th

4 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2017

BEFORE THE HONBLE

SUPREME COURT OF KINGSLANDING

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____________ OF 2017

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KINGSLANDING

KHALEESI & SONS . APPEALANT

V.

LAOS HOSPITAL ..... RESPONDENT 1

&

RAMSEY BOLTAN. ...... RESPONDENT 2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPEALLANT

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

...........3

STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION

.6

STATEMENT OF
FACTS

....7

IV. STATEMENT OF
ISSUES

...8

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS

...9

VI. ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED

...

THAT THE APPEAL

UNDER ARTICLE 136
OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS
MAINTAINABLE
9

REQUISITES OF
SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION

In the present case, the

matters are not of the
national or public
importance.

There is no Grave
Miscarriage of Justice.
Expunge of
Derogatory Remark

Exhaustion of
Remedies

THAT RAMSEY
BOLTON DOES NOT
HAVE A
REMEDY...13

Negligence

Contributory Negligence

Contract between
Khaleesi and sons and
Laos wasnt
enforceable.

THE CONTRACT OF
INDEMNITY BETWEEN
LAOS AND KHALEESI
& SONS IS NOT
ENFORCEABLE
16

Contractual
Incompetency

Minors forbidden from

taking decision on
behalf of the firm.

Holding out to be a
partner makes him to be
personally liable

Acceptance made
without consulting the
partners.

VII. PRAYER
2

-WRITTEN
SUBMISSION ON
BEHALF OF THE
APPELLEANT-
INDEX OF AUTHORITY

Cases: -

Indian Cases

Sr NO.
CASE LAWS
CITATION

1
Bhim Mandal v. Magaram Corain,
AIR 1961 Pat 21.

2
Mathai Mathai v. Joseph Mary
(2015) 5 SCC 622

3
Mohori bibi v. Dhurmodas Ghose
(1903)30 IA 114,

(1903) 30 Cal 539

4
Sanyasi Charan Mandal v Krishnandhan Banerji
(1922) 49 IA 108 : 49
Cal 560, at 570 : AIR

1922 PC 237 239-240

: 67 IC 124

5
CIT v. Oriental T. Maritime
(1997) 227 ITR 244

(AP)

6
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chandrika Enterprises
(1992) 198 ITR 548

Ker

7
CIT v. Nand Lal Jagdish Prasad
(1997) 226 ITR 312

All

8
Collingwood v Berkeley,
(1863) 15 CBNS 145

9
Mathai @ Joby v. George
JT 2010 (3) SC 160:

2010

10
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
(2000) 245 ITR 360

(SC)

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

11
Balakriswamhna v. Rmasi
(1965) AIR 195 (SC)

12
Beant Singh v. Union of India and others
1977 SCR (2) 122

13
S.L. Hedge & Ors. v. M.B. Tirumale
(1960) SCR 890: AIR

1960 SC 137

14
M.V. Volipero v. Fernandeo Lopez & others
1989 SCR Supl. (1)

187

15
Haripada Dey vs The State Of West Bengal and others
1956 SCR 639

16
Lochgelly Iron CO. v M.Mullan
1974 AC 25.

17
Venkatesh Iyer v Bombay hospital Trust
AIR 1998 Bom373

18
Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel
AIR 1996 SC 2111
19
Lakshman Balakrishnan Joshi(Dr) v dr. Timbak bapu
AIR 1969 SC 128

Godbole.

BOOKS: -

th
POLLOCK & MULLA, THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (14 ed. 2015)

P.M. Bakshi, The Indian Contitution, (13th ed Universal Law Publishing), 2015, pg. 161.

P.S.A. Pillai, Law of Tort, pg. 162 (19th ed. 2015)

Sachin Rastogi, Insights into E- contracts in India

th
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7 ed 2016)

nd
V. Kesva Rao, Contract 1 cases and materials, Lexis Nexis, (2 ed 2014)

th
Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, The sales of Good Act and The Indian Partnership Act (10 ed
2015)

STATUTES: -

The Constitution of India, 1950

The Indian Contract Act, 1872

The Sales of Good Act, 1930

The Indian Partnership Act, 1932

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION

THE APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF

KINGSLANDING UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. LEAVE

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND THE MATTER HAS NOW

BEEN POSTED FOR FINAL HEARING. ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA READS AS HERE UNDER:

ARTICLE 136 SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THIS CHAPTER, THE SUPREME COURT

MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM ANY
JUDGMENT, DECREE, DETERMINATION, SENTENCE OR ORDER IN ANY
CAUSE OR MATTER PASSED OR MADE BY ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL IN THE
TERRITORY OF INDIA.

(2) NOTHING IN CLAUSE (1) SHALL APPLY TO ANY JUDGMENT, DETERMINATION,

SENTENCE OR ORDER PASSED OR MADE BY ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL
CONSTITUTED BY OR UNDER ANY LAW RELATING TO THE ARMED

FORCES.
5

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Kingslanding is a newly-established democratic state. However, the country is not

very strong and lack the provisions for various medical services.

A hospital named Laos was established in the capital of the country, Winterfell.
The hospital was founded by an ex-bussiness man Eddard stark.

A new technology known as SUV 236 developed by hospital for treatment of

malignant cancerous cells. For the production of machines incorporating the SUV-
236 technology, Eddard stark wanted to enter into contract with Khaleesi &
Sons, a leading firm engaged in the production of medical instruments, and
registered under Kingslanding Partnership Act, 1932.

On December 2015, an offer was sent by Mr. Eddard Stark via an E-mail to the firm
for the acceptance of the contract. Eddard stark mention in his mail that

The technology for production of SUV-236 shall be shared by Laos hospital with
Khaleesi & sons under Non- Disclosure Agreement.

Khaleesi &sons shall indemnify Laos Hospital for any injury occurred by the use
of machine.

One of the partners, Rhaego Drogo (aged 17 years), due to the non- availability
of the other partners responded to the email saying that firm accepts the offer
made by Laos hospital. However, other partners of the firm returned, Drogo
informed him about the mail without mentioning the terms and other partners
accepted to perform the contract without delay.

However, one patient Ramsey Bolton who was treated by SUV-236 fell ill and the
tests conducted that cancer cells were growing at much rate and metastasised to
new location. Here Ramsey wife demanded compensation. As due to this they
have to go with extra one year treatment of cancer.

Doctors stated that patient in not cooperating with staff and this machine used on
other patients which are showing the sign of improvement. The court held
Ramsey wife would get compensation.

The Hospital informed Khaleesi and sons about this and they denied existence of
contractual term. Then Laos hospital sued the company.

The defendant contended that the contract was entered by a minor. The district court
held that firm approved to the contract and the consideration of same. Then Khaleesi and
sons appealed in High Court and Aggrieved by the Judgement of High court company
appealed Supreme court under the Article 136 of the constitution of Kingslanding.
Supreme court admit the appeal and decide to hear the case.
6

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELEANT-

ISSUESINVOLVED

THE APPEALANT RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF

KINGSLANDING, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE APPEAL UNER ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2

DOES RAMSEY BOLTON HAVE ANY REMEDY?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE CONTRACTUAL TERM OF INDEMNITY BETWEEN LAOS AND

KHALEESI & SONS IS MAINTAINABLE?

7

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

SUMMARYOFARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: THAT THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINBLE.

Appeal is maintainable under the Article 136 as in this case substantial question of
law is present and there has been grave injustice occurred with the Ramsey Bolton.
Article 136 also involves the general public importance which is there in the case. As
per relying on the reasons appeal under Article 136 is maintainable.

ISSUE 2: THAT RAMSEY BOLTON HAS A REMEDY FROM LAOS HOSPITAL.

Ramsey Bolton has a remedy from Laos Hospital as the contractual term is void and
there was negligence on the part of the Hospital as stated in factsheet.

ISSUE 3: THAT THE CONTRACTUAL TERM OF INDEMNITY BETWEEN LAOS

AND KHALEESI & SONS IS NOT ENFORCEABLE.

The contractual term of indemnity is not enforceable as Drogo is incompetent to

contract. According to the law Minor is forbidden to take the decision on the behalf of
the firm otherwise liability arise on him only. As well in this case acceptance made
without consulting the partners.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

ARGUMENTSADVANCED

CONTENTION 1: THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted before this honble Supreme Court that the appeal filed under
special leave petition is maintainable. Article 136 of the Indian Constitution states that:

Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

Nothing in clause I shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to
the Armed Forces.

The power of the Supreme Court to hear appeals in this Article is much wider and
general. It vests in the Supreme Court plenary jurisdiction in the matter of
entertaining and hearing appeals by granting special leave against:

Any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order.

In any case or matter.

Passed as made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.

The above-mentioned requirements are fulfilled in the instant case, thus the appeal
filed under Article 136 is maintainable.

REQUISITES OF SPECIAL PETETION LEAVE

1
In the case of Mathai @ Joby v. Geoge the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court opined that
only the following categories of cases should be entertained by the Supreme Court

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India:-

1.1.1 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS PRESENT

It is contended that the matter involves substantial question of law and hence entitled to be
maintainable. Since the substantial question of law lies between petitioner and respondent is
regarding the validity of contract, and the High Court upheld the judgment of the District Court

1
Mathai @ Joby v. George, JT 2010 (3) SC 160: 2010

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELEANT-

that the contract is valid as the firm had later approved of the contract by performing
their obligation under the contract and accepting the consideration under the same.
As the High Court, had not taken into consideration the fact that the contract was
void ab initio, as the promise Rhaego Drogo was minor aged 17 years.

Section 11 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that Who are competent to contract.
Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which
he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to
which he is subject.

Section 3 of The Indian Majority Act, 1875 provides: Every person domiciled in India
shall attain the Age of majority on his completing the age of 18 years and not before.
In computing the Age of any person, the day on which he was borne is to be included
as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained to have majority at the
beginning of the 18th anniversary of the day.

Section 30(1) of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, states that A person who is a minor according
to the law to which he is subject may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of all the
partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership.

Elaborating on substantial question of law which on the validity of contract, contract is to

be considered as void. As per the facts Rheago Drogo aged 17 years accepted the offer
made by the founder of Loas Hopital, Eddard Stark. Rhaego Drogo aged 17 years
accepted the offer on behalf of the firm for the benefit, were it is considered to valid.

Hence it is humbly submitted that in the instant case there is clear substantial question of
law therefore the appeal under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, is maintainable.

1.1.2 GRAVE INJUSTICE IS PRESENT

It is humbly submitted that it is the discretionary power under Article 136 should be exercised
2
sparingly to interfere in suitable cases where grave miscarriage of justice. So the petition
cannot be dismissed and hence is maintainable in the honble court of kingslanding.

2
P.M. Bakshi, The Indian Constitution, (13th edn Universal Law Publishing), 2015, pg. 161.

10

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

 3
In the case of Indira Kaur and others v. Sheo Lal Kapoor , it was held that suit for specific
performance of contract of sale of immovable property. Held open to interference by SC under Art
136 in case of manifest injustice, that plaintiff and appellant were not ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract, held on facts, contrary to the evidence and palpably unreasonable. Hence
findings set aside and plaintiffs suit for specific performance decreed.

The same scenario is present in the instant case, the doctors also stated that Ramsey Boltons
condition was already quite bad when the treatment began, he did not cooperate and was not
taking medicine on time. Also, the hospital refused that the SUV-236 machine had any connection
with the worsening of Ramseys illness and cited that several other patients being treated by this
4
machine were showing signs of improvement . There being no sign of injury arising out of the use
of the SUV-236 on Ramsey Bolton, there is clear sign of Grave Injustice with Khaleesi and Sons.
Hence the appeal under special leave petition is maintainable.

1.2 APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINABLE EVEN WHEN OTHER

REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE

5
In the case Beant Singh v. Union of India and others , it was held that in order to induce this
Court to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution the question must

involve at least a matter of public or general importance or c.

6
Relied on the S.L. Hedge & Ors. v. M.B. Tirumale in exceptional cases the court admits appeals
under Article 136 even through appellant has not exhausted all other remedies,
if there are exceptionally sound reasons for such admissions.

7
In case M.V. Volipero v. Fernanedo Lopez & others , it was held that the academic exercise is
unnecessary in the present case since it cannot be doubted that irrespective

of the question of res judicata, earlier decision on the same point by a Division Bench of the High
Court will atleast be a binding precedent when the matter is re-agitated before the Division Bench
hearing the appeal against the final decision in the suit. In such a situation directing the resort to
the remedy of an appeal under the Letters Patent against the final decision in the suit will
needlessly delay decision of the point by this Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, in the
present case, it is neither necessary

Indira Kaur and others v. Sheo Lal Kapoor AIR 1988 SC 1074

Factsheet, para 13.

Beant Singh v. Union of India and others 1977 SCR (2) 122

S.L. Hedge & Ors. v. M.B. Tirumale (1960) SCR 890: AIR 1960 SC 137

M.V. Volipero v. Fernandeo Lopez & others 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 187

11

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

to decide the question of res judicata argued before us nor would it be appropriate to
refuse leave and direct the petitioner to first exhaust the remedy of an appeal under the
Letters Patent in the High Court. We, accordingly, proceed to decide the point involved on
merits and Leave granted.

8
In case of Haripada Dey v. The State Of West Bengal and others it was held that no

High Court can arrogate that function to itself and pass on to us a matter which in its view
is purely one involving questions of fact, because it finds itself helpless to redress the
grievance. In such a case, the High Court should refuse to give a certificate under article
134(1) (c) and ask the parties to approach us invoking our special jurisdiction under
Article 136(1) of the Constitution.

In the instant case there is question of fact, substantial question of law, grave injustice
suffered by the appellant and therefore in the light of the above mentioned case laws,
the appeal under Article 136 of the constitution is maintainable, and the justice should
be provided to the appellant.

CONTENTION 2: THAT RAMSEY BOLTAN HAVE A REMEDY FROM LAOS

HOSPITAL.

The Appellant humbly submitted before the honble Court that Ramsey Bolton has
remedy from Laos and not from Khaleesi and Sons due to:

(A) Negligence

(B)Contributory Negligence

(C)Contract between Khaleesi and sons and Laos wasnt enforceable.

Negligence

Negligence is defined as breach of a duty of care which results in damage.

Negligence in the sense of conduct refers to the behavior of a person who although innocent of
any intention to bring about the result in questions, has failed
8
Haripada Dey vs The State Of West Bengal and others 1956 SCR 639

12

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

nevertheless to act up to the standard set up by the law, which is usually that of a
reasonable man.

Ingredients of Negligence are:

A.1 legal duty

The duty that imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable

care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

In this instant case the moment Ramsey Bolton got admitted in the hospitals the doctors and
the staff of the hospitals had a legal duty imposed on themselves.

A.2 Breach of duty

A breach of duty occurs when one person or company has a duty of care toward
another person or company, but fails to live up to that standard.

In this instant case, when the treatment was going on Bolton was strucked with formation of
new Cancer Cells due to which he even had to go to for a treatment for one more extra year
due to which he even had to go through pain and also according to the factsheet,doctors
9
said that the patient didnt take medicines on time, but it was the duty of the hospital to
provide him with medicines which is clearly wjere they have missed.Thus thare has been a
breach of duty.

A.3 Consequential damage

The damage caused by the breach of duty by one party to another.

In the instant case, Bolton had to suffer a yearlong treatment and pain due to hospital
who were not fulfilling the duty properly.

In addition to the above mentioned reasons the Appellant also relies on the case of Lochgelly
10
Iron CO. v M.Mullan where Lord Wright said In strict legal analysis, negligence means more
than headless or careless conduct, whether in omission or commission; it properly connotes the
complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty
11
was owing. Reliance is also based on the case of Venkatesh Iyer v Bombay hospital Trust
where the court held that Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man,
guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would
do or doing something which a reasonable and prudent man wouldnt do.The appellant relies on
12
the case of Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel the doctor who had followed a wrong treatment
resulting in the death of the patient was held guilty of

Factsheet,pno.13.

1974 AC 25.

AIR 1998 Bom373

AIR 1996 SC 2111

13

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

negligence per se and liable to pay damages.Simmilar decision was given in
13
Lakshman Balakrishnan Joshi(Dr) v dr. Timbak bapu Godbole.

Thus, relying on the above mentioned reason, it is stated that there has been a
Negligence on the side of the hospital.

B. Contributory Negligence

Contributory Negligence is an expression which implies that the person who has sufferd
damages is also guilty of some negligence and has contributed towards the damages.

In this instant case Ramsey Bolton, didnt take the medicines on time and does not
cooperate with the hospital staff. As this shows that he is also negligent towards his
health and thrugh this it is clear that there is a case of occurrence of contributory
negligence on the behalf of Hospital and Ramsey Bolton.

C. Contract between Khaleesi and sons and Laos wasnt enforceable.

Competency to contract is an essential of a contract According to section 10, Contract Act 1872. It is
14
mentioned in Section 11 of the Contract Act that if a person doesnt attain the age of majority
15
according to the law to which he is subject , is incompetent to contract.

The age of majority being 18 years, a person less than that age even by a day would
16 17
be minor for the purposes of contracting. Under the Sec. 11, of the Contract Act ,
18
any agreement made by a minor is void ab initio.

AIR 1969 SC 128

The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Indian Majority Act, 1875(9 of 1875).

Bhim Mandal v. Magaram Corain, AIR 1961 Pat 21.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Mohori bibi v. Dhurmodas Ghose, (1903)30 IA 114, (1903) 30 Cal 539.

14

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

CONTENTION 3: THAT THE CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY BETWEEN LAOS

AND KHALEESI & SONS IS NOT ENFORCEABLE.

The Appellant humbly submitted before the honble court that The contract signed
between the parties is unlawful and will not be followed according to the Kingslanding
Contract,1872 and the Kingslanding Partnership Act,1932 the performed contract is
unlawful and hence not enforceable.

3.1 Contractual Incompetency

Competency to contract is an essential of a contract According to section 10, Contract Act

19
1872. It is mentioned in Section 11 of the Contract Act that if a person doesnt attain the
20
age of majority according to the law to which he is subject , is incompetent to contract.

The age of majority being 18 years, a person less than that age even by a day would
21 22
be minor for the purposes of contracting. Under the Sec. 11, of the Contract Act ,
23
any agreement made by a minor is void ab initio.

24
Reliance is put on the case of Mathai Mathai v. Joseph Mary , where the apex court held that

Many courts have held that a minor can be a mortgagee as [mortgage] is transfer of property in
the interest of the minor. We feel that this is an erroneous application of the law keeping in mind
25
the decision of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee case. As per the Indian Contract Act, 1872 it is
clearly stated that for an agreement to become a contract, the parties must be competent to
contract, wherein age of majority is a condition for competency. A deed of mortgage is a contract
and we cannot hold that a mortgage in the name of a minor is valid, simply because it is in the
interests of the minor, unless she is represented by her natural guardian or guardian appointed
by the court. The law cannot be read differently for a minor who is a mortgagor and a minor who
is a mortgagee as there are rights and liabilities in respect of the immovable property would flow
out of such a contract on both of them. Therefore, this

The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Indian Majority Act, 1875(9 of 1875).

Bhim Mandal v. Magaram Corain, AIR 1961 Pat 21.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Mohori bibi v. Dhurmodas Ghose, (1903)30 IA 114, (1903) 30 Cal 539.

(2015) 5 SCC 622

(1903)30 IA 114, (1903) 30 Cal 539.

15
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-
Court has to hold that the mortgage deed is void ab initio in law and the Appellant
cannot claim any rights under it.

In this instant case, Rahego Drogo, one of the partners of Khalessi & Sons, is 17 years
old and thus he is minor according to the Indian Majority Act, 1875. Hence it defeats the
provisions of the contract being valid. Therefore, it is submitted before the Honble court
that the contract entered between Laos hospital and Khaleesi & Sons is void ab initio.

3.2 Minors-forbidden from taking decisions on behalf of the firm.

The law in India states that a minor cannot make any contract at all, and therefore
26 27
cannot be a partner .According to Section 30(1) of the Partnership Act, a minor
could only be admitted to the benefits of a firm and not as a partner.

28
It is submitted before the Honble Court that in the case of CIT v. Oriental T. Maritime lays down
that section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act provides that a minor cannot be made liable for the
losses of the partnership. If at all a minor should be admitted into the partnership, he should be
admitted for the purpose of profits only. In that case the minors were clearly admitted to share in
the profit and loss of the firm. In that view of the matter it was held by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court that the assesse was not entitled for registration of the firm. Same was held in the case of
29
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chandrika Enterprises which is of the view that a minor
admitted to the benefits of partnership cannot be treated as a partner. Simillar decision was held
30
in the case of CIT v. Nand Lal Jagdish Prasad that a minor is not a partner and is only admitted
to the benefits of partnership. Reliance is also put on the case of Dwarkadas Khetan & Co.'s
where the apex court held pointed out that as long as a partnership deed does not make a minor
full partner, a partnership deed cannot be regarded as invalid on the ground that a guardian has
purported to contract on behalf of a minor if the contract is for the purposes mentioned above.
While construing the terms of the deed before them their Lordships pointed out that the
partnership deed must be construed reasonably. Great emphasis was laid upon the recital which
expressly stated that it is the major members who had decided to constitute the partnership and
admit the minors to the benefits of the said partnership.

Sanyasi Charan Mandal v Krishnandhan Banerji,(1922) 49 IA 108 : 49 Cal 560, at 570 : AIR 1922 PC
237 at239-240 : 67 IC 124

Indian Partnership Act,1932.

(1997) 227 ITR 244 (AP)

(1992) 198 ITR 548 Ker

(1997) 226 ITR 312 All

16

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

 31
In this instant case, Drogo is a not a major, according to the Majority Act .thus it is
humbly submitted before the court that Drogo is not allowed to take decisions of the firm.

3.3 Holding out to be a partner makes him to be personally liable.

If a person knowingly holds himself out to be a partner of the firm by allowing ones
32 33
name to be put on the prospectus or becoming a part to a resolution , the firm will
not be liable in that instant.

In this instant case Drogo also knowingly held himself as a partner of the group while
making the contract while he was not full-partner of the firm in other words he was
not allowed to take decisions regarding the firm business. Thus, the firm will not be
liable to Laos Hospital for the confirmation sent by Rahego Drogo.

3.4 Acceptance made without consulting the partners

It is the right of every partner to be consulted in all matters affecting the business of
34
the firm. Section 12(c) of the Partnership Act, that it is the right of every partner to
express his opinion before the matter of the business is decided.

In this instant case, according to the factsheet Drogo never consulted to its partner before
35
taking the decision. .Thus he interfered with rights of the other partners in the firm.

In the light of above arguments it is clear that the contractual term of Indemnity between

Laos and Khaleesi & sons is not enforceable.

Indian Majority Act, 1875.

Collingwood v Berkeley, (1863) 15 CBNS 145.

Maddick v Marshall.

Indian Partnership Act,1932.

Factsheet, p.9.

17

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-

-PRAYER-

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISS

UES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED:

TOHOLD

THAT APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINABLE.

RAMSEY BOLTON HAVE A REMEDY FROM LAOS HOSPITAL

THAT THE CONTRACTUAL TERM OF INDEMNITY BETWEEN LAOS & KHALEESI ANS SONS
IS NOT ENFORCEABLE

TODIRECT

THE PARTIES TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE BY PROVIDING THE COMPENSATION TO

THE INNOCENT PARTY.

TOSETASIDE

THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT

MISCELLANEOUS

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO

GRANT IN THE INTRESTS OF

JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

18

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-