PROBLEM NO.

1. Suseela filed an application for restitution as conjugal rights under Hindu Marriage Act in

married one Madhav in temple near Chadragiri on 14the March, 2018 by exchange of

garlands.

2. She further stated that she joined her husband and her mother-in-law was ill treating her

for reason that their marriage was not an arranged marriage and the marriage performed

was not a marriage at all it is her further case that she and her husband went to Tirumala

that they had undergone all marriage ceremonies on 3rd October, 2018 in Tirumala

Purohit Sangam hall and thus the marriage was solemnized.

3. The husband who is under the thumb of his mother deserted her in March 2019 and she

has been living separately ever since.

4. The contention of Madhav is that he came into contact with Suseela as she was introduced

to him in a function by friend where accidentally a photograph of both of them was taken.

He did not marry by exchange of garlands as alleged by her on 14-3-2018 and he married

he married his maternal uncle’s daughter on 6-6-2018.

5. He further alleges that taking advantage of his state of drunkenness Suseela took him to

Tirumala and he was not knowing as to what was going on 3rd October 2018. He says that

Suseela is a Christian and he had produced an affidavit (in which her husband’s name was

also mention) signed by her and attested by a notary to the effect that she is a Christian

and the affidavit was need for securing employment.

6. Madhav had also got hold of a birth certificate where in it is stated that Suseela gave birth

to a male child 3 years prior 14-3-2018 and the husband’s name is mentioned as Joseph C.

Pratop. Madav therefore contents that his marriage it at all there is one with Suseela is not

a valid marriage and she is not entitled for Restitution of Conjugal rights.
 PROBLEM NO. 2

1. ‘Vidhishwa Pradesh’ is a country of continental dimensions whose legal system

resembles India’s legal system, including the constitutional structure. The ‘Tort Law’ of

the Country is not codified. Jargon Weaponries Ltd. is a public listed company

incorporated under the laws of Vidhishwa Pradesh with the object of manufacturing of

defence equipments for the State. It is a large company known for making highly

advanced weapons.

2. The company was also engaged in the project of manufacturing Drones for surveillances

and procuring information. The senior officials of the company on 16 May, 2015 decided

to test the Drone, and so they sent it for a test drive. It was advised by the scientists to first

test the drone in a jungle or a desert area because the technology used to make that

advanced drone was unstable. For first three hour the drone was used in the jungle, and

when it worked fine for such time, the senior management ordered to use it in the nearby

city because it was meant to be used in inhabited area.

3. However, when the drone was being tested in the city, the cells in it got overcharged

which resulting in its explosion. Because it was being used at a very low altitude, it caused

fire in a dwelling house. A 7 year boy was stuck inside when the house caught fire.

Sherina Jwotsik, the mother of while returning from the nearby store saw the house on

raging fire and rushed to rescue her child, but was stopped by the people. She was

shouting for someone to help her boy, and then a man named John Spark who was at that

time roaming with his girlfriend rushed to rescue the child. At that point of time an Army

Jawan also arrived at the scene to help the boy but when he saw that John Spark was

rescuing the child, he refrained from rescuing the boy because there was not enough space

for the rescue to be completed by two people. But John got afraid when entered the house

and so he came out without completing the rescue mission. Then the Army Jawan went

into the house and got the boy out but by that time it was too late and the boy was dead. In
 was observed by the Doctors that if the boy would have saved few minutes earlier, he

would not have been dead.

4. The mother of the child filed a petition in the ‘Court of Vidhishwa Pradesh’(the court

having the jurisdiction) under Section 21 of Court of Vighisha Pradesh Act, 1993 and sued

both ‘Jargon Weaponries Ltd.’ and ‘John Spark’. She argued that Jargon Weaponries Ltd.

was not just negligent when it was operating its first test in the city but was ‘grossly

negligent’ and hence the company has killed her son, therefore would be liable under ‘Law

of Corporate Manslaughter’.

5. She further contended that although there is no law dealing with Corporate Homicide but

the Court of Vidhishva Pradesh has power under Article 999 of the Constitution of

Vidhishva Pradesh (similar to Article 142 of the Constitution of India) to make the laws

whenever there is a vacuum, and so in the interest of justice the court must make law. She

prayed the Court to grant the appropriate remedial order and imposition of fine along with

the direction to the company to publish on its website and newspaper about the offence

which it has committed of killing a 7-year-old boy. These are such orders which are

passed by the court in cases of Corporate Manslaughter and not in the case of simple

negligence.

6. She further argued that John Spark is liable to pay compensation to her for the loss of her

child because if either he would have completed the rescue process or would have not

opted for the same, her child would have lived but as he did not do any of them, he is

liable for negligence.

7. It was argued by the Company that the guidelines cannot be given by the court on the law

of Corporate Homicide as the company can never have a ‘guilty mind’ or ‘mens rea’ to

kill a person. Further, she has remedy under different laws, hence there is no vacuum. And

assuming arguendo there is any law, the conduct of the company cannot be treated to be

‘grossly negligent’ so it cannot be held liable under it.

8. It was argued by John Spark that he cannot be made liable for negligence because for that

there has to be a ‘duty of care’ by the respondent towards the plaintiff, but in this case he

had no duty to take care.

PROBLEM NO. 3

1. B.Z. Mate University (hereinafter referred to as Mate) is a University based in the

Republic of Bharanesia. Its Constitution, Laws, Institutions and Social Ethos are

substantially similar to that of Union of India. Bristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as Bristo) is a company registered under the laws of Bharanesia.

Bristo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristo Pharmaceuticals Inc., registered under the

laws of Federation of Pandora whose constitution, laws and social ethos are substantially

similar to that of the United States of America.

2. Mate filed patent application 8456/MN/2009 on June 5, 2009 titled “Abc receptor

antagonist for the treatment of chronic pain”. The inventors named in the application were

Vaidya M. and Bhattacharya P. both employed by Mate. On objection to the grant of

patent, Mate, responded to the First Examination Report. It stated that the inventors’

whereabouts are not known. The Standing Rules of the Contract of Employment (which

has the force of law) specifically stipulates that only the University will be the owner of

any IP generated by their employees in the course of their employment. Subsequently,

Bristo filed a pre-grant opposition against the grant of a patent.

3. Mate responded with similar submissions as before. A hearing was held and both parties

argued. Based on Mate’s submissions, the Controller of Patents dismissed the pre-grant

opposition proceedings filed by Bristo. A patent was granted which was given the Patent

No. 1234567 on January 11, 2013.

4. Bristo filed a post grant opposition to the Patent claiming that the piperidine derivates

were obvious to a person skilled in the art. Meanwhile an RTI application by Mate
 revealed that Bristo had applied for a manufacturing licence manufacturing abc bulk drug.

Also, their website listed abc in their product list under ‘developed antagonist APIs’.

Mate, sent a letter through their Attorneys to Bristo and Bristo Inc. which inter alia stated

that Mate is the owner of the patent, the impugned product is identical to the one under

challenge and that they should abstain from such advertising or production.

5. After receiving no response, subsequently Mate filed a quia timet suit for infringement

before the District Court of Suriya for restraining Bristo and Bristo Inc. from using in any

way the impugned product. The Hon’ble District Court, granted a quia timet ex-parte

injunction restraining Bristo and Bristo Inc. from manufacturing, marketing or in any way

using the impugned product in and exporting the same outside Bharanesia.

6. In the opposition proceedings, the Controller of Patents constituted an Opposition Board.

Both parties made their submissions along with evidence by experts. The Opposition

Board accepted relative novelty. Nonetheless, the Controller, maintained the patent.

7. Bristo further appealed the decision at the IPAB. Simultaneously, it also filed for a

revocation of the patent at the IPAB on grounds that it was prior art and lacked inventive

step - the issue of missing signatures was also raised wherein Bistro provided the actual

whereabouts of the Inventors who were claimed to be untraceable by Mate.

8. Since the appeal and the application for revocation involved the same patent, both the

matters were taken up simultaneously at the IPAB. Bristo also challenged the claims of the

patent in a counter-claim of infringement. The suit, along with the counter- claim got

transferred to the High court of Munain.

 PROBLEM NO. 4

1. Unnati Industrial Corporation (UIC) is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of

India, under the administrative control of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is also listed on
national Stock Exchange. UIC employs more than 5000 employees and workers in its
complex named ‘Unnati Complex’. The complex provides services like canteen-cum-food
court facility (Canteen) to all those who work in the complex. UIC is responsible for
providing facilities like furniture and electricity (for which the UIC pays bill), water
supply, water purifier, centralized Air Conditioning etc. This canteen is run by a contractor
named Bhola Prasad under the supervision of UIC Canteen and Management Committee
(Committee) through a written understanding. The committee ensure the smooth
functioning for anyone who avails the canteen services. A total of 18 workers (4 of which
are permanent workmen of UIC) work in the canteen regularly.
2. With an objective of providing quality education in the vicinity to the children of officers
and workers of UIC, the UIC has setup a recognized educational institution within the
acquired area near Unnati Complex named as Unnati Shiksha Kendra. The school also
provides 25 percent reservation in the total number of intake for the outsiders.
3. On August 10th 2017, Bhola Prasad submitted a written memorandum before the
management of the UIC along with the government notification for charging Goods and
Services Tax (GST) on the canteen items mentioned in the notification with effect from
July 1st 2017. Bhola Prasad made a submission that he is not willing to pay GST as he is
not able to make any profit by selling the goods, and providing services at a higher rate
than before. The Committee however, was adamant that the price should not increase form
the existing and the contractor must sell the goods and provide the services at the same
rates as before. Providing food services at higher rates after the implementation of GST
would be against the principles based on which the canteen was established, (i.e. to
provide quality food to the workers and employees of UIC at cheap rates). Pursuant to this
refusal, Bhola Prasad shut down the canteen and apprise about uncooperative and
irresponsible attitude of the workers against the UIC in general and Committee in
 particular to show-case a situation that because of the workers hesitation he is forced to
shut it down. He convinced the workers that he would not be able to re-open the canteen
and pay the wages due to rise in prices which caused to shrink his profit margin to nearly
zero. Therefore, UIC must pay the GST to restore the situation.
4. On August 13th 2017, the workers of the canteen went for two weeks flash strike raising
the issue that the canteen workers are unemployed due to the unsolved dispute between the
contractor and the UIC. They also raised their concern regarding payment of lesser wages
as compared to the other Class 4 employees of the entire UIC unit. This compelled the
management of UIC to have a meeting with the elected representatives of the registered
Trade Union (Union) of the canteen workers. Following the meeting, the management
sanctioned an order to terminate the services of three of the workers. Having aggrieved by
the said order, the matter reached to the Industrial Tribunal by following the appropriate
procedure on October 24th 2017.
5. The points raised by the Union are:
a. That UIC must pay the GST and free Bhola Prasad from this obligation so that the
canteen may continue of functioning smoothly as of the earlier times.
b. That UIC in its premises is providing the services such as furniture, electricity, water
supply, water purifier, centralized Air Conditioner etc. and electricity bill is also
paid by UIC itself. Hence, it is prayed that all the workers of the canteen cum food
court may also be made permanent employees of Unnati Industry as it is an innate
part of the corporation. Hence the control and supervision over the canteen is
governed by Canteen and Management Committee.
c. That workers whose services are terminated are the workmen of UIC hence they
must be reinstated.
d. That 4 out of 18 workers are already permanent employees of the UIC therefore, the
treatment awarded to the remaining 14 workers is discriminatory in respect of the
employment under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

The tribunal through its award directed UIC to reinstate the employment of the terminated
workmen and also ordered to make their employment permanent. Hence, they shall be
awarded the wages that are paid to all other workmen falling under Class 4 employees of
the UIC. The award was challenged by the UIC in the Hon’ble High Court of Zafhisthan
(High Court).

6. The matter was taken by the means of writ of certiorari praying for quashing the
proceedings which took place before the Industrial Tribunal. A single judge bench of High
 Court affirmed the findings of Industrial Tribunal and directed the UIC authorities to
implement the award of the Industrial Tribunal with immediate effect.
7. The single judge bench of the High Court in the view of UIC erred by concluding that the
Industrial Tribunal’s Award was valid. Further the matter reached to the Divisional Bench
of the High Court which decided the case in favor of the UIC on the basis of the following
points:
a. Canteen workers are not the employees of the UIC but of the contractor. The UIC is
not substantially controlling and supervising the UIC is merely providing the basic
facilities needed to run a canteen in its premises.
b. Based on ‘a)’, the workers shall not be given the wages as per the norms of the UIC
set for paying wages to Class 4 employees.
c. The reinstatement order by the Industrial Tribunal which was later on affirmed by
the single judge bench of this High Court shall be quashed.

The Union has finally decided to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.

8. It is evident that the Union upon discussing with the Committee brought up the issue of
canteen employing 4 child workers, two of the age 12 and other two of the age 13 years
and 8 months and 13 years 5 months respectively along with above mentioned issues.
When the State Government of Zafhistan referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, it
asked the Tribunal to confine its adjudication only on the points of the nature of the
employment of the canteen workers and wages to be paid and reinstatement if made. The
issue regarding ‘child labour’ and that who should bear the burden of GST raised by the
Union before the management are not referred to the Tribunal as it is thought that the
Tribunal is not the appropriate forum. Therefore, the Tribunal was silent on this issue.
9. The Union then, was forced to take the recourse of filing a writ before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court raising the issue that the State Government of Zafhistan is ignoring the
matter of child labour on purpose for favouring the UIC. In a separate writ before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Union raised the issue of burden of payment on UIC as per
the law governing imposition of GST.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court for the sake of brevity decided to club the SLP and both the
writs filed before the court on separate occasions. A 5-judges-bench has been formed to
decide on the merits of the case and serve the justice.