CLARIFICATIONS

QUERY:
THE

BUT THERE SHOULD

NOT BE ANY COMMERCIAL COURT IN DELHI AS PER SECTION 3(1) OF

COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT ,2015 .?

ANSWER :THE HIGH COURT TEXCERCISES ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

QUERY : IS IT A WAGERING CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT?
ANSWER :DOES NOT NEED CLARIFICATION
QUERY : ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT IS FOR WHICH CONTRACT?
ANSWER: THE FIRST CONTRACT ONLY NOT THE ONE RELATING TO INJUNCTION

INTRA- MOOT PROPOSITION GROUP 1

1. Mr. Swarn Kumar is an influential businessman from Delhi with a
company of Rs. 30 crores dealing in ice cubes. He enjoys gambling, socializing, and is
notorious for womanizing. On a trip to Goa with his friends, Mr. Aditya Sahni, an
esteemed lawyer from Delhi, also accompanied him.
2. On 3/10/2016, Mr. Kumar was playing poker at the Casino Royale, an
offshore casino in Goa. After losing approximately Rs. 3 crores, he was desperate for
more money as he believed he would have a winning hand. He signed a contract with Mr.
Akhil Singhal (money lender of the casino) and the money lender lent him Rs. 5 crores.
The contract contained a clause that he would pay him double the loan amount (Rs. 10

crores) at the table and in default, he would sign over his majority shares in his company
as security. It is to be noted that this was a pre-written form of agreement.
3. Subsequently, Mr. Kumar lost all the money at the table and was unable to
return double the loan amount and as a consequence lost his majority shares of the
company at 2.a.m on 4/10/2016. Thereafter, in a desperate attempt he called Mr Aditya,
who then contacted Mr Singhal to take double the loan but not to take majority shares of
the company. Mr Singhal refused the offer. Mr Singhal had acquired a lot of properties
and companies this way.
4. Immediately after acquiring majority shares of the company by Mr.
Singhal, he signed a contract with a Delhi based company named A & M Pvt. Ltd. for
selling majority shares of the company.
5. The video from the Casino shows that Mr Kumar had consumed eight
alcohol beverages (8 x 30 ml) prior to signing the contract.
6. Mr Sahni on behalf of Mr Kumar has filed a civil suit before Delhi
Commercial Court to prevent Mr Singhal from taking over the company and the
following issues are framed by the Court:
a) Whether

the

Delhi

Commercial

Court

has

jurisdiction to entertain the matter or not?

b) Whether the essentials of a valid contract are
fulfilled or not?

c) Whether the wagering contract entered between the

parties are enforceable or not?
d) Whether the injunction should be granted against
Mr. Singhal from selling majority of the shares of the company in the present
case or not?
7. The case is pending in the Delhi Commercial Court .
8. Argue both sides.
Note:
1. The participants are allowed to raise additional issues.