Sei sulla pagina 1di 27

This is to inform the students that moot shall be held on 13th October 2012.

The submission of Memorial is on 11th October 2012.


BUSINESS LAW GROUP Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10 Group 11 402 v 404 408 v. 410 418 v. 421 426 v. 428 432 v. 434 437 v. 439 443 v. 444 447 v. 448 452 v. 453 468 v. 471 475 v. 476 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW GROUP Group 12 Group 13 401 v. 412 427 v. 433 CRIMINAL LAW GROUP Group 14 Group 15 Group 16 Group 17 Group 18 403 v. 411 409 v. 419 441 v. 454 462 v. 464 469 v. 472 413 v. 416 424 v. 438 456 v. 461 466 v. 467 477 v. 422 417 v. 420 455 v. 470 405 v. 406 414 v. 415 423 v. 425 430 v. 431 435 v. 436 440 v. 442 445 v. 446 449 v. 450 457 v. 459 473 v. 474 480 v. 481

GROUP NO. 1 402 v. 404 405 v. 406

BUSINESS LAW Copybooks put limited is a privately owned firm of three partners namely Rajiv Thakur, Krishna Desai and Kapil Verma. They are into publishing business of books from more them two decades. They publish mainly the biographies of famous personalities from all over the world, from different walks of life, be it sports, drama, politics, etc. There agents get into contracts with people to get their publication rights and once it is done then the writers would have regular meetings with the personalities and get their inputs on various events of their lines. The events were recorded and then edited and printed in the book form. Raju was incharge of the contract formation, drafting and execution, Krishna of meeting the personalities and recording and formatting the drafts of the books and Kapil was incharge of publication and marketing. Along with publication business, Kapil stores a segment on the publication houses website, where by public could read the abstract of the books and also of the forthcoming books and also started a research segment where by e-books related to the times of eminent personalities were uploaded, this was especially meant for the students to read. The publisher body opposed this action and called this a violation of the copyrights and rested with them. A man suit of infringement and in junction on all of the works of copybooks Pvt. Ltd. Was filed against specifically a book to be released by Kapil, which the website mentions is meant for the student alone as a research guide into the life of the personality and contained many un-read and un-sent events and memories of their lives, which were not part of their biographies even. Argue the case.

GROUP NO. 2 408 v. 410 414 v. 415

BUSINESS LAW 1. ABC Ltd.- a European Company entered into a joint venture cum-technology transfer agreement (JV-A) with XYZ (P) Ltd - ABC Ltd.'s Indian import partner, in January 2007. JV-A was initially entered into for an experimental period of one year, with an option of renewal for further periods, either on the same or modified terms, as may be determined by mutual consent According to JV-A, both partners owned 50% shares in the new entity, Prime Parts P. Ltd, which was incorporated in February 2007. The Indo-European partnership proved to be a huge success from the word go and it was evident mat the relationship would continue beyond the initial period (which expired on December 31, 2007). However, confirmation of renewal of JV-A on the same terms till 2010 could be executed by both parties only by April 2008, without, however, at any point interfering with or causing disruption of the business of the Prime Parts P Ltd. 2. In mid-2009 however, differences arose between JV-A's partners. This was magnified by the fact that ABC Ltd. was being approached by other Indian companies with tempting offers of partnership for technical assistance. One such offerer was Vanshika Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd., a company incorporated in the year 2000 under the Companies Act, 1956 in the state of Maharashtra. By the end of 2009, an agreement between ABC Ltd. and Vanshika Manufacturing (P) Ltd. (JV-B) was executed resulting in the incorporation of Heavy Machinery Parts P. Ltd with a 25-75-shareholding in favour of the Indian partner. It was understood between the JV-B parties that ABC Ltd. will gradually withdraw from & exit JVA when it comes up for renewal aid infuse additional capital into Heavy Machinery Parts P. Ltd by such time. 3. The beginning of 2011 there arose a huge demand for parts and accessories. Accordingly a proposal to issue further capital (to be subscribed by both partners of JV-B) was mooted in the Board Meeting of Heavy Machinery Parts Pvt. Ltd on 24.04.2011. However, the European camp on the Board was unwilling to commit to an investment at that stage and no decision could be reached due to Section 8.1 of the JV-B agreement. As per the said section (as well as Article 21 of the Articles of Association), all decisions or actions taken by the Board required the affirmative majority vote of the Directors present at the meeting, provided that any decision on certain specified matters could be taken only on the affirmative votes of two directors, one nominated by each JV-B partner resulting in a total of 2 affirmative votes (1 from each side), apart from the majority. And among the specified matters, clause (c) read as follows: "(c) the authorization, creation, allotment or issuance of any shares, or classes or series of shares, in the capital of the Company or any securities or debentures of the Company, the issuance or grant of any option over the unissued share capital of the Company, or any change in the capital structure of the Company or the rights, preferences and privileges of any shares, or classes or series of shares, in the capital of the Company;" 4. At the next Board Meeting held on 16.06.2011, the resolution could once again not be passed due to the persistent refusal of ABC Ltd. nominee directors to consent to the contribution of additional capital. In a subsequent Board Meeting on 01.08.2011, the ABC Ltd. representative sought leave of absence and a change of nomination for the purpose of Section 8.1 of JV-B could not be made in time. In the meantime, the global

FOURTH YEAR financial crisis broke out. In the wake of the crisis, the European partner refused to participate in any talks of fresh investment. With the Indian domestic market for their products almost isolated from the impact of the crisis, Vanshika continued to nurse hopes of a revival and possible further expansion. On 30.9.2011, the Board of Directors convened an extraordinary general meeting at which meeting, (held on 21.10.2011), a resolution to allot further shares to the tune of 2 crores to Vanshika was passed along with special resolutions for altering several provisions in the Articles of Association which originally incorporated sections in JV-B. 5. Aggrieved by this unilateral action, ABC Ltd. filed a petition before the Company Law Board, Chennai under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 for oppression and mismanagement against Heavy Machinery Parts P. Ltd and Vanshika Manufacturing P.Ltd. It was contended by ABC Ltd. that the shareholders usurping the powers of the Board of allotment of shares at the general meeting is a clear violation of the demarcation of the powers of the Board of Directors and Shareholders under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Furthermore, ABC Ltd. claimed that the Allotment of additional share capital to the exclusion of the Petitioners particularly when there was no impending need for the same and consequent Alteration of the Articles in breach of the joint venture agreement between the parties (JV-B). The foreign company (ABC Ltd.) also contended that there was complete standstill in the business of the company with no new projects/contracts since the beginning of 2011 and that all these facts amounted to acts of oppression and mismanagement and that they are entitled to relief under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. 6. Vanshika, on the other hand, contended that the so-called standstill in business contended by ABC Ltd. was only temporary and that too, due to the financial crunch faced by the company, which in turn, was ABC Ltd.'s own default as neither did the Euorpean partner agree to contribute funds nor did it allow its Indian counterpart to do so. This, according to Vanshika, was evidenced by the deadlock in the Board at consecutive meetings, which compelled the shareholders to exercise the power delegated to the Board in the interests of the company. It was further argued that the alteration in me Articles of Association was perfectly justified in view of the fact mat JV-B was void ab initio by virtue of Press Note 1/2008 issued by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (Secretariat for Industrial Assistance), that required prior government approval in case the foreign investor had an existing JV i.e. JV-A in India as on the date of the Press note. Furthermore section 2.3 of JV-B provided that JV-B shall be conditional upon and shall become effective as between parties subject to the procuring of all the necessary approvals of the Government of India and/or its regulatory agencies such as the Reserve Bank of India, FIPB etc. 7. In response to the argument regarding validity of JV-B, ABC Ltd. took the stand that no existing JV was in place as on 12.1.2008 within the meaning of Press Note 1/2008 read with Press Note 3/2008. Section 6.11 of JV-B provided for Deadlock and remedies therefore, it read as under : Deadlock and Remedy 6.11.1 "Deadlock" shall mean that: - at two consecutive meetings of the Board a formal vote of the Directors is taken and that the vote taken on each such occasion is 2-2 or less than the required number of votes to pass such a decision, or - at two consecutive shareholder meetings a formal vote of the shareholders of the Company is taken to approve matters, is less than the required majority to carry the resolution as passed.

FOURTH YEAR 6.11.2 In the event of any Deadlock, then, unless each party expressly waives its rights under this Section within thirty (30) days after the vote resulting in such Deadlock: (a) The Company shall be dissolved, and the parties, in their capacities as shareholders of the Company shall promptly take all such actions as may be required to cause the Company to expeditiously wind up their affairs and dissolve 8. The very maintainability of a petition under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was also challenged by Vanshika on the ground that JV-B provided for the resolution of any dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement to be resolved by arbitration according to the rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. Argue the case.

GROUP NO. 3 408 v. 421 423 v. 425

BUSINESS LAW Mr. Peter is the Managing Director and Mr. Rajan Masih is the director of the company known as "M/s. ABC Agro Products Private Limited", which was incorporated on 21-71993. In the complaint filed by the Registrar, it is alleged that the complainant observed from the balance sheet as at 31st March, 2009 and 31st March, 2010, that the company has under the guise of sheep units and through other schemes invited and accepted deposits from the public and the amounts outstanding under the above heads in the balance sheet as at 31-32009 and 31-3-2010 are Rs.10.51 crores and Rs.10.44 crores respectively. Registrar of Companies claims that the aforesaid amounts were accepted by the said company without complying the requirements of limits as stipulated under Section 58A (1) & (2) of the Act. The Company did not comply with the Rules of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 which stipulate the requirements of maintenance of liquid assets, the limits up to which the deposits can be invited and accepted, filing of text of advertisement/statement in lieu of advertisement, maintenance of deposits and filing of return of deposits etc. The Registrar of the Companies issued a show cause notice to Peter and Rajan Masih on 17-11-2011 as to why legal action should not be initiated for the said contravention. In the meanwhile High Court appointed official liquidator by an order dated 24-7-2011. Mr. Peter sent a reply stating that the proceedings under the Act have to come to an end consequent upon the orders of the High Court dated 24-7-2011 resulting in the appointment of the official liquidator as provisional liquidator. It is the case of the ROC that the default pertains prior to liquidation proceedings and, therefore, the plea taken by the first petitioner is not tenable in law. In the circumstances, the ROC filed a complaint under Section 58A (6) of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Rules against Mr. Peter and Rajan Masih for contravention of the provisions of Section 58A (1) & (2) of the Act and Rule 3. 3A, 3 (2) (i), 3 (2) (ii), 4/4a, 7, 8 & 10 of the Rules. It is pertinent to mention that the complaint has been filed only against Mr. Peter and Rajan Masih and company has not been impleaded. Argue on behalf of ROC and Respondents, Peter and Rajan Masih

GROUP NO. 4 426 v. 428 430 v. 431

BUSINESS LAW The Pursharti Ltd. consisted of four directors and seventy five shareholders. Four directors were namely Mr. Karunesh and Ms. Divya belonging to majority group and Mr. Bhuvnesh and Mr. Kamal belonging to minority group. The effective management and control was in the hands of majority group as the managing director was Mr. Karunesh. Although the directors were an expert in the commercial field but still due to some commercial misjudgments which caused loss to the company, there was a short term diminution in shares. Due to this, the majority group started a competing business with that of Pursharthi Ltd. which further worsened the situation. The conflict between the two groups came to the forefront when majority group called a meeting of the shareholders. The notice of this meeting was served at the local address of Mr. Bhuvnesh and Mr. Kamal where as they settled out of India. However, the notice was sent under postal certificate and the meeting agenda was attached to it. In this meeting an additional director was appointed on the ground that Mr. Bhuvnesh and Mr. Kamal were staying out of India and were not taking interest in companys affairs. Some other resolutions which were passed in the meeting are as follows: 1. Power to issue further shares with pre-emption right to majority group. 2. Release of bank guarantee given by the company in favor of majority group. 3. Redemption of shares held by minority group. When the minority group came to know about this meeting and various resolutions passed in it, they agitated and served a legal notice calling the company to quash the meeting and the resolutions taken in it. This notice was not replied by the majority group. Now, the minority group is filing a petition under appropriate section(s) of the Companies Act to get relief on the following issue: Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the conduct of majority group is oppressive in nature. Argue for or against the issue.

GROUP NO. 5 432 v. 434 435 v. 436


The Trinamool Ltd. was a small company which consisted of five directors in the board. Four directors belonged to Group A which was the majority group and one director belonged to Group B which was the minority group as the company followed the procedure of proportionate representation. Mr. Kamal belonging to the minority group was the managing director of the company. Everything was running smoothly till January 2010 when Mr. Kamal was charged with misappropriation of companies assets. It was alleged by a whistleblower in the company that Mr. Kamal had purchased certain machinery at a manipulated price but failed to prove the same which led to discharge of Mr. Kamal. However, the majority group taking a cue from this incident tried to replace him from the post of managing director which was resisted by the minority group. One day when Mr. Kamal reached his office after a short visit from Singapore, he found that Mr. Manohar had been appointed the Managing Director of the company. A preliminary probe revealed that he had been removed from the post of directorship by a meeting of board of directors held on March 23, 2010. Mr. Manohar was a chartered accountant by profession and earlier been an independent director of the company. Further, the company had also called a meeting of the shareholders in which Mr. Kamal had been removed from the directorship. This minutes of this meeting revealed the presence of Mr. Kamal in this meeting where as he was away to Singapore at that time. New members had also been inducted in the company after this meeting which reduced the number of minority shareholders to a marginal limit in which they were unable to have even one director on board. On a petition filed by Mr. Kamal, the company court of first instance ordered winding up of the company on the presumption that there was a complete deadlock in the management. Now, the parties are in appeal on following issues: 1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case winding up order was justified. 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case any other order or relief can be provided.

GROUP NO. 6 437 v. 439 440 v. 442

BUSINESS LAW Mr. Akhilesh was a wealthy man who had to under go a major surgery for some infirmity. While entering the operation theatre he made some disclosure of untaxed income lying in form to unaccounted gold to the tune of rupees one crore at his house to the persons present there. Further, he expressed his desire to give this gold to Mr. Saurabh who was his younger son in case he failed to survive in that operation. Out of anonymity, Mr. Brij, the elder son of Mr. Akhilesh gave this information to the Income Tax Department. A raid was conducted at the premises of Mr. Akhilesh and the information was found to be correct. Apart from this unaccounted gold, the raiding team recovered a diary in which entries regarding unaccounted cash to the tune of Rupees ten lakhs were also there. A diamond ring costing around rupees ninety lakhs was also found. The assessing officer served a notice on Mr. Akhilesh and made an addition of all the items mentioned above on the following grounds: 1. The statement at the time of operation was an admission and no further proof was required 2. The assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of income from which the ring was purchased. 3. The entries in diary were adequate evidence and the assessee himself had agreed to surrender the said amount. However, the assessee had tried to explain his part of the case by alleging: 1. That the gold and the diamond ring were gifted to him at the time of his marriage which took place around forty years back. As far as ring was concerned, an old bill from a gold smith at the time of his marriage was placed on record but he failed to bring any corroborative material for gold but he simply alleged it to be accounted. 2. That the surrender was made under coercion and an affidavit by Mr. Saurabh that the diary belonged to him was produced on record. Now the assessee has filed an appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the aforementioned assessment and praying for appropriate relief. Argue on the following issue: 1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case addition on account of gold is called for. 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case addition on account of diamond ring is called for. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case addition on account of entries in diary is called for.

GROUP NO. 7 443 v. 444 445 v. 446

BUSINESS LAW It has been reported by a Regional Manager Sales South 2 of commercial vehicles that he has detected that a dealer based in Madurai has issued a forged bank guarantee of Rs. 7 Cr to the Company. According to the R M, Mr Satyawan Singh is a Director of Honest Motors Ltd., Madurai, an authorized dealer of Comml. Vehicles Tata Motors Ltd., in Madurai. In the course of business as an authorized dealer they had to furnish a Bank guarantee to Tata Motors Ltd., as a security, as per their estimated yearly turnover of sales. The Dealer on behalf of Honest Motors Ltd., furnished a Bank Guarantee for Rs.1.5 Cr initially which was a Bank guarantee of UCO Bank, from Madurai. Thereafter, they furnished another bank guarantee for Rs.2 Cr from the same bank. Thereafter since their sales had increased they furnished yet another bank guarantee of Rs.5 Cr of the same bank and asked for return of bank guarantees for Rs 1.5 Cr and 2 Cr submitted earlier. Tata Motors, in the regular course of business, wrote a letter to the UCO Bank and inquired about the genuineness of the Bank Guarantees. The UCO Bank, to our surprise, informed that the Bank Guarantees for Rs.2 Cr as well as the one for Rs.5 Cr were forged documents and the Bank had never issued the said Guarantees. We were further informed by UCO Bank that the original bank guarantee for Rs.1.5 Cr had been returned to them by Honest Motors Ltd., and the same had been cancelled, which in effect, meant that the Company had no security on hand at all. The total outstanding of M/s. Honest Motors Ltd., in the books of Tata Motors Ltd., on date was to the tune of Rs.6.15 Cr. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Mr Satyawan Singh, in collusion with his partners had procured and issued the said forged bank guarantees to the Company. The Police was informed of the entire episode along with documents and bank correspondence by TML. In the meanwhile Mr Satyawan Singh got a whiff of the actions taken by the Company from somebody in the UCO Bank and reported to the police that some documents have been stolen from his dealership and he suspects that the Regional Accounts Manager of TML who had visited them for a stock taking may be the suspect. The dealer has also leveled serious allegations against the Regional Service Manager of having transferred some of his plant and machinery and parts from his dealership to other dealerships in the area without their consent. He has also complained that the Head of the Passenger car business who had visited him last week had leveled serious allegations of dishonesty on Mr Satyawan Singh and had used unparliamentary language and had called him a cheat in front of all dealership staff. He had also threatened in the presence of all that he would ruin Mr Satyawan Singh. He has sought criminal action against all the managers above for conspiracy, cheating, breach of trust and criminal defamation etc.

FOURTH YEAR The Local Police Staion In Charge has just called the RM that he has Warrants of Arrest for the Regional Accounts Manager, Regional Service Manager, Head of the Passenger Car business of TML by name. Given the seriousness of the situation the Legal Manager is called upon to decide the next course of action. The Regional Manager is concerned that while most of the allegations are verbal in nature, but the fact that the Finance Manager accepted the bank guarantees and had not verified the bank guarantee of Rs.2 Cr for six months is on record and there is no valid justification for the same. The Dealer is very influential and could stoop to any length. 1. What are the options open to the Legal Manager to ensure personal liberty of the Managers named by the dealership in the FIR? Discuss the Law and the Tactics recommended. 2. What are the steps that the Legal Manager must take to recover the funds misappropriated by the dealership? Discuss the Documents required and the Tactics recommended.

GROUP NO. 8 447 v. 448 449 v. 450 BUSINESS LAWS (A) Background Information Reunited Brewery Limited (RBL) is a public limited company with its registered office in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. It was incorporated on January 27, 1968 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Companies Act). RBL is one of the largest brewers which owns and manages leading portfolios of liquor brands. It is also one of Indias leading brewers in terms of sales volume and profitability. Ronnie-Walker Private Limited (Ronnie-Walker) is a private limited company with its registered office in Pune, Maharashtra, India. It was incorporated on August 16, 2008 under the provisions of the Companies Act. Ronnie-Walker is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ronnie-Walker Plc., which is one of the world's largest brewers with brewing interests or distribution agreements in several countries. In India, Ronnie-Walker produces and markets beer all over India, including Tamil Nadu. (B) Mr. Shameer Kallyas Employment RBL and Mr. Shameer Kallya entered into an employment agreement dated December 3, 2005 (the Employment Agreement) pursuant to which Mr. Shameer was appointed as a senior personnel in the research and development division of RBL for a duration of at least three (3) years which period could be extended and/or renewed as mutually agreed between the parties (the Employment Period). Clause 3 of the Employment Agreement provided for a non-competition obligation as follows: Mr. Shameer hereby agrees and undertakes that until the Employment Period, and for a further period of one year from the date of termination of his employment, Mr. Shameer shall not, directly or indirectly, engage and/or develop in the business of brewery and manufacturing and distribution of brewery products anywhere in the world, including India or assist any other person or entity (whether as an executive, employee, advisor or otherwise) to engage and/or develop in such business anywhere in the world, including India. In addition, Clause 8 of the Employment Agreement provided for a non-disclosure obligation to the following effect: Mr. Shameer shall not use for himself or others, or divulge to others, any Proprietary Information obtained by him as a result of his employment, unless authorized by RBL. Mr. Shameers obligations under this Clause 8 shall remain in full force and effect, and Mr. Shameer shall perform such obligations through the end of the Employment Period, and thereafter in perpetuity and such obligations shall not terminate purely from the passage of time. For the purposes of this Clause 8, the term Proprietary Information shall mean all confidential or proprietary information of RBL which is known to Mr. Shameer and is related to specific matters, including trade secrets, marketing programs, customers, pricing and credit techniques, know-how, research and development activities, as they may exist from time to time. (C) Tulsi5000 Analyzing the fact that Indian liquor consumers have witnessed beers of different tastes and flavors for several decades, as a strategic business initiative/alternative, RBL proposed to launch a low-alcohol beer. Accordingly, under the supervision of Mr. Shameer, RBL commenced research and developed the appropriate composition required for a low-alcohol beer. In addition, RBL also evolved an exclusive formula with a special brewing process in connection with such a low-alcohol beer.

Based on such extensive research and development, in April 2008, RBL introduced Tulsi 5000, a lowalcohol beer (marketed as being first of its kind in the Indian market). Given that Tulsi 5000 offered its consumers a young, rich and vibrant alternative to the conventional beers, it became an instant success and garnered significant market share. (D) Termination of Mr. Shameers employment However, subsequent to the launch of Tulsi5000, certain misunderstandings arose between RBL and Mr. Shameer in connection with revenue sharing, denial of promotion and the like. As a result of which, RBL was not desirous of extending and/or renewing the Employment Agreement and the same, therefore, terminated as of December 3, 2008 by efflux of time. Acceding to the pressure of several nongovernmental organizations and as a matter of public policy, the Government of Tamil Nadu was considering to impose restrictions on manufacturing and sale of alcohol. Later in March, 2009, Mr. Shameer was approached by Ronnie-Walker and was offered a position in its research and development division. While accepting Ronnie-Walkers offer of employment, Mr. Shameer also convinced two members of the RBLs research and development division, to join Ronnie-Walker along with him. Sometime in July, 2009 Ronnie-Walker issued a press release and announced that it would also be launching a low-alcohol beer to boost its beer portfolio in the Indian market. (E) Issues for consideration In view of the above, RBL filed a suit before the Honble High Court of Madras (the High Court). The High Court has admitted RBLs suit and the following issues are before the High Court for its consideration: 1) 2) 3) 4) Whether Mr. Shameer has breached Clause 3 of the Employment Agreement by accepting employment with Ronnie-Walker; Whether Mr. Shameer has breached Clause 8 of the Employment Agreement, as alleged by RBL by divulging the Proprietary Information to Ronnie-Walker; Whether an interim injunction can be issued restricting Ronnie-Walker from launching a lowalcohol beer under its brand name; and Subject to determination of Issues (1), (2) & (3), is RBL entitled to claim for any damages.

Please be advised that RBL has also requested the High Court to grant any further relief which the High Court may deem fit in the interests of justice.

GROUP NO. 9 452 v. 453 457 v. 459 BUSINESS LAW M/s. Comfort Cars is a small proprietorship concern providing tour operator services. Its head office is at Agra and branch offices are at Delhi, Khajuraho and & Varanasi. Being a tour operator within the meaning of Sec 65(115) of the Finance Act, it regularly files its service tax returns from its head office at Agra. Under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act as originally introduced, tour operator service was defined as: Tour Operator means any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehilces Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) or the rules made thereunder. Subsequently, from 10.9.2004, the definition of word tour operator was amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2004 to read as under:Tour Operator means any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours (which may include arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (59 of 1988) or the rules made there-under. The taxable service for tour operators as per Section 65(105) has always remained unamended. It reads as under: Taxable service means any service provided to any person, by a tour operator in relation to a tour. The business of tour operatorship functions in such a way that there are large operators in cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad etc. Comfort Cars has an agreement with these large operators to provide vehicles etc. to the guests/tourists who visit India from abroad. The guests enter into a package tour with big tour operators and pay a lump-sum package charge to the large operators. These large operators, also known as principal tour operators (PTOs), have the necessary infrastructure and marketing skills to attract foreign tourists to India. The PTOs then arrange with smaller entities such as Comfort Cars to cater to the needs to tourists who desire to visit places such as Agra, Varanasi, Khajuraho etc. The PTOs pay service tax on the entire amount received by them from the tourists. Comfort Cars provides their guests primarily with vehicle services in cities such as Agra, Varanasi and Khajuraho etc. Comfort Cars pays service tax on the value of the vehicle services provided by it. Sometimes, Comfort Cars also provides certain services known as supplementary services to the guests. These supplementary services include arranging for tickets for visiting the monuments, providing porter services, guides, arranging for food etc. These supplementary services are provided on reimbursement basis. Comfort Cars bills the PTOs the actual expenses incurred by it for providing the supplementary services and gets reimbursed from the PTOs. The cost of these supplementary services is already included in the total cost of the package tour that has been paid by the foreign tourists. Comfort Cars does not pay any service tax on this amount of reimbursement. In January 2007, service tax officials carried out a survey at the premises of Comfort Cars. In October 2007, a show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur proposing to levy service tax and penalty on Comfort Cars in respect of the value of various supplementary services provided by it for the period 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2007. The total value of proposed service tax came to Rs. 1 crores. A penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was also proposed.


M/s. Comfort Cars filed a reply to the show cause notice and contested the proposed levy. It cooperated in all the proceedings and provided the officials with all the material demanded by them. It also contended that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for assessing M/s Comfort Cars to service tax and pleaded its bona fides. However, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur, passed the order confirming the demand of service tax and penalty on the petitioner. CESTAT dismissed further appeal preferred by Comfort Cars by relying upon the definition of taxable service in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act (quoted above) and a Circular, dated 22.8.2007, issued by the Tax Research Unit of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). the service rendered by the tour operator may be only for providing transport service within or outside the town, city or its territorial limits. The services rendered by the tour operators may only be limited to providing transport service in relation to a tour or it may also include host of other services as in case of package tour. The services provided by such a tour operator may also include, apart from providing the basic service of transportation from one place to another, services of providing boarding and lodging arrangement, local sight seeing, guide services and wide range of other value added services provided by tour operators such as providing for porters, booking of accommodation, arranging the visit to amusement park, visit to the museum etc. Aggrieved by the CESTAT order dated 31.05.2009, Comfort Cars has preferred an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad on the following questions of law: a) Whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the amount received as reimbursement by it from the PTOs? b) Whether the appellant could be assessed to service tax by invoking the extended period of limitation? c) Whether, before the amendment in the definition of tour operators, the supplementary services provided by tour operators could be said to be taxable? d) Whether, the Circular cannot create tax liability and the Tribunal was not justified in relying upon the Circular dated 23.8.2007 issued after the disputed period? Please prepare arguments for and against the appeal.

GROUP NO. 10 468 v. 471 473 v. 474

BUSINESS LAW Startek Hospitalities Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Startek) was incorporated in 1990 as a company limited by guarantee with its registered office in Surat. The Articles of Association (hereinafter referred to as the AoA) of Strartek provided that there shall only be two members as Board of Directors and Mr. Rajiv Khandekar and Mr. Sandeep Jogiya, who were also the initial subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of the company to be the permanent members of Board of Directors. As per the AoA, the management of the company and its day to day affairs vested in a Governing Body, which could consist of 12 members, including the permanent directors who were to be treated as ex-officio members of the Governing Body. All powers for appointment of committees, granting membership, expelling members, giving status to members along with the power to appoint a permanent director in case of his death were given to the Governing Body, who were to be elected by all the members of the Company as per the AoA. Startek was making huge profits by 1994, but unfortunately a huge blow struck the company when its permanent director Mr. Rajiv Khandekar died. Thereafter, Startek suffered loses and internal disputes started to surface. In 1998 two groups were formed in the Company, one led by Mr. Harsh Sangle and the other led by Mr. Hoshir Roowala. The registered office of Startek was changed by each group and duly notified to the relevant Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as ROC). Mr. Harsh Sangle claimed to be a member of Board of Directors, elected by members of the Company whereas Mr. Hoshir Roowala claimed himself to be the Chairman of the Governing Body appointed by the members and also as the permanent director of the Company as appointed by the Governing Body. Mr. Harsh Sangle and group inducted 200 new members in the Company and removed 221 original members. Subsequently Mr. Sangle and group called an Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Company in May 2004 and changed the AoA of the Company to the effect so as to remove all provisions for Governing Body therein and replace all such powers previously vested in the Governing Body so as to vest such powers with the Board of Directors. Mr. Roowala and group on the other hand retained the original AoA of the Company, inducted some 50 new members and were functioning with 315 members which also included the names of Mr. Harsh Sangle and group, who were original members of Startek. Mr. Roowala and group being the members of Governing Body regularly called the general meeting of the company as per the requirement under the law and filed the relevant documents, returns and accounts with the ROC and so did Mr. Sangle and group. The records of ROC, last show, two registered offices of Startek, two annual returns, two annual accounts for each year since 2005 and 559 members. Mr. Harsh Sangle and group in 2007, changed the name of the company from Startek Hospitality Ltd. to Startek Realty Ltd. and attempted to dispose of certain assets of Startek and lease out other assets which were not being used by the Company since it was not carrying on with its hospitality business anymore. The attempts to dispose of properties of Startek by Harsh Sangle and group was resisted by Mr. Roowala and group and they filed a civil suit in the District Court of Surat and obtained an interim injunction restraining Mr. Harsh Sangle and group from disposing off

FOURTH YEAR any property of the Startek. Pursuant thereto, neither of the groups was effectively carrying on any business in the name of Startek. Thereafter, in 2008, one Mr. Akhil Hasan, who was amongst the original founding members of Startek and had not shown his affinity to either of the groups along with other 52 members filed a petition before the Company Law Board (CLB) alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Both the groups represented the Company claiming to be the valid management of the Company as against the other group and resisting any claim of oppression and mismanagement against them. Mr. Harsh Sangle and Group also raised a preliminary issue on maintainability for misjoinder of party stating that the name of the Company has been changed. The CLB after hearing the parties, exercised its powers under Section 186 of Companies Act and vide an order dated 2nd November 2011 directed Startek to hold a Extraordinary General Meeting under the Chairmanship of the ROC, Gujarat within four months from the date of the aforesaid order inter alia to conduct the following business 1. Appoint five members to the Board of Directors of the Company. 2. Approve AoA of the Company. CLB further ordered that no other agenda/business shall be transacted at the said meeting and permitted all 559 persons whose names appear as members of Startek as per ROC records to vote at the said meeting to be conducted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Mr. Harsh Sangle and Group preferred appeal before the Honble High Court of Gujarat on 9th December 2011 claiming to represent the management of Startek. In the meanwhile, the RoC Gujarat issued a notice dated 10th December 2011 for conduct of the Extra-ordinary general meeting of the Company on 25th February 2012 at Surat Bagh Resort, Surat. Pursuant thereto, Mr. Harsh Sangle and group have sought an interim relief from the court staying the aforesaid meeting. Mr. Roowala and group have also filed a separate appeal challenging the order dated 2nd November 2011 and have filed an application for joining as a party representing the actual management of Startek in the proceedings filed by Mr. Harsh Sangle and others, which application is being contested by other parties of the proceedings.

GROUP NO. 11 475 v. 476 480 v. 481
BUSINESS LAW ABC system Ltd. (DSL) is a company based in Downtown. The company developed a dust cleaning system, based on nanotechnology. The system uses nanobots for cleaning dust. Patents for the dust cleaning system have been granted in Downtown, US, EU, Japan and a few other countries. The nanobot is Dustbuster, which is a trademark (registered) in Downtown. It was an instant hit ever since it was launched in the market shortly after the patent application was filed in September 2002. Robotic Inc, a start u company formed in January 2004, by a few former employees of ABC systems has also started manufacturing dust cleaning system using nanobots, which in addition to removing dust also destroys microscopic organisms such as dust miles. This is being marketed as Dustbanger for which a trade mark application has been filed in Nanopore. A patent application is pending in Downtown and the U.S. As a promotional campaign, Robotic Inc., has launched a website with an online interactive game. In this game, the player has to accumulate points by destroying biological organisms using an icon called Buster. If the player gathers 100,000 points, he gets discount on Dustbanger. Issues: ABC systems have instituted a suit against Ribotic Inc in Downtown stating that: (i) (ii) Ribotic is infringing its patent Defamation of the product DSL, in the cyber world since the player never wins and the name of icon is Buster, closely resembles Dust Buster of DSL. DSL states that the former employee who are now the founders of Ribotic Inc., have misappropriated their trade secret.


Robotic Inc,: Counter allegations: (i) Robotic contends that DSL patent is not valid as there was an article published regarding this technology in 1974. Dustbanger is more than the Dust buster as it also destroy biological organisms (ii) Buster and Banger are interchangeable terms.

Argue the Case:

GROUP NO. 12 401 v. 412 417 v. 420

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Ridhima, a young school going girl of 15years age fell from the school bus while returning from school on 20th April, 2011. Her right arm was crushed badly. She was immediately rushed to nearby Government Hospital situated at a distance of 500 metres from the site of the incident. She could not be admitted to the hospital as there was a huge rush of patients. She was given first aid in the pre operative hall of the hospital but no operation was conducted on the day of accident. Her bandage was changed at intervals but no proper treatment was started. As a result of this negligence, the infection spread in her arm and due to which her arm had to be amputated on 21st April, 2011. The hospital authorities blamed the huge rush of patients for such neglect. She had to wait for her turn for operation as there were around 12 more patients ahead of her for getting their operation done, all with similar or even graver injuries. The whole hospital staff was busy looking after one patient or the other but still every patient couldnt be attended properly due to heavy rush that day. After amputation of her arm, her chances of survival became very thin as infection started spreading to other body parts. The girl was very young and saving her arm would have been the priority of the doctors. After amputation she was taken twice to the operation theatre for surgery but she was intolerant to anaesthesia due to poor health. She had been transfused six units of blood and was operated early morning on 22nd April, 2011. After the operation due to heavy loss of blood she slipped into coma and when she revived after a month right side of her body was paralysed. The parents of the girl filed a case against the government hospital for denial of proper medical treatment and for a proper relief to her rest of the life as violation of right to life under article 21 of the Constitution. The parents are claiming in the petition that the government should take the responsibility of Ridhima for her rest of the life. Issues involved: 1. Whether denial of appropriate medical treatment is a violation of right to life under article 21? 2. Whether the negligence on the part of government hospital makes the government liable? 3. Whether compensation can be claimed under article 21?

GROUP NO. 13 427 v. 433 455 v. 470

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW The Common Legal Entrance Examination (CLEE) is the examination for 15 top Law Schools in India for admissions. Every year around 50,000 candidates of different states appears for this test to take admission in any of these universities. Every university has its own rules and bye laws to regulate their own institution. The Bar Council of India is the authority to grant seats in consideration with the University Grant Commission. The distribution of seats in these universities, including reservation for the state is as follows:
Category Total General SC ST PWD OBC Others General SC ST PWD OBC others MP 92 30 7 3 2 4 1 20 7 9 1 5 3 UP 88 40 9 (3 for sc hill) 9 3 6 1 20 WB 75 40 8 8 2 1 1 15 Guj 120 60 7 3 2 4 1 State Quota 30 7 3 2 1 Raj 52 Punjab 90 30 7 3 2 4 1 30 10 10 2 Nil 20 3 12 5 3 40 Orissa 40 Karnataka 12 0 8

2 1 1

The CLEE 2012 rules and other information of admission are as follows: 1. The CLEE 2012 is conducted by West Bengal University. 2. The CLEE 2012 core committee (Consisting all Vice Chancellor of these universities as members and chairman will be the VC of organising institution) will be the final authority to frame uniform rule of admission. 3. The decision of core committee will be executed by implementing committee (members will be Registrar or any authorised person of these universities) 4. There will be not uniform policy for state reservation, the concern university will be responsible for admission as per reservation norms applicable to their state. 5. Even for all India seats their will not be a uniform reservation norms. 6. Once the seat is allotted to any candidate in first list and if there is any vacancy in other institution after last day, a candidate shall be upgraded to other institution as per preference given. The candidate will not have option to remain in the same institution irrespective of their rank and marks of merit. 7. The CLEE will declare only 4 lists of merit for admission, after 4th list the office of CLEE will be closed for all purpose except for internal settlement of accounts. 8. The candidate will not be able to make any change information of application form after declaration of result. Manjeet Singh a student of Punjab domicile and Ratna Ben another candidate of Gujarat appeared in the CLEE 2011 and secured there marks as follows:

FOURTH YEAR Manjeet Singh Marks 115 all India Merit Rank 2214 Ratna Ben Marks 122 All India Merit Rank 1900 Both are willing to take admission in their own state institute of preference. Manjeet is a resident of Punjab, but failed to mention it in the application form therefore considered under all India general category. The last admitted candidate in Punjab University for All India General Category scored 124 and in State general it was 114 and since he failed to claim domicile in application form he was denied admission and the less scored candidate was admitted. Mr. Raman who have also scored 115 and failed to domicile in application form, later requested the institution to consider him in Punjab domicile category and the institution sent it to CLEE core committee for approval, and considering approval from the institution they allowed Mr. to take admission in domicile category. Mr. Raman was accordingly admitted to the institution, this information came to the knowledge of Manjeet Singh and he asked for same relief but since his admission was denied on the ground that he neither approached before the core committee nor the institution for considering him in state domicile category and moreover there is no seat available vacant in the institution. Ratna also challenged the distribution of OBC seats in different CLEE member universities. Both of them have filed separate petition in the high court of Punjab and High court of Gujarat on the following issues: 1. Punjab State University has violated fundamental rights of the candidates entitled for admission. 2. The Gujarat University has denied the constitutional scheme for reservation, and policy of OBC reservation. 3. The courts should ask CLEE to follow a uniform policy of reservation in all member universities.

GROUP NO. 14 403 v. 411 413 v. 416

CRIMINAL LAW Ashok was broker in share market and belongs to well to do family. Ashok and Monika were married in 2006. After marriage Monika do have some problems with her mother-in-law and she requested Ashok to live separate from the parents. The impact of living separate from the parents was that there was no communication between the Monika and her in-laws. Ashok do spare some times to visit his parents at least in a month. In 2010 because of the downfall in the share market Ashok had a loss of more than ten lakh. Because of the financial constraints he was not in a position to deposits the installments to the bank where from he has taken a loan of five lakh. Because of all these financial restraints there were many disputes which arouse between Ashok and Monika. Ashok started taking alcohol, he does come home late at night and sometimes he does slap Monika for inadequate reasons. Mahesh who was a good friend of Ashok ask requested him to seek some financial help from his in-laws which Mahesh was agreed to. One day when Ashok requested Monika that lets take some financial help from the parents of Monika, she denied and threatens Ashok that in case he compel her to have some financial help from her parents then she will sue Ashok for domestic violence on this there is a manual fight between the couple and Monika filed a complaint against Ashok, Ashoks parents, his brother, sister and Mahesh that they are committing a cruelty to her and demanding the dowry. Argue

GROUP NO. 15 409 v. 419 424 v. 438

CRIMINAL LAW A police party consisting of a Sub Inspector and three constables reached a small bridge over a canal near a village and halted there. They noticed the accused coming towards the bridge but on seeing the police party he tried to beat the retreat. So the police apprehended him. On being questioned he was found to be in possession of an illicit pistol for which he had no license. The sub inspector started the proceedings. He wrote a slip [ruka] and sent one of the constables back to the Police station for getting the FIR lodged. The illicit weapon was taken in possession and properly sealed. The other paper work including the statement of the constables present, the site plan etc were prepared at the spot. There after the accused made a statement that he had also six live cartridges hidden in the store of his house in the near by village. The police party was led by the accused to his house and on identification of the place the police recovered the live cartridges from the store house of the accused. His statement under section 27 Evidence Act was also recorded by the Investigation officer. The police party along with accused proceeded towards the police station and on reaching the Police station the case property was handed over to the M.H.C and other necessary formality was also completed .An FIR was lodged against the accused for having illicit arms and live cartridges without license and the accused was kept in police lock up. During the trail; the prosecution examined the Investigation officer, the three constables who were members of the police party. The Investigation officer supported the prosecution version and proved the site plan and the statement of the accused under section 27 Evidence act. There were some discrepancies in the statements of the other witnesses regarding the time and manner of the occurrence. The accused produced his defense witness who made a statement that the accused was playing at cards with other villagers in the village chowpal at the alleged time of apprehension of the accused. Argue the case

GROUP NO. 16 441 v. 454 456 v. 461

CRIMINAL LAW Renuka Mitra was married to Shyamal Mitra in 2004. Initially they were passing happy conjugal life in Kolkata. They had a son and a daughter. But due to intervention of their in laws, including her sister-in-law Shushila Mitra she was victim of demand of dowry, to bring more money from her parents house. Due to her failure to meet the demand, the torture was augmented. On the date of alleged incident, in 2011, cruelty was of such a nature that took away the life of Renuka Mitra. While she was in bathroom, kerosene oil was poured and her in-laws lit match-stick and threw it inside the bathroom. She cried out loudly for half an hour, to the knowledge of the neighbours. She got burned and died. With the information from the neighbours, the police came in and seized the match-box, tin of kerosene oil and a suicide note. The suicide Note mentions I have had enough of life and dont want to live any longer. The date mentioned on the suicide note was two weeks prior to the incident. The police arrested the husband, his father and mother, and also the sister Shushila Mitra. Criminal case was filed against all of them u/s 498A, 304B, 306, IPC. 1. Whether Dowry death has been caused u/s 304B also considering the section 498A? 2. Whether the accused are liable for abetment of suicide u/s 306?

GROUP NO. 17 462 v. 464 466 v. 467 CRIMINAL LAW Inder Singh, a resident of village Jor Kala, close to the village Fagan Majra, once visited the house of Karam Singh for treating his ailing sons, Chander Singh and Jagjit Singh. When the two boys were cured by Inder Singh, Karam Singh began to have great faith in him and indeed started treating him as his Guru. Inder Singh started paying frequent visits to Karam Singhs house and apparently began to cast an evil eye on Karam Singhs daughter Santosh Rani a minor girl of 14 years of age. He (Inder Singh) persuaded her to accompany him by inducing her to believe that though she was made to work in her parents' house she was not even given proper food and clothes by her parents who were poor. He promised to keep her like a queen, having nice clothes to wear, good food to eat and also a servant at her disposal. On one occasion Karam Singh happened to see Inder Singh talking with his daughter and felt suspicious with the result that he requested Inder Singh not to visit his house any more. He also reprimanded his daughter and directed her not to be free with Inder Singh. Having been prohibited from visiting Karam Singhs house, Inder Singh started sending messages to Santosh Rani through Raju, a sweeper in the house of Karam Singh. As desired by Inder Singh, Raju persuaded the minor girl to go with him to the house of Inder Singh. On 2nd July 2012, Raju contacted Santosh Rani for the purpose of accompanying him to Inder Singhs house. Rajus daughter Sona by name, who apparently was somewhat friendly with Santosh Rani went to the latter's house and conveyed a message that she ( Santosh Rani) should come to the house of Raju at midnight. Santosh Rani as desired, went to Rajus house on the night between 4th and 5th July, 2012. Inder Singh was not present at the house at that time. Leaving Santosh Rani there, Raju went to bring Inder Singh, whom he brought after some time, and handed over Santosh Rani to Inder Singh. On the fateful night it appears that Karam Singh was not in the village, having gone to Karnal and his wife was sleeping in the kitchen. Santosh Rani along with her two younger sisters was sleeping in the court-yard, her elder brother (who was the eldest child) was in the field. It was in these circumstances that Santosh Rani had gone to the house of Raju On the following morning, when Chander Singh, brother of Santosh Rani, returned from the field to feed the cattle, she was found missing from her bed. Chander Singh had returned to the house at about 4 a.m. He woke up his mother and enquired about Santosh Rani's whereabouts. The mother replied that she might have gone to ease herself. After waiting for about half an hour Chander Singh went to his grandfather who used to reside in a separate adjoining house and informed him about this fact. After having searched for her unsuccessfully, Chander Singh went to Karnal to inform his father about it. The father and the son returned from Karnal by about 10 a.m. The search went on till afternoon but Santosh Rani was not found. The father, after having failed in his search for the missing daughter, lodged the First Information Report. On 13th July 2012 at about 7 a.m. along with three other persons and Karam Singh, saw Inder Singh and Santosh Rani coming from the side of Dera. As they reached near Dera, Karam Singh identified his daughter and Inder Singh was seized and was taken into custody. Santosh Rani had a bag in her possession which contained one suit, a shawl and two chunis (dupatas) which were taken into possession. The salwar appeared to have on it stains of semen. After investigation Inder Singh, aged 32 years and Raju were both sent up for trial. They were both committed to the Court of Sessions. Argue the Case.

GROUP NO. 18 469 v. 472 477 v. 422 CRIMINAL LAW

Mr. Ashok Shah, Mr. Rajesh Singh, Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor, Mr. Sandeep Borse, Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. S. Shaikh were the members of governing body of a renowned Jagran Public Charitable Trust (JPCT). Mr. Ashok Shah was the Chairman of the Trust. Mr. Rajesh Singh was a trustee by virtue of his post as Executive Secretary. As per its objectives JPCT was engaged in running of various schools, hostels and hospitals. JPCT also owned vast agricultural land and commercial complexes which formed part of the income of the Trust. Since the Trust property was spread in seven different places situated in three different districts, the trustees shared the responsibility of managing various units called Station. Mr. Ashok Shah was also responsible as manager of one such Unit at Devnagar which had an English medium school, a vernacular language school, dispensary, agricultural land, residential quarters, commercial complex and a hostel for 300 students. There was regular income at this station in the form of fees of students studying in school, agricultural produce, patients availing dispensary facilities, hostel inmates and rent of workers quarters and commercial complex. The Governing body was divided into two groups - Mr. Ashok Shah, Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. S. Shaikh on one side and Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and Mr. Sandeep Borse on the other side. The latter was headed by Mr. Manik Jain. Group of Mr. Manik Jain was trying hard to get into power and therefore they wanted to remove Mr. Ashok Shah as Chairman of the trust. To achieve their purpose, they incited Ms. Shruti Kapoor to make allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Ashok Shah. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Shah and group came up with a plan where they made Mr. Ashok Shah agree to write a suicide note alleging Mr. Manik Jain and group responsible for his suicide. They put up a drama of suicide thus fixing Mr. Manik Jain and group on charges of abetment to commit suicide. The Trust held an agricultural land near an upcoming Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and therefore the land got attention of many builders. Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and Mr. Sandeep Borse wanted to sell the Trust land at the prevailing market price but Mr. Ashok Shah objected to the same and as a result the sale did not materialize. Thirty people viz. workers and residents of Devnagar Station reported to the Executive Secretary Mr. Rajesh Singh on 10th October 2011 that Mr. Ashok Shah as a manager of the station was engaged in embezzlement of funds. They pointed out that he had taken illegal gratification from the parents to get their children admitted in schools and hostels. He had sold away chunk of agricultural produce and had not submitted the amount to Trusts fund. Similarly, they pointed out that Mr. Ashok Shah had regularly collected house rent and rent from the tenants of commercial complex and had not remitted the amount to Trusts treasury. This News was flashed widely in local media. After receiving the written complaint, the Executive Secretary brought the matter to the notice of the Chairman Mr. Ashok Shah and informed him that since he is having a written complaint against him, he will have to bring the matter in front of Governing body to be held on 12th November 2011. He further requested Mr. Ashok Shah to clear the matter before the meeting so that his image was not tarnished. All Members of Governing Body unanimously supported Mr. Ashok Shah and issued a letter to Mr. Rajesh Singh condemning the allegations and supporting Mr. Ashok Shah.

FOURTH YEAR On 5th November 2011, Mr. Ashok Shah wrote a letter and kept the same in his office drawer. The letter contained the statement that in case of his death, Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor, Mr. Sandeep Borse should be held responsible for his death. According to the letter, they had been the mastermind behind the complaint and done with sole intention to defame him. Early morning on 12th November 2011, Mr. Ashok Shah was found hanging from the roof in the rear room of his house with its main door not latched. On the basis of preliminary investigation, police prima facie assumed that he had committed suicide. Based on the note found in his office drawer police filed a charge sheet against Mr. Manik Jain, Mr. Sandeep Borse, Ms. Shruti Kapoor. They were alleged to have committed an offence u/s. 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The Trial Court convicted Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and Mr. Sandeep Borse. Being aggrieved by the conviction, they preferred an appeal to the High Court of Gujarat.