MOOT COURT SOCIETY, CAMPUS LAW CENTRE

COMMON INDUCTION MOOT, 2024

MOOT COMPROMIS

1. Anil Kumar, a 35-year-old businessman, owned a mid-sized textile manufacturing

factory in the industrial hub of Supreme district in Jelly, the capital of the country of
Hinduja. Over the past year, his business had struggled due to intense competition from
Rahul Sharma, another factory owner in the same sector who undercut Anil’s offerings.
Rahul’s company, known for its superior products and aggressive expansion tactics,
had thus significantly cut into Anil’s market share. Tensions between the two
businessmen escalated publicly, with frequent altercations reported in the media and
witnessed by industry insiders. Notably, during an a quarterly meeting between textile
factory owners held in March, 2024, Rahul splashed a cocktail on Anil’s face during a
verbal spat in front of almost 20 other people causing severe public humiliation to Anil.

2. Anil, already burdened by mounting debts, began exhibiting erratic behaviour. During
a private dinner with his friends, Rajiv and Sunil, Anil vented his frustrations, lamenting
that his business was on the verge of collapse. Rajiv, a businessman with known
underworld ties, suggested in jest, “Maybe it would have been better with Rahul out of
the equation.” Anil, visibly agitated, neither explicitly supported nor dismissed the
comment. Sunil cautioned against taking drastic actions but made no further remarks.
The conversation, while ominous, remained vague and inconclusive.

3. Two weeks later, a fire broke out at Rahul’s primary factory, causing severe damage.
An initial police investigation ruled the incident as arson. CCTV footage revealed two
of Rajiv’s known associates in the vicinity on the night of the fire. These men were
notorious for their involvement in organized crime, including violent offenses. While
questioned by police, Anil claimed no knowledge of the fire, maintaining that his rivalry
with Rahul was strictly professional and he had no reason to resort to illegal measures.

4. Just days later, a second fire erupted at Rahul’s secondary warehouse, though the
damage was minimal. This incident further heightened the suspicion surrounding Anil
and his associates, as the fires appeared to be coordinated attempts to destabilize
Rahul’s business.

5. The case took a dramatic turn when Rahul was found severely under mysterious
circumstances on the night of 29/06/2024. He died the next day because of the injuries.
It is accepted that while driving home, Rahul was ambushed by masked assailants and

1
 beaten to death. Witnesses saw Rajiv’s black SUV near the scene shortly before the
attack. Police arrested Rajiv and his two associates based on witness accounts and
circumstantial evidence after an anonymous person informed the local Station House
Officer about the same. During questioning, one of Rajiv’s associates confessed to
carrying out the attack but claimed it was intended only to intimidate Rahul. The
associate alleged that Rajiv had ordered them to “teach him a lesson,” but things got
out of control during the altercation, resulting in Rahul’s death. Rajiv denied these
allegations.

6. One of the associates also disclosed that days before the attack, Anil had attended a
meeting with Rajiv and his men, where the idea of “sending Rahul a message” was
discussed. However, the associate clarified that no explicit mention of murder was
made during this meeting, and Anil seemed passive throughout the conversation.
Despite this, the police arrested Anil on charges of conspiracy to murder, arguing that
his presence at the meeting and his financial desperation provided sufficient motive for
his involvement in the crime.

7. Anil’s defense vehemently denied these accusations, contending that he was unaware
of any violent plans and that his attendance at the meeting was purely coincidental.
They argued that Anil had consistently sought to resolve his rivalry with Rahul through
legal and business means, with no intention of causing him physical harm.

8. During further investigation, phone records revealed multiple calls between Anil and
Rajiv in the days leading up to the murder. While no incriminating statements were
made during these calls, their frequency raised doubts about Anil’s claim of non-
involvement. Additionally, Rajiv’s associate alleged that after Rahul’s death, Rajiv had
met with Anil privately, where Anil expressed relief that “the problem was finally
over.” However, there was no direct evidence to corroborate this meeting or the alleged
conversation.

9. The state has moved to the court of appropriate jurisdiction for the prosecution of the
accused for offences like murder, criminal conspiracy, and arson, among others.

10. The laws of Jelly are pari materia to the laws of Delhi. The laws of Hinduja are pari
materia to those of India.

2
 ANNEXURE-A

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR)

Police Station: Supreme P.S.

FIR Number: 420 of 2024
Date and Time of Filing: 01/07/2024 at 10:30 AM

1. Complainant’s Details

 Name: Inspector Vijay Patel

 Position: SHO, Supreme Police Station

2. Date, Time, and Location of the Incident

 Primary Incident Date: 29/06/2024

 Time of Incident: Approximately 11:00 PM
 Location of Incident: Intersection near Rahim Nagar, Supreme, Jelly; approximately
3.5 kms from the P.S.

3. Details of the Alleged Crime

 Nature of the Crime: Criminal Conspiracy, Murder, Arson, Criminal Intimidation.

 Brief Description: On the night of 29/06/2024, businessman Rahul Sharma was
ambushed while driving home. Witnesses reported seeing a black SUV, registered to
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, near the scene. Rahul was assaulted by masked assailants, resulting
in his death, one day later. Prior to this fatal incident, two separate fires broke out at
Rahul's business properties—one at his primary factory and another at his secondary
warehouse—both suspected as coordinated arson attempts. CCTV footage from the
first fire incident shows two individuals associated with Mr. Rajiv Sharma in the
vicinity, who are known for their involvement in organized crime.

4. Witness Accounts and Allegations against the Accused

 Witnesses reported a black SUV, belonging to Mr. Rajiv Sharma, at the scene shortly
before attack on Rahul. One of Rajiv’s associates, who later confessed to the crime,
alleged that Rajiv ordered them to intimidate Rahul but the altercation escalated,
resulting in murder.
 Statements Linking the Accused: The associate alleged that Mr. Anil Kumar had
privately met with Rajiv following Rahul’s death, expressing relief that “the problem
was finally over.”
 Phone Record Evidence: Phone records indicate multiple calls between Anil Kumar
and Rajiv Sharma in the days leading up to Rahul's death, further suggesting frequent
communication and potential coordination.

5. Description of the suspected offender(s)

 Name: Anil Kumar, 35, Businessman.

3
  Name: Rajiv Sharma, Businessman (alleged criminal connections)
 Associates: Two men connected to Rajiv, involved in organized crime

6. Type of information: Personal (Written)

7. Basis on which FIR is lodged: Written Complaint

8. Particulars of the post-mortem report:

Death by succumbing to several physical injuries to the head, ribs, hip, neck, legs, and arms.
Time of Death – approximately 11:50 am on 30/06/2024

9. Signature/thumb impression of complainant/informant: Signed Vijay Patel

10. Signature of Office-in-charge, Police station: Signed S.H.O Vijay Patel

11. FIR read over to the complainant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to the
complainant free of cost.

16. Date and time of dispatch to the Court: 2nd July 2024 at 11.40 AM

4
 RULES & PROCEDURE

REGISTRATION:

The last date to register for CIM 2024 is 12 PM, November 2nd, 2024. Interested participants
can register through the following link:
<https://forms.gle/v2koUuibxKDaQbqh9>

No extension for registration shall be granted. Moreover, no delay in registration will be

entertained/condoned under any circumstances. In case of multiple registrations by a
participant, only the latest registration entry shall be considered.

REGULATIONS:
A. Language: The language of the competition shall be ENGLISH only.
B. Eligibility: The competition is open for all bona fide students of Campus Law Centre
pursuing the 3-year LL.B. course and are not already a member of the Moot Court Society.
C. Team Composition: There shall be no teams for CIM 2024. All participants shall participate
individually.
D. Memorial: The format of the memorial should be as follows:
a. Main Body Text: Times New Roman, Font Size 12, Line Spacing 1.5
b. Footnotes Text: Times New Roman, Font Size 10, Line Spacing 1.0
c. A margin measuring 1-inch should be left on all sides of each page.
d. Each page should be numbered at the bottom centre of the page.
e. The Memorial must not mention any personal details such as your Name, Year, Roll Number,
Contact Details, etc. which reveal your identity in any manner. If any such detail is found on
the Memorial, then the memorial and the participant shall be immediately disqualified from
CIM 2024.

5
CONTENTS OF THE MEMORIAL:
The Memorial must necessarily contain (but may not be restricted to) the following, in the
order mentioned below:
a. Front Page
b. Table of Contents (1 Page)
c. Index of Authorities (up to 2 Pages)
d. Statement of Jurisdiction (1 Page)
e. Statement of Facts (1 Page)
f. Statement of Issues (1 Page)
g. Summary of Arguments (up to 2 Pages)
h. Arguments Advanced (up to 15 pages)
i. Prayer (1 Page)
No additional facts must be incorporated or relied upon other than those mentioned in the Moot
Problem. The style of footnoting must be consistent. Footnotes must be restricted for providing
bare citations only and must not be accompanied by any form of description or explanation of
authorities/provisions of law/sections/statutes relied upon.

The front page of the Memorial must be BLUE for Complainant and RED for Accused.
The cover page of the Memorial must mention the following:
a. COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2024, CAMPUS LAW CENTRE
b. Name and Place of the Court
c. The Cause Title
d. Memorial on behalf of <Complainant/Accused>
e. Counsel appearing on behalf of <Complainant/Accused>

6
SCORING:
MEMORIALS:
The scoring for Memorials will be out of maximum of 30 Marks, which shall be divided as
follows:
a. Application and Appreciation of Facts (5 marks)
b. Identification and Presentation of Issues (5 marks)
c. Application of Legal Principles/Provisions, Use of Precedents and Authorities (10 marks)
d. Logical Structure, Grammar and Style (5 marks)
e. Consistent Footnoting and formatting (5 marks)
Note: Further notice shall be issued with regards to the submission of memorials for CIM
2024.

ORAL ROUNDS:
Oral Rounds shall be conducted OFFLINE at Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi. Each
participant shall get a total of 15 minutes to present their case/pleadings/arguments. The oral
arguments must be confined to the issues presented in the Memorial.
The scoring for Oral Arguments will be out of maximum of 70 Marks, which shall be divided
as follows:
a. Application and Appreciation of Facts (15 marks)
b. Understanding of Law and Procedure (15 marks)
c. Use of Authorities and Precedents (10 marks)
d. Response to Questions and Articulation (15 marks)
e. Advocacy Skills, Court Craft and Demeanour (15 marks)

DRESS CODE:
For Female Counsel: White Shirt with Black/White Pants OR White/Black Kurta, White/Black
Salwar, Black Blazer (Blazer is preferable).
For Male Counsel: White shirt, Black/White Pants, Tie and Black Blazer (Blazer is preferable).

7
SELECTION CRITERIA:
a. There is no win/loss in the competition for any participant. There is no pre-fixed number of
students that will be admitted into the Society through CIM 2024.
b. The cut-off marks for the Memorial Round is 15 marks.
c. The cut-off marks for the Oral Round is 45 marks.
d. All those candidates who are able to secure the above-mentioned cut-off marks for BOTH
the Memorial and the Oral Round, and have not attracted any penalty or any other
disqualification as per the Society rules, will be admitted into the Moot Court Society as its
members.

NOTE:
a. The decision of the Judges and the organizers shall be final in all respects.
b. Any misconduct on the part of a participant may attract disqualification, at the sole discretion
of the Moot Court Society.
c. Any clarifications, any queries for problems related to memorial submission, or any queries
with respect to the competition may be sought by writing to the organisers at
<campuslawcentre.mcs@gmail.com> with subject line “CIM 2024 QUERY”.