Page |1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, CENTRAL DELHI, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ……..OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

SINGER CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD……………………………..……………...PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

WINSOFT TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD………………………...…..…DEFENDANT

CIVIL SUIT UNDER SECTION 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

SUBMITTED BY:

Name: Manisha Aswal

Class Roll No.: 173066

Exam Roll No.: 170348

Section F, LL.B. Semester-V,

Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

 Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pleadings on behalf of the Defendant……..……………...………….……………...……....3

Case Planning Chart……………………………………………………………...….………7
Case Theory……………………………………………………………………………..……8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

 Page |3

PLEADINGS

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, CENTRAL DELHI, DELHI

SUIT NO. _______OF 2019

(SUIT UNDER ORDER__________ OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s SINGER CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act,
Having its Registered Office at:
34 New Complex, Delhi
Through its Managing Director
Mr. Varun Singer ……..PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/s WINSOFT TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD

A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act,
Having its Registered Office at:
202 Sea Lane, Mumbai
Through its Managing Director
Ms. Neena Elizabeth …DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Defendant Company is a Company constituted under the Companies Act, 2013
having its Registered Office at 202 Sea Lane, Mumbai.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

 Page |4

2. That Ms. Neena Elizabeth is the Managing Director of the Defendant Company who
was looking at the prospects of expanding the business of their company in Delhi.

3. That Singer Consultants Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the exquisitely designed property-
Jubilee Plaza. The Defendant visited that property in June 2015 and instantly had a
liking for it. It had all the required facilities which they required.

4. On 12 September, the parties signed a lease deed to lease out Jubilee Plaza at a monthly
rent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The rent was to be paid in advance by the 7th day of every month.
Also, it was agreed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per car for the parking space for two cars.

5. That the Defendant paid a Rs. 6,00,000/-, the equivalent of monthly rent for three
months as security deposit to the Plaintiff Company.

6. As per the lease deed, the Plaintiff had the obligation to maintain the property for which
they billed maintenance charges to the Defendants. The Defendants had duly paid all
the charges billed.

7. That all the clauses in the lease deed were mutually decided after rounds of negotiations
between the parties.

8. That though there was a lock in period of three years, however, the clause did not
contain any provision for penalty or liquidated damages for terminating the lease within
the lock-in period.

9. That the Defendants failed to fulfill their obligation of maintaining the property. The
property was in a poor state where the central air conditioning of premises was not
working, which was having issues of water logging and bad lightening in the common
areas.

10. That the Defendant made repeated request to the maintenance department of the
Plaintiff company. However, they were not paying any heed to these issues and the
property continued to remain in a poor state.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

 Page |5

11. That the clients of the Defendant company frequently visit the office and such poor
maintenance was creating embarrassment to the Defendants and was damaging the
reputation of their business. They could not hold meetings in the premises or
accommodate employees due to these issues.

12. That unfortunately the Defendant had to spend their own money for installing the air
conditioning and to carry out other repair works.

13. That the Defendant continued to face the maintenance issues, therefore, they sent a
three-month notice to the Plaintiff on 25 March, 2017 requesting them to terminate the
lease deed w.e.f. 30 June, 2017 and to adjust the rent for the months of April, May and
June 2019 against the security deposit.

14. That the Defendant handed over the possession of the property to the Plaintiff on 30
March, 2019 which was followed by a joint inspection on 1 September, 2019. The
Defendants returned the premises in the same condition that they received it.

15. That the Plaintiff deliberately did not look up for a tenant or take steps to mitigate the
loss of rent and kept the premises vacant up to 1 February 2018.

16. That the Manager of the Plaintiff Company, Mr. Sunny Singh even taunted the Manager
of the Defendant company that they do not need to look for a tenant as the Plaintiff
would be forced to pay the rent up to September 2018.

17. That it is the Plaintiff who have committed the breach of contract by not maintaining
the property and therefore, they have no right to forfeit the security amount equivalent
to three-months’ rent for the months of April, May and June 2019.

18. That the Managing Director of the Defendant has undergone immense mental trauma
and financial loss during this time while dealing with the Plaintiff.

19. That the present suit as filed by the Plaintiffs is the abuse of process of law and as such
liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

 Page |6

PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff.
(b) Award costs to the Defendant.
(c) Pass any other just and equitable order as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

DEFENDANT

THROUGH
ADVOCATE

Place: Delhi
Date:

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this ___ day of _________ 2019 that the contents of the above pleadings

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

 Page |7

CASE PLANNING CHART

Case title: Singer Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Winsoft Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd.

Client Goals/Objectives
Legal Elements of Facts to support Source of Informal Formal Opponent’s
claim claim claim proof discovery discovery defences

The • The breach • As per the lease • In the cross • The parties • Though • The
Defendant of contract deed, the Plaintiff examination did not intend there was a Defendant
are not has been had the obligation of Mr. Varun to include any lock-in terminated
liable to committed to maintain the Singer, it has period of the
provision for
pay any by the property. been three years, Contract
damages Plaintiff- admitted that penalty or however, before the
to the Company • However, the all the terms liquidated the deed expiry of
Plaintiff. itself and property was in a and damages for did not the three-
not by the poor state where conditions in terminating contain any year lock-in
Defendant. the central air the lease the lease penalty period,
conditioning of deed were within the provision citing
• The premises was not mutually in case the limitation
lock-in period.
Plaintiff working, which decided after Defendant of space as
failed to was having issues rounds of terminate the reason
fulfill their of water logging negotiations • It is the lease for the said
obligation and bad between the unbelievable deed before termination,
of lightening in the parties. that they could the expiry by
maintaining common areas. not find a of the lock- providing a
the • In the cross tenant for such
in period. three-
property, • The Defendant examination month
a high ended
therefore, made repeated of the • The notice.
they request to the Plaintiffs, it and Plaintiff
committed maintenance has not been exquisitely deliberately
breach of department of the denied that designed did not
contract. Plaintiff. repeated property look out a
However, they requests were situated in a tenant or
were not paying made to the take steps
well-known
any heed to these maintenance to mitigate
department area of Delhi the loss of
issues and the
property which were for a period of rent all this
continued to of no avail. more than time.
remain in a poor eight months.
state.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

 Page |8

CASE THEORY

In the light of cross examination of Mr. Varun Singer (hereinafter referred as PW 1) and Mr.
Sunny Singh (hereinafter referred as “PW 2”) as conducted by the Counsel for the Defendants
it has been clearly established that the parties did not intend to include any provision for penalty
or liquidated damages for terminating the lease within the lock-in period. Though there was a
lock-in period of three years, however, the deed did not contain any penalty provision in case
the Defendant terminate the lease deed before the expiry of the lock-in period. It has been
admitted that all the terms and conditions in the lease deed were mutually decided after rounds
of negotiations between the parties. The purpose of the lock-in period was merely ensure that
the Plaintiffs do not lease out the property to any other party for a period of at least three years.

That the law does not operate upon assumptions and implications and every stipulation which
has been negotiated between the parties has been carefully drafted in the contract. If the parties
contemplated anything like a penalty or compensation, they would have clearly mentioned it
in the lease deed. Hence, the Defendant is not liable to pay penalty for pre-mature termination
for the lease deed.

That it has been admitted that as per the lease deed it was the responsibility of the Plaintiff
company to maintain the property. It has not been denied that repeated requests were made to
the maintenance department which were of no avail. Therefore, the Plaintiff failed to fulfill
their obligation of maintaining the property, therefore, they are the ones who have committed
the breach of contract.

That the very purpose of sending a three-months’ notice to the Plaintiff company was for them
to find a new tenant. It is unbelievable that Plaintiff company could not find a tenant for such
a high ended and exquisitely designed property situated in a well-known area of Delhi for a
period of more than eight months. The Plaintiff deliberately did not look out a tenant or take
steps to mitigate the loss of rent all this time. Therefore, they cannot demand penalty or
damages from the Defendants for losses they suffered due to their own unreasonable conduct.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL

 Page |9

Further, in the examination-in-chief of Mr. Sooraj Krishnan (hereinafter referred as “DW 2”)
it has been established that the Manager of the Plaintiff Company, Mr. Sunny Singh even
taunted DW 2 that they do not need to look for a tenant as the Plaintiff would be forced to pay
the rent up to September 2018.

It is, thus, humbly submitted that the Plaintiff themselves committed breach of contract by not
fulfilling their obligations under the lease deed. Therefore, they are not entitled to any damages
for their own negligible and unreasonable conduct.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IN MOCK TRIAL