ponto is entitled to claim liquidated damages from the Petitioner. The Petitioner is
liable to pay to Mr. Ricky Ponto 10 million dollars as liquidated damages as laid down in
clause (iii) of the agreement between the Petitioner as Mr. Ricky Ponto for the breach of
contract and an additional 90 million dollars for degrading the character of Mr. Ponto through
the movie which will ultimately affect his career and the name of the brands that he endorses.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 15

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1: THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF

CITIZENS HAS NOT BEEN AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE
BOARD (RESPONDENT)

1.1. That Mr. Jaden is not a citizen of the State.

1. The respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Crystalden and
contends that as per the facts stated in the present case, Mr. Jaden is an American
citizen. 1 The State of Shadowmoor provides to its Nationals certain rights and
privileges in a sovereign state. Part II of the Constitution of Shadowmoor and the
Shadowmoor Citizenship Act, 1955 lays down various provisions relating to
citizenship and their rights.

2. Citizen under the Citizenship Act 1995 says:

Parliament in exercise of its powers under Art. 11 of the Constitution of Shadowmoor
passed the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Act makes provision for the acquisition and the
termination of citizenship, after the commencement of the Constitution, in five ways
as follows:
(i) Citizenship by Birth (S. 3)
(ii) Citizenship by Descent (S. 4)
(iii) Citizenship by Registration (S. 5)
(iv) Citizenship by Naturalization (S. 6); and
(v) Citizenship by Incorporation of territory (S. 7) 2
Foreigners and Aliens
‘Aliens’ and ‘Foreigners’ include both person having the nationality and c itizenship
of some other sovereign state recognized by the County and the Stateless person. A
person is stateless if he is not the national of any state accord ing to its municipal

1
Moot Proposition, para 3, at p. 1
2
Halsbury’s Law of India, Children and Young persons, Citizenship and Migration, Civil Aviation, Vo l. 6,
1999, at p. 83

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 16

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

laws. 3 The word ‘foreigner’ in Shadowmoor is defined as a person who is not a citizen
of Shadowmoor, 4 as defined in S. 2 (a) of The Foreigners Act, 1946.

3. It needs to be clear that Mr. Jaden is not and cannot be considered a citizen of
Shadowmoor for he does not fulfill the clauses under the provisions of citizenship be
it through registration of the company he is representing, and that he has no intention
of being a citizen as he is already a citizen of America. Therefore, Mr. Jaden who
represents Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. is not a citizen of the State of Shadowmoor
and so he cannot take the plea and stand of the Fundamental Rights under the
Constitution of Shadowmoor, as they are not guaranteed to him in the first place.

1.2. That the Petitioner cannot take the plea and stand of Fundamental
Rights.
1. The framers of the Constitution of Shadowmoor while framing the Fundamental Rights
took caution as to what fundamental rights should be given to foreigners and what
rights have to be specifically reserved for the citizens of Shadowmoor. Accordingly,
only the following rights are available to foreign nationals:
(i) Art. 14 - Right to equality before law and equal protection of laws
(ii) Art. 20 - Right to protection in respect of conviction for offences
(iii) Art. 21- Right to protection of life and personal liberty
(iv) Art. 21A - Right to elementary education
(v) Art. 22 - Right to protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
(vi) Art. 23 - Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
(vii) Art. 24 - Prohibition of employment of children in factories etc.,
(viii) Art. 25 - Right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice
and propagation of religion
(ix) Art. 26 - Right to freedom to manage religious affairs
(x) Art. 27 - Right to freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any
religion
(xi) Art. 28 - Right to freedom from attending religious instruction or worship
in certain educational institutions.
3
Stoeck v. Public Trustee, [1921] CH 67 at 78, convention relating to the status of stateless person (New Yo rk
28th September 1954)
4
The Foreigners Act, 1946

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 17

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

While the foreigners enjoy the above Fundamental Rights, However they're not
entitled to enjoy the rights as the following;
(i) Art. 15- Prohibition of discrimination
(ii) Art. 16 - Equality of opportunity (reservation)
Art. 16 (2) - No discrimination in public employment
(iii) Art. 19 - Right to freedom.
(iv) Art. 29 - Protection of language, script and culture of minorities
(v) Art. 30 - Right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions

2. The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that the right to life and liberty (Art. 21) is
available to foreign nationals besides the citizens of India in response to an FIR filed
by police against three Uganda nationals. It observed;

“Article 21 of the Constitution [right to life and liberty] applies to all citizens,
whether Indian or foreign nationals. Their right to liberty could not be restrained
by the police due to a business dispute."
However, in an earlier case filed in the Bombay High Court in 2010, the Union of
India had argued that not all the clauses of Fundamental Rights under the Arts. 14 and
21 are available to foreigners. So with the facts stated, Mr. Jaden cannot take plea and
grounds of Fundamental Rights as he is only guaranteed only few rights which are the
only the basic and civil rights that any other Foreigner can receive from the State
where he is currently conducting his business.

1.3. That Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. is not a citizen and hence does not
comply with the Fundamental Rights.
1. As per the given facts, Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. is a registered company under the
Companies Act of Shadowmoor, 2013. The word ‘company’ has no strictly technical
or legal meaning. It may be described to imply an association of person for some
common object or objects. The purpose, for which people may associate themselves
are multifarious and included economic as well as non-economic objectives. But, in
company’s parlance, the word ‘company’ is normally reserved for those associated for
a particular economic purpose, i.e., to carry on a business for gain.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 18

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

2. As used in the aforesaid sense, the word ‘company’, in simple terms, may be
described to mean a voluntary association of persons who have come together for
carrying on some business and sharing some profits therefrom. 5 However in the view
of Buckley J., 6 the expression ‘Company’ has no strict technical meaning, it contains
two elements:
(i) That the association of persons, not described as a firm;
(ii) That the consent of all the other members is not required to the transfer of the
interest of the members, it is to be noted that these elements are applicable to
both the incorporated as well as the unincorporated companies.

4. It is a settled legal position that an incorporated company is a legal person separate

from its members forming it, whereas an unincorporated company is not treated as a
legal person7 , On the findings of the Apex Court in the case of M/S Electronics
Corporation of India Ltd v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of A.P
and others8 , it observed that “a company registered under the Company’s Act 1956 is
a legal distinct entity/personality other than the legal entity or entities that holds its
share.

5. Persons in charge of the Company:

It can be seen clearly that in a Company, there are three distinct elements:
(i) The Company itself;
(ii) Its management (board of directors);
(iii) Its proprietors (share-holders).
In this situation one of the main elements we are dealing of is the management of the
Company that is the Board of Directors.

5.1. Directors as organs of the company

In the eye of the law there are two types of persons- the artificial person and the
natural person. A company being an artificial person has to be managed and
controlled by natural persons. These natural persons are directors of the Company.

5
A .K. Maju mdar & Dr. G.K. Kapoor, Taxman’s Company’s Law and Practice, (Th irteen edition, 2008) at p.
11
6
Tennant v. Stanley; in re Stanley, (1906) 1, Ch. 131
7
Dr. S. C. Tripathi, Modern Company Law, (Second Edit ion, 2006) at p. 18
8
A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1734.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 19

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

They are the brain and mind of the artificial person (the company). In this case the
main issue on contention is to show the connection of Mr. Jaden acting on behalf
of Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd as related on the findings of the case of Ram
Chand & Sons Sugar Mills v. Kanhayalal9 , and where it was held that the
directors are professional men, hired by the company to control, supervise and
manage the affairs of the company, also regarded as officers of the company. A
director is not a servant of any master; he cannot be described as a servant of the
company or of anyone. 10

5.2. Director’s as agents of corporate body:

It is a well settled legal principal that the directors are agents of the company.
They act on behalf of the principal (company). 11 As the directors are taken to be
agents of the company up to some extent, the directors have control of the
company’s assets and business and they have obligation (called duties)towards the
company which have some features derived either from the Law of trusts or from
the Law of Agency, but which do not correspond exactly with either. They are not
answerable to the share- holders as proprietors through Modern Statute Law
require the directors to provide them with much detailed information. The
directors are however answerable to the company in ge neral meeting in a number
of respects. 12

6. As per the moot proposition the Company i.e., Ginger Productions was functioning
through Mr. Jaden who acts as the Director of the Company, and so it is clear that
Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd being represented by Mr. Jaden cannot take claims of
rights conferred to a citizens of Shadowmoor. In this case, the company acting as an
artificial person cannot comply with the said Articles as it is specifically reserved for
the citizens of Shadowmoor and the Petitioner, hence, cannot use claims of such.
Moreover if we speak particularly of the person acting on behalf of the Company i.e.,
Mr. Jaden, he cannot take such claims and plea that his Fundamental Rights have been
invaded or infringed for the very fact that he himself is entitled only to rights of an
alien or the rights entitled to a foreigner.
9
(1961) A C 12 (PC).
10
Bath v. Standard Land Co., (1910) 2 Ch 408.
11
Dr. S. C. Tripathi, Modern Company Law, (Second Edit ion, 2006) at p. 138
12
Susan Barber, Company Law, (Th ird Ed ition, 2001) at p. 204

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 20

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

7. Under the Constitution of Shadowmoor, a Company or Corporation is not a natural

citizen of Shadowmoor but a juristic person. A juristic person also called an artificial
person is a person or an entity, and such can be a corporation as well created by law
and is given certain legal rights and liabilities that of a human being; it being real or
imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human
being and also an entity is a person for purpose of the due process and Equal
Protection Clauses but is not a citizen for the purpose of the Privilege and Immunities
Clauses. 13 Citizenship has been defined in Part II of the Constitution of Shadowmoor
which states that only the natural persons can claim citizenship. A Company or
Corporation being a juristic person cannot claim citizenship eithe r under the
Constitution of Shadowmoor, 1950 or Under Citizenship Act, 1955. The Supreme
Court held that Company or Corporation is not a citizen of Shadowmoor and hence it
cannot claim Fundamental Rights conferred by the citizens of Shadowmoor. 14 On the
findings of the case of Barium Chemical v. Company Law Board,15 the Supreme
Court has held that a Company being an artificial person cannot claim the protection
of Article 19. The Company is not a citizen and hence has no Fundamental Rights.
However only the Fundamental Right like the Right to Equality (Article 14), which
provides for the Protection of ‘person’ are available to a Company or Corporation.

13
Bryan A Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (Eighth Edit ion, 2004) at p. 1178
14
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 184.
15
AIR 1967 SC 295.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 21

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

CONTENTION 2: THAT THE MOVIE ‘RICKY PONTO- A STORY TO

BE TOLD’ SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED WITH AN ‘A’ RATING

Any movie is categorized with an ‘A’ rating when it consists with elements of, viz.,
prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphics sexual contents and/or gambling with real
currency. In this context, the movie ‘Ricky Ponto - A Story to be Told’ revolves around the
life story of Mr. Ponto, which depicts child labour in a firecracker factory. The work
conditions of children in firecracker factories are worst because they are often exploited with
harsh violence which usually affects their mental psychology and deprives them of leisure.
Hence, this movie should be categorized with an ‘A’ rating, since it is unsuitable for children
to watch such a movie as it may affect their mental state and in order to prevent them from
such mental trauma 16 , it must be restricted to only few members of the society.

2.1. That the movie ‘Ricky Ponto- A Story to be Told’, is an obscene

movie as mentioned in S. 292 of the SPC
1. It is humbly submitted that, the movie should be given with an ‘A’ rating as it is
obscene. The parental test of ‘obscenity’ was laid down in R v. Hicklin17 .The issue
was the statutory interpretation of the word ‘obscene’ in the Obscene Publications
Act, 1857, which authorized the destruction of obscene books or any other materials.
The court held that all material tending “to deprave and corrupt those whose minds
are open to such immoral influences” was obscene, regardless of its artistic or literary
merit.

2. It is further submitted that, S. 292 of the SPC provides;

“For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing,
painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene
if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or(where it
comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is if taken
as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having

16
Betsy Bo zdech, Parenting, Media, and Everything In Between, (07/01/2017; 8:00 PM) available at
[Link] [Link]/blog/watch-out-family -movies-that-could-traumat ize -[Link]
17
(1868) LR 3 QB 360.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 22

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or
embodied in it;”

3. Further, as regards in the Hicklin’s case, the interest of the contemporary society of
Shadowmoor, and particularly the influence of the book or any other material must
not be overlooked. 18 The Supreme Court has observed that the test of obscenity laid
down by Cockburn C.J. in Hicklin’s case should not be discarded. It has held that
obscenity without a preponderating social purpose of profit cannot have the
constitutional protection of free speech and expression and obscenity in treating sex in
a manner appealing to the carnal side of human nature or having that tendency. 19 In
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra,20 while considering the question of
obscenity of a publication, the Court has to see whether a class, not an isolated case,
into whose hands the book, article, picture or story falls suffer in their moral outlook
or become depraved by reading or looking at it or might have impure and lecherous
thoughts aroused in their minds. It is also held in this case that any material can be
regarded as ‘obscenity’ if it is made with an intention of commercial purpose and no
other social purpose, it cannot have the fundamental protection of freedom of speech
and expression.

4. The basic consideration from the part of Mr. Jaden and his Company in the agreement
with Mr. Ricky Ponto is to make the movie in such a manner as to make it
“Economically Viable”. The meaning of the word ‘economically viable’ refers to
something which is productive and which has a market value which is greater enough
to make profit for the owner of such goods or services. Economic viability is when a
project proves to be economically feasible, innovative and sustainable in terms of
investing financial resources into the project. 21 Therefore, Mr. Jaden and his
company, Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. had made the movie in a manner which
contains scenes capable of gaining unnecessary public attention in order to make it
feasible in the market for their own personal benefit. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot

18
Prof. S.N. M ishra, Indian Penal Code, (Sixteenth Edition, 2008) at p. 431
19
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (Thirtieth Edit ion, 2004) at p. 399
20
(1965) 1 SCR 65; SC 881.
21
[Link] m (05/01/2017; 12:41 PM ) available at <[Link] m/world -view/economic -
viability-6d24368d0bb855a3#>

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 23

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

take the plea of the freedom of the press and cannot say that he was only doing for the
interests of children of that society.
5. It is further humbly submitted that, under S. 67 of The Information Technology Act,
2000, penalises the publication or transmission of any material, in electronic form,
which is lascivious or appeals to prurient interests or if its effect is such as to tend to
deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter contained or
embodied therein.

2.2. The movie is ‘harmful’ and ‘an offense’ to children as guaranteed

under The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956 and S.
293 of the SPC.
1. It is humbly submitted that, the movie ‘ Ricky Ponto-A Story to be Told’ is harmful to
children as it involves real life scenes of child exploitation and harassment even
though the Petitioner was keen to show the hardships endured by Mr. Ponto so as to
encourage the youths or the children to be inspired from it. As mentioned in Section 2
of ‘The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act’;
a) “harmful publication” means any book, magazines, pamphlets, leaflet,
newspaper or other like publication which consists of stories told with the aid of
pictures or without the aid of pictures or wholly in pictures, being stories
portraying wholly or mainly-

i) the commission of offences ; or

ii) acts of violence or cruelty ; or
iii)incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature in such a way that the
publication as a whole would tend to corrupt a young person into whose
hands it might fall, whether by inciting or encouraging him to commit
offences or acts of violence or cruelty or in any other manner
whatsoever;

2. It is the contention of the counsel for the Respondent that the movie may be harmful
to minors as any child who after watching the movie ‘Ricky Ponto-A Story to be
Told’ may imitate like what the characters in the movie are acting or may become
physically aggressive or some sensitive and immature children may be affected
mentally as it includes all exploitation and harassment of adult worke rs and most

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 24

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

especially that of children working in such industries. 22 As was in the case where a
ten-year-old boy died by hanging on a rope as he had imitated the scene of a mock
hanging which he had witnessed in an evening television movie, for he thought he
could escape death as the actor in the movie had, but unfortunate ly he didn’t. 23 This
case clearly shows that a child’s mind is vulnerable to all the things which he/she
comes across. Hence, the movie should be restricted to the adults only as it may have
a bad and evil influence on such members of the society, particularly, children.

3. Furthermore, the selling of any obscene materials (e.g., books, pamphlets, writings,
articles, etc) to “young person” who is under the “age of 20 years” is an offense as
mentioned in Section 293 of SPC. Therefore, the Petitioner’s contention that the
movie should not be restricted to any members of the society, i.e., it should be
published for the children to get inspired from such scenes should be considered as an
offense under this Section.

2.3. The movie is ‘obscene’ as it may affect the ‘religious-moral standards’

of the citizens of Shadowmoor.
1. The Respondent humbly submits that as per the facts of the present case,
“Shadowmoor is a vast country” and “movies are revered as a religion in the
country.”24 Here ‘religion’ implies the moral aspects held by the citizens of
Shadowmoor. As stated, “Immorality should be done away within a healthy society in
the interest of the ‘moral purgation’ and ‘spiritual strength of the community’.”25
Moreover, ‘obscenity’ corrupts not only the individual reader but also shakes the
‘moral texture’ of society in the garb of true freedom of expression. 26 Censorship, on
the other hand, is a process of imposing checks, direct or indirect, government or

22
Joanne Cantor, The Psychological Effects of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents, (15/01/2017,
07:59 PM) available at
<[Link] m/wp -
content/uploads/media_violence_paper.pdf>
23
Victor B. Cline, Obscenity- How It A ffects Us, How We can Deal with it, (08/01/2017, 7:35 PM) available at
<[Link] 04/obscenity-how-it-affects-us-how-we-can-deal-with-it?lang=eng>
24
Moot Proposition, para 1, at p. 1
25
Henkin, Morals and the Constitution - The Sin o f Obscenity, Colu mbia Law Rev iew, Vo l. 63, Issue no. 3,
March 1963
26
Inder S. Rana, Law of Obscenity In India, USA & UK, (First Edit ion, 1990) at p. 9

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 25

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

otherwise, on the exercise of one’s right to free speech. Apparently, this phenomenon
can be perceived as an unnecessary curb on one’s basic right to liberty. But on a
closer examination, it can be looked at in the form of a necessary evil – a limitation on
one’s human rights in order to uphold the community’s human rights. 27

2. Furthermore, the imposition of certain standard s of public and sexual morality as a

reflection of society’s conventions is not friendly enough to exercise individual
freedoms which are the main basis of our social contract. As we know every state is
trying and attempting to preserve the societies’ morality in keeping up the interests of
maintenance of social order. This is because every state is vested with powers of
guardianship of nation’s morality based on prevalent codes while its custodianship
includes words, representations or actions across global cultures. 28 Further as held in
Miller v. California 29 , obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment
which states that “speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued
because their thoughts and ideas may be ‘offensive’ to some”, however Douglas J.
criticized that the “First Amendment was designed ‘to invite dispute,’ ‘to induce a
condition of unrest,’ to ‘create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,’ and even to
stir ‘people to anger’….To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a
sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society.”

2.4. The movie is ‘obscene’ as it has caused an annoyance to Mr. Ponto on

whom the movie is made under the ambit of S. 294 of the SPC.
S. 294 of the Shadowmoor Penal Code, 1860, states;
“Whoever, to the annoyance of others,
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near
any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or
with both.”

27
Shameek Sen, Right to Free Speech and Censorship: A Jurisprudential Analysis, Vo lu me no. 56, Issue no.
2, at p. 175
28
R v. Butler(1992) 1 S.C.R. 452
29
413 U.S. 15 (1973)

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 26

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

For an act to be punished under this section, it must cause annoyance either to a
particular person or persons in general. The words “to the annoyance of others” do not
limit it to mean the person who is the intended victim of the obscene act o f the
accused. 30 As it has been mentioned that Mr. Ponto after knowing that the movie
depicted on his life has been categorized as an ‘A’ rating movie by the Board, i.e., the
Respondent, was upset as it has made him feel annoyed by the Petitioner’s intention
to published the movie, despite of his oral request that the movie to be made in such a
way so as to inspire the youths and children which has b een agreed by the Petitioner
himself to keep this in mind 31 but the Petitioner did not do so as what he has orally
accepted or promised to conform to Mr. Ponto’s request.

30
Zafar Ah mad Khan v. The State, AIR 1963 A ll. 105.
31
Moot proposition, para 3, at p. 1

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 27

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

CONTENTION 3: THE INTERVENING ACT OF MR. PONTO IN THE

WRIT PETITION SUPPORTING THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENT
IS JUSTICIABLE.

3.1. That there is a reasonable contemplation.

1. The term ‘intervention’ as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary means the “entry into a
lawsuit by a third party who, despite not being named a party to the action, has a
personal stake in the outcome. The intervener sometimes joins the plaintiff in
claiming what is sought, sometimes joins the defendant in resisting what is sought,
and sometimes takes position adverse to both the plaintiff and the defendant.” 32

2. It is the contention of the counsel for the Respondent that the intervening act by Mr.
Ponto is quite justiciable as the chain of causation set in motion by the Petitioner’s act
can be interrupted or snapped by intervening acts or events (which may further be
classified into acts of third parties and sometimes acts of the plaintiff himself). This
problem is sometimes treated and classified as strictly an issue of remoteness,
presumably since the test which is applied for the determination of damage resulting
after the intervention of an act or event qualifies for an award of damages. 33 In any
contract, the defendant compensates for damage only if it was within his reasonable
contemplation. He is presumed to have contemplated (and is therefore liable for)
damage likely to result from the breach of contract according to the usual course of
events. Unusual damage resulting from special circumstances is regarded as within his
contemplation only if a reasonable man, knowing what he knew or ought to have
known, would have thought it liable to result. 34

3. It is further submitted that, in context of this case the Petitioner had with his full
knowledge and contemplation that the movie should not be made in such a manner so
as not to be restricted to any members of the society and in order to inspire the youths
and most especially the children of that society as requested by Mr. Ponto as the
following words justify, “promised to keep this in mind while making the movie”. 35

32
Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (Eight Edition, 2004) at p. 840
33
Dav id Hay, Halsbury’s Laws of India, (Vo lu me 9, 2001) at p. 65
34
Jonathan Law, Oxford Dictionary of Law, (Eight Edition, 2015) at p. 528
35
Moot Proposition, para 3, at p. 1

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 28

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

These words shows that he has with his reasonable mind contemplated to such request
or in other words he has promised to take into consideration as it has been requested
by Mr. Ponto and therefore a contract in this matter has been created and further
breached by the Petitioner and the damage amounting to 100 million dollars thus
arises. 36

4. Furthermore, as mentioned in Order II and Rule XXIV of the CPC provides that
anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute confers a
conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the
main action have a question of law or fact in common. Here, the word “t he main
action has a question of law or fact in common” implies that Mr. Ponto has exclusive
rights to intervene as the matter which is in disputes revolves around his character and
interest.

3.2. That the movie ‘Ricky Ponto – A story to be Told’ was an ‘obscene
libel’ publication
1. It is humbly submitted that the movie ‘Ricky Ponto- A Story to be Told’, is an
‘obscene libel’ publication even though the petitioner had no intention to defame Mr.
Ponto. As held in the case of Rex v. Curl37 where the judgment was that a “new
offence (termed “obscene libel,” even though no individual was libeled)”. The term
“obscene libel” means that “there must be some writing, print, drawing, or
photograph. Mere words are not enough; a libel is required, i.e., something in a more
or less permanent form” 38 . As it is known that a motion picture is an electronic form
(i.e., permanent form). Hence the movie ‘Ricky Ponto - A Story to be Told’, is said to
be an ‘obscene libel’ because the Petitioner had included scenes which Mr. Ponto
from the very beginning had orally requested not to include any scenes that the
children could not watch, but the Petitioner had breach the contract as the Petitioner
had orally promised that he will keep in mind not to include such scenes while
making the movie which hence, leads to a contract between them.

36
Moot Proposition, clause (iii), at p.1
37
93 Eng. Rep. 849 K.B. ( 1727); Reginald Mengi v. Sarah Hermitage, (2012) E.W.H.C . 3445 (Q.B.)
38
J.E. Hall Williams, Obscenity In Modern English Law, (15/1/2016, 9:03 PM ) available at
<[Link] iss4/9>

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 29

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

2. Further, it is humbly submitted that, the offence of ‘Defamation’ as defined by S. 499

of the SPC reads as follows:-
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible
representation, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to
harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame
that person. Here, “visible representations” clearly means something which is visibly
represented either in the form of articles, pictures, videos and the like. Hence, the
movie ‘Ricky Ponto- A Story to be Told’, is said to be defamatory since Mr. Ponto
after hearing that the movie has been given an ‘A’ rating was upset 39 (i.e., his
reputation is harmed) therefore, Mr. Ponto has the right to protect his image and
reputation from being defamed as protected under this section and, the movie should
therefore, be subjected to alterations and excisions of the scenes and dialogues as
recommended by the Board, i.e., the Respondent. 40

4. Furthermore, it is said to be defamation when it is published, that is, the defamatory

matter is communicated to some person other than the person about whom it is
addressed, and for instance, dictating a letter to a clerk is publication. 41 In context of
the case, it is said to be ‘published’ since the movie has been seen or watched by the
Censorship Board and it is ‘defamatory’ since the scenes which the Petitioner had
included are the ones which Mr. Ponto from the beginning had requested that such
scenes should not be included (i.e., he was harm by such imputation) and therefore,
the Petitioner cannot take the plea that he was not guilty and that the movie was for
the general good at large. Thus, Mr. Ponto has full rights to claim his damages
amounting from such a defamatory matter and to protect his reputation and character
from further being publicly defamed by subjecting the film to alteration and excisions.

39
Moot Proposition, para 4, at p. 3
40
Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. v. The Central Board of Certification , Writ Petit ion (L) 1529 of 2016.
41
Ratanlal & Dh irajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (Thirtieth Edit ion, 2004) at p. 937

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 30

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

CONTENTION 4: THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

CRYSTALDEN SHOULD NOT REFER THE PARTIES TO
ARBITRATION.

4.1. That the dispute is Non-Arbitrary.

1. It is humbly submitted that the matter in the present case cannot be dealt as a civil
matter since the movie was given an ‘Adult’ rating as categorized by the Board (i.e.,
the Respondent), implying that it contains obscene and disturbing scenes which may
hamper the growth of the young minds. The dispute which arises in the present case is
a criminal matter and hence, should not be resolved through an arbitration proceeding
but should be carried on by the proceedings of this Hon’ble Court. The fact that the
movie of the Petitioner could not be published for the general public at large as it was
not suitable for children since it included scenes like harassment, child exploitation,
child labour and the like that may affect the mental psychology of such vulnerable and
susceptible children.

2. Secondly, the inclusion of such scenes in the movie may also affect the character of
Mr. Ponto because if such scenes are published for the general audiences then his
image may be tarnished by such a publication since Mr. Ponto being a well-known,
reputed sports person and a youth icon and he being the citizen of Shadowmoor has
the right to protect his reputation. Despite of Mr. Ponto’s request to make the movie
in such a manner that the children could watch and whereby the Petitioner promised
to keep his request and therefore amounted to an agreement between them which is
further breached by the Petitioner. Hence Mr. Ponto should be entitled to claim the
100 million dollars as stated above that since he is the most popular sport person and
as he endorses many brands currently and if his image and character is affected badly
by the movie then the lost that he might incurred may be ten times more than what he
earned and endorses. Thus it is clear that the Petitioner is bound by his intention and
the onus of proof of mens rea, thus exists. Hence the court cannot refer the parties to
arbitration since an arbitral tribunal can only hear matters of civil disputes and if the
Court refers the parties to arbitration then it will be void and it might be per se
preposterous or absurd.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 31

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

3. The Supreme Court has reiterated a generally well-established principle that criminal
matters cannot be arbitrated. In State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan,42 a two
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of D. K. Jain and Anil R. Dave has held
that “the existence of an arbitration agreement cannot take the criminal acts out of the
jurisdiction of the Courts of law.” As was also held in Trisuns Chemical Industry v.
Rajesh Agarwal & Ors,43 a provision made in the agreement for referring the disputes
to arbitration is not an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the
disputed act constitutes a criminal offence.

4.2. That there is a breach of contract by the Petitioner

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner had approached
Mr. Ricky Ponto and made a proposal to make a movie which is based on the life
story of Mr. Ponto. 44 A proposal, when accepted, results in an agreement. It is only
after the acceptance of the proposal that a contract between the two parties can arise. 45
Mr. Ponto agreed to the same for a mere consideration of One Dollar. Consideration
has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Shadowmoor Contract Act, 1872 as an act,
forbearance or promise done or given at the desire of the promisor. Consideration
must be real and of some value in the eye of the law. 46 Hence, there arises the
principle of consensus ad idem (identity of minds), as it was held in the cited case that
unless there is a consensus ad idem, there is no contract. 47 All agreements are
contracts if they are made by the free consent of the parties competent to contract, for
a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared
to be void. 48

2. However, taking into accounts the request that was made by Mr. Ponto to the
Petitioner, the former requested the latter to make the movie in such a manner where
children would be inspired after watching it. The Petitioner promised to keep that in

42
Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P (Criminal) No. 5667 of 2008)
43
(1999) 8 SCC 686
44
Moot Proposition, Point 3, Page 1.
45
Dr. R.K Bangia, Contract I (Sixth edition, 2009) at p. 22
46
Pollock & Mulla, Indian Contract Act & Specific Relief Acts, Vo l-1, (Twelfth Edit ion, 2001) at p. 285
47
M/s Forbes Gokak Ltd. v. Central Warehousing Corp, OMP No. 306/ 2000.
48
H. K. Saharay, Dutt on Contract, (Tenth edition, 2006) at p. 157

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 32

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

mind while making the movie. S. 2 (b) of the Shadowmoor Contract Act, 1872
provides;
“When the person to whom the proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto,
the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a
promise.”

Further, S. 37 of the Shadowmoor Contract Act provides;

“The parties to the Contract must either perform or offer to perform, their
respective promises, unless such performance is dispensed with or excused
under the provisions of this Act, or of any other law.”

3. The Petitioner while making the movie totally ignored the interests of Mr. Ricky Ponto
on the movie. His basic interest is simply to inspire the youth though the struggles that
he had face as a child, but the Petitioner’s action has clearly defeated this interest by
making the movie in such a manner restricted to only the ‘Adult’ audiences and serve
only their own personal economic interests. Hence there is a clear breach of contract
by the Petitioner and Mr. Ricky Ponto is entitled to claim liquidated damages from the
Petitioner. The Petitioner is liable to pay to Mr. Ricky Ponto 10 million dollars as
liquidated damages as laid down in clause (iii) of the agreement between the
Petitioner and Mr. Ricky Ponto for the breach of contract regarding the movie.
Section 74 of the Shadowmoor Contract Act, 1872, provides;

“When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the
amount be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other
stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled,
whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to
receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not
exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated
for.”49

Further, S. 73 of the Shadowmoor Contract Act, 1872 also provides;

“When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is
entitled to receive, form the party who has broken the contract, compensation for
any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual

49
Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 74.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 33

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the
contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.”50
Therefore, the Petitioner is liable to pay an additional 90 million dollars for degrading
the character of Mr. Ponto through the movie which will ultimately affect his career
and the name of the brands that he endorses.

50
Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 74.

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 34

JLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 TEAM CODE: TC - 10/R

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and the
authorities cited, the counsel for the Respondent hereby prayed and respectfully request this
Hon’ble High Court of Crystalden may be pleased to adjudge and declare that;

I) This Hon’ble High Court of Crystalden to, therefore, upheld the order of the
Tribunal;

II) That the claim of Mr. Ricky Ponto is sustainable before this Hon’ble Court.

III) The Petitioner should be entitled to pay liquidated damages amounting to 100
million dollars to Mr. Ricky Ponto for the breach of contract.

AND/OR

This Hon’ble Court may pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent shall be Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/-
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

Place:

Date:

MEMORANDUM ON B EHALF OF THE RES PONDENT Page | 35