Hanumant's Law Journal

Equality before Law and Equal Protection of Law

Help us help others!

Please contribute your Law Notes for LLB, LLB Law Exam papers, Law News Analysis, or other useful material for Law and LLB Exams, and get paid. See this for details.

Civil Judge Solved Exam Question Papers are now available on Android.

Sample Documents for Moot Court PDF Print E-mail
Written by Hanumant's Law Journal   
Saturday, 12 May 2012 19:12

What is Moot Court?

In my experience, the way moot court is conducted in some law colleges in India is a joke. For example, in Govt. Law College, Indore, the following is what I saw while I was a student there. A group of students (about 10-15 students) got hold of one case file from some lawyer and converted it into a script. The class room was turned into a court room. Each student was assigned a "role" and dressed up according to his role like a judge, lawyer, policeman, witness etc. Everyone crammed their lines from the script and then acted out that case file as if they were doing a drama. That's it.

What were the professors doing? They were sitting in the classroom observing the whole thing and assigning marks.

If you are a Law student and if your are reading this, please don't do it. Moot court is a very important exercise for your law career so don't waste this opportunity. Make an effort to do it the right way. Tell your teachers to conduct it the right way. It is not their but your loss if you don't.

If you are a faculty in a law college, please make an effort to conduct moot court the right way. Your students will thank you later.

You may want to check this this link to see one way how a moot court can be conducted.

Sample

I do not know exactly how top law institutes conduct moot court but Himanshu Kashyap, a Vth Yr Student of NLIU Bhopal has contributed his moot court material on "Expanding the ambit of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on Muslims beyond iddat period". The following are the files:

Moot Problem

Appellant Cover Page Appellant 1 Memorial

Petitioner 2 Memorial Respondent 2 Memorial

Please feel free to comment.

Comments (19)
  • bsreekanthrao
    This is the what am searching for..
  • Tanushri  - moot court problem
    Problem:

    Mala and Rahul were married in 2001 and were residing at Vijayanagar, Bangalore. However after few years their relationship got strained and were regularly quarrelling over frivolous issues. One Day, Mala left her matrimonial house with her eldest daughter Pinto and started living with her father Gopalakrishna at Jayanagar, Bangalore. Rahul kept his younger daughter, Pinkoo with his sister, Deepa and prevented Mala from seeing the child.


    During a noon Mala came to Deepa's house and forcefully took Pinkoo with her. Rahul on hearing this reached Gopal Krishna's house and quarreled.
    After two days of the incident, Rahul and Gopalkrishna happened to meet at a market place and started to quarrel and grappled with each other. Both fell down. In the heat of passion thus generated Gopalakrishna slapped Rahul saying he would kill him. Rahul in fit of rage took a stick lying nearby and gave a blow to the stomach of Gopalakrishna.

    Gopalakrishna who was suffering from diseased spleen fell down instantly. Before dying Gopalkrishna gave his Dying Declaration regarding the fight and the knowledge of Rahul about the enlarged spleen. Rajajinagar police arrested Rahul and filed charge sheet.
    Evidence was led by prosecution in the sessions Court and during trial an eyewitness stated that it was Gopalakrishna who slapped Rahul and started the fight. Trial Court relying on Dying Declaration of Gopalakrishna convicted Rahul for commission of murder and sentenced him for life imprisonment.
    Rahul challenged the conviction by filing a Criminal Appeal, before the High Court of Karnataka, relying on the deposition of the eyewitness.


    [sir can u plz help me to solve this moot court problem and cases in favour of the accused , how to write the arguments regarding this]
  • Ritesh poudel  - Nice case
    I am also a law student so for me rahul cant be immune from criminal liability but his punishment can be reduce because he had no bad intention to kill his father in law. At first he threthen his son in law to kill him. From here what we can conclude that father in law has intention to kill(intentional homicide) whereas rahul had ( provocational homicide)

    Being based upon eye witness it is clear that there is no clear mens rea of rahul soo his punishment should be reduce
  • Punam  - Help needed
    [sir can u plz help me to solve this moot court problem and cases in favour of the accused , how to write the arguments for and against regarding this]

    Suleka on 10th Jan along with her husband boarded a pvt bus thinking its a public bus at 7.30 PM to reach her home. IN the bus there were only 5 men,one of them,Mohan was only 15 years old.

    When the bus started moving,the men started passing lewd comments. When the husband objected to this, they attacked him with iron rods and tied him to a seat.

    They took turns to rape her. All the time the driver drove the bus without stopping anywhere. Then they pushed the couple out of the bus. Only after 2 hours,the Police shifted the couple to the hospital where she died of severe injuries.Later the police arrested the 5 men and also the driver.

    Issues:
    1) Whether Mohan can be punished for rape along with co-accused?
    2) Whether the driver is guilty pf any offense?
    3) Will this crime attract capital punishment?
    4) Whether the Govt. failed to discharge their duty?
    5) Whether stringent laws are required to put an end to such crimes?
  • Roshan Singh
    if u need to rescue ur client as a lawyer think like thet and make ur memorial in his favour for getting him out of the case so filed
  • nitika  - can u plz help me in solving this moot court probl

    Amudha Rani vs K. Veeraraghavan Alias ... on 12 October, 2007

    Madras High Court

    Madras High Court

    Amudha Rani vs K. Veeraraghavan Alias ... on 12 October, 2007

    DATED : 12/10/2007

    CORAM

    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA

    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM

    O.S.A. No.413 of 2000

    Cross Objection No.108 of 2001

    O.S.A. No.413 of 2000:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    1. Amudha Rani

    2. Vijayalakshmi

    3. Shanthi alias Ramaprabha ..Appellants Vs.

    1. K. Veeraraghavan alias K.V.Raghavan

    2. V. Karunamurthy

    3. v. Narayanan

    4. V. Damodaran

    5. V. Arumugam ..Respondents Cross Objection No.108 of 2001:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    1. V. Karunamurthy

    2. v. Narayanan

    3. V. Damodaran

    4. V. Arumugam ..Cross Objectors Vs.

    1. Amudha Rani

    2. Vijayalakshmi

    Indian Kanoon - *****//indiankanoon.org/doc/1528808/


    Amudha Rani vs K. Veeraraghavan Alias ... on 12 October, 2007

    3. Shanthi alias Ramaprabha ..Respondents Appeal and Cross Objection have been filed under Clause 15 of

    the Letters Patent and Order 36 Rule 2 of O.S. Rules read with Order 41 Rule 22 CPC against the Judgment of

    the learned single Judge in C.S.No.363 of 1995 dated 5.6.2000. For Appellants in : Mr.B. Kumar

    OSA and Respondents Senior Advocate for in Cross Objection Mr.R. Loganathan

    For Respondents 2-5 : Mr.A. Venkatesan

    in OSA and Cross

    Objectors

    J U D G M E N T

    P.K. MISRA, J

    The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.6.2000 in C.S.No.363 of 1995.

    2. The plaintiffs are the appellants.

    3. One Kandaswamy Naicker, who died in the year 1955, had three sons, namely, Murugesan, Venkatachalam

    and K. Veeraraghavan (Defendant No.1). One Meenakshi Ammal was the wife of Veeraraghavan. Three

    daughters of Meenakshi Ammal and Veeraraghavan are the plaintiffs and the four sons are the defendants 2 to

    5 respectively. After the death of Kandaswamy Naicker there was a partition, wherein Murugesan separated

    himself and the other two brothers continued jointly. On 17.7.1971, the first defendant executed a release deed

    (Ex.B-3) in favour of his wife Meenakshi Ammal as well as all the children, including the plaintiffs, releasing

    his share in the joint family properties. Subsequently, under Ex.B-2 dated 27.12.1971, there was a partition

    between Venkatachalam and the family members of Veeraraghavan. The property described in 'B' schedule of

    such document was allotted to the family members of Veeraraghavan. Subsequently there was a partition

    under a registered deed of partition dated 23.4.1976, whereunder different properties as described in Schedule

    'A' to 'H' were allotted to different parties, namely, the plaintiffs, defendants 2 to 5 and Meenakshi Ammal. As

    Veeraraghavan, the first defendant, had already released his interest, no property had been allotted to him. The

    property described in Item No.1 of Schedule 'A' of the plaint had been allotted to the share of Meenakshi

    Ammal and the property described in item No.2 of Schedule 'A' had not been specifically partitioned and, as

    per the recital, such property would be partitioned at the appropriate time according to the wish of Meenakshi

    Ammal. The properties which were inherited by Meenakshi Ammal from her mother Sivagami Ammal have

    been described in 'B' schedule of the plaint. Meenakshi Ammal died on 30.3.1982 intestate leaving behind the

    plaintiffs and the defendants as her heirs. Subsequently, the defendants 2 to 5 purported to divide 'A' schedule

    property as if the entire property belonged to them. The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to separate share

    in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The second item in 'A' schedule consists of a Kalyana Mandapam

    constructed out of income of the family property and the plaintiffs are also entitled to a share in the building

    as well as in the income derived from the Kalayana Mandapam and they are entitled to past mesne profits.

    Accordingly, the suit for partition was filed claiming 3/8th share in the second item of Schedule 'A' and the

    entire 'B' schedule property and claiming 3/7th share in item No.1 of Schedule 'A'. They have also claimed

    past and future mesne profits.

    4. A joint written statement was filed by the defendants 1 to 5. While not disputing about the relationship, the

    defendants claim that the plaint 'A' schedule items 1 & 2 are joint family properties belonging to the

    defendants alone and the plaintiffs not being the coparceners, do not have any right in such properties. The

    defendants admitted that 'B' schedule property had been inherited by Meenakshi Ammal from her mother.

    However, it was stated that item No.2 of 'B' schedule had been sold and documents had been signed by the

    plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The deed of release did not affect the right of the first defendant to get his

    Indian Kanoon - *****//indiankanoon.org/doc/1528808/ ...
  • kanchana  - please can anyone tell the method of arguement in
    Javahariah vs Shambhulingappa on 5/01/2003 plaintiff sold five acres of land at Gokul village to the defendant by executing a registered sale deed for a sum of Rupees 100,000/- and put him in possession of the same. on the same day the defendant executed an agreement in favour of plaintiff agreeing to reconvey the land that is 5 acre, if the plaintiff pays back amount of Rs.100,000/- along with the revenue assessment etc during the period of 10 years. In January 2013 the plaintiff called defendant to accept Rs.100,000/- if the amount of revenue assessment is incurred by him and to recovery the land. the defendant evaded. the plaintiff caught issued a legal notice, which was returned as unnerved. Thus , the defendant failed to perform this part of agreement and plaintiff failed the suit on 1/04/2013 for specific performance of agreement against the defendant to execute the sale of the deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff deposited Rs.100,000/- towards the consideration to reconvey the land as per the agreement. 1) the case is posted for agreement against the defendant 2) prepare the record memorials...
  • Purva Sharma  - Moot Court File
    Helo
    Sir/ Madam

    I am LLb 6th sem. Student from HNB Garhwal University Student
    plz send me sllabuss on my id of Moot Court
    i prepair of Project File plz tell me how i do
    Pz Send me fast
    I am waiting

    Regards
    Purva Sharma
  • dimple  - hadley v. baxendle
    Please let me know the statement of issue and statement of facts in the case law
  • purav p desai  - help me in making moot court of this sample
    Facts in W.P.(C) No.72/98
    CWP No. 72/98 A writ petition is filed by Shri Anil K. Mittal, an engineer by profession moving the Court pro bono publico. The immediate provocation for filing the petition was that a 13 year old girl was a victim of rape (as reported in newspapers of January 3, 1998). Her cries for help sunk and went unheard due to blaring noise of music over loudspeaker in the neighbourhood. The victim girl, later in the evening, set herself ablaze and died of 100% burn injuries. The petition complains of noise created by the use of the loudspeakers being used in religious performances or singing bhajans and the like in busy commercial localities on the days of weekly offs. Best quality hi-fi audio systems are used. Open space, meant for use by the schools in the locality, is let out for use in marriage functions and parties wherein merry making goes on with hi-fi amplifiers and loudspeakers without any regard to timings. Modern residents of the locality organize terrace parties for socializing and use high capacity stereo systems in abundance. These are a few instances of noise pollution generated much to the chagrin of students taking examinations who find it utterly difficult to concentrate on studies before and during examinations. The noise polluters have no regard for the inconvenience and discomfort of the people in the vicinity. Noise pollution has had its victims in the past and continues to have victims today as well. The petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court so that there may not be victims of noise pollution in future. The principal prayer is that the existing laws for restricting the use of loudspeakers and other high volume noise producing audio-video systems, be directed to be rigorously enforced.
    Argue for or against the writ petitioner.
  • Md Abdur Rouf Yeasin  - Please give me some advice for my new L.L.B course
    Sir, I am a student of L.L.B 1.1
    and now I want to study a lot......... please give me some advice...........
  • Shilpy yadav  - 125section ,498a
    maine aap ne hasband ke uper case kiya h. lekin bo handicapped 50% * 75% handicapped certificate h. working is wages diely base karte h. kya m 125ipc ke teht maintenance le sakti ho . plase aap sages kar.

    hasband is case 9 h ka kia h. to ex-party ho gae h. to kya mare hasband dosri shadi kar salte h.
  • Shilpy yadav  - maintence 125 act
    nvgjkjvn
  • Supriya alve  - legal problem
    Problem:

    Mala and Rahul were married in 2001 and were residing at Vijayanagar, Bangalore. However after few years their relationship got strained and were regularly quarrelling over frivolous issues. One Day, Mala left her matrimonial house with her eldest daughter Pinto and started living with her father Gopalakrishna at Jayanagar, Bangalore. Rahul kept his younger daughter, Pinkoo with his sister, Deepa and prevented Mala from seeing the child.


    During a noon Mala came to Deepa's house and forcefully took Pinkoo with her. Rahul on hearing this reached Gopal Krishna's house and quarreled.
    After two days of the incident, Rahul and Gopalkrishna happened to meet at a market place and started to quarrel and grappled with each other. Both fell down. In the heat of passion thus generated Gopalakrishna slapped Rahul saying he would kill him. Rahul in fit of rage took a stick lying nearby and gave a blow to the stomach of Gopalakrishna.

    Gopalakrishna who was suffering from diseased spleen fell down instantly. Before dying Gopalkrishna gave his Dying Declaration regarding the fight and the knowledge of Rahul about the enlarged spleen. Rajajinagar police arrested Rahul and filed charge sheet.
    Evidence was led by prosecution in the sessions Court and during trial an eyewitness stated that it was Gopalakrishna who slapped Rahul and started the fight. Trial Court relying on Dying Declaration of Gopalakrishna convicted Rahul for commission of murder and sentenced him for life imprisonment.
    Rahul challenged the conviction by filing a Criminal Appeal, before the High Court of Karnataka, relying on the deposition of the eyewitness.


    [sir can u plz help me to solve this moot court problem and cases in favour of the accused , how to write the arguments regarding this]
  • rajivee  - 1973 CR.L.J123(V.79 C.374) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH C
    Plz do me afavor plz help me to make a mood court presentation on this title .....
  • dipayan chanda  - solve the mmot court problem
    :D respected sir me dipayan chanda fm kolkata i will give presentation ist moot court cases i donot under stand hows its possibale for me i dont attained moot coot court any time i will give presentation 31 march 2013 this is my university examplaz telll me solving the matter the case alsi pardhi vs state of madhyapradesh & others 2011 i will play role as piettitioner
  • sunny  - respected sir me sunny fm meerut i get some proble
    1. the complainants 'A' were interested in business relationship with 'B' company for sale of their product. they issued demand draft in favour of the company for the order they have placed. when the company did not deliver the products ordered by the complainant they asked for return of their money. company issued cheque for various amount in favour of complainants which were dishonoured by the bank, or presentation.the complainant filed complaint alleging MD and the two directors (including the appellant) who were responsible for day to day affairs of the company and that it was on their assurance that the complainant issued demand draft in favour of the company. the appellant challenged the proceeding initiated by the complainant against him by filling revision application before the high court that at the time when cheque were issued or when the cheques were dishonoured, the appellant had no concern or connection with the company. the high court holding that resignation by the petitioner as director of the company is a defence of the accused and defence is a matter for consideration at the trial on the basis of evidence which cannot be decided by the court in revision jurisdiction rejected it. the appellant challenged this order before the supreme court. argue either in favour of or against the appellant.
  • sunny  - please solve this moot court problem
    X sold his truck to Y. Y took the possession of the truck but the change of ownership as not entered in the certificate or registration. Similarly, there was no change of name in the insurance policy. Policy expired on July 5, 2010. Another policy was taken by Y but as the possession was not transferred the policy was taken in the name of X from another insurance company Z. P with his servant Q hired the truck for carrying food articles for a wedding in the family. Due to rash lash driving of the driver; the truck met an accident in which all the three died. The heirs of P Q hereafter called the appellant filed a suit for compensation against Y and the insurance company Z. the tribunal set the responsibility of Y to pay the compensation. On not receiving the compensation from Y, the appellant filed an appeal to high court, in which they stated that X Y and Z all three are responsible to pay compensation. Argue in favour of or against the appellant.
  • sunny  - thx for the solving my moot court problems when i
    The petitioner’s daughter was studying in 5th standard in respondent’s school and she hails from down trodden and scheduled community. On the fateful day, during lunch time while the petitioners daughter and other students were waiting for noon meal (as per the noon meal scheme introduced by the government in there school premise some of the school children including the petioners daughter went outside the school campus. At that time, neither the school teachers not the noon meal organizers or any assistants have taken care of the children by preventing them from going outside the school campus during lunch hours. Petitioner’s daughter met with serious accident and sustained grievous injuries on her right hand. The girl was taken to government hospital where doctors amputate the right hand of petitioner’s daughter. The petitioner claim compensation on ground of negligence on school authority and government officials managing the noon meal. The district court awarded compensation. The respondents appealed to the high court stating that the accident occurred outside the school campus. Argue in favour of or against the petitioner.
Write comment
Your Contact Details:
Comment:
:D:angry::angry-red::evil::idea::love::x:no-comments::ooo::pirate::?::(
:sleep::););)):0
The following comments section is for posting comments about the above article only so please DO NOT post requests for notes/material/help here.
If you need any material/notes etc., post your request on the DISCUSSION FORUM, otherwise your comment will be removed.
Security
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Last Updated on Saturday, 12 May 2012 20:06
 

Editors

Hanumant Deshmukh
B.Tech.(IT-BHU, Varanasi),
CFA, LLB (Hons)

Sunil Ramchandani
B.Com. LLB(Hons)

Get paid for your articles!

Recent Discussion

Editor Login


You are here  : Home Academics Moot Court