Health Law

Moot Proposition 2
Facts of the Case-Mr. Ramesh is an employee of Indian Army, who joined the service
as an
apperentice at the age of 16 years. Soon after his appointment he was posted at
MANDAR, Ranchi
On 23rd December 2016 When he was on his duty he was attacked by a group of
naxalites and got
two bullet injuries. One on his left arm and the other bullet touched his left lower
abdomen.
Soon he was rushed to the nearest army hospital, where the doctor after his
examination advised
to go through an immediate operation. After getting the consent of higher
authorities, he was
rushed to the operation theatre..the doctor successfully removed the bullet from his
arm, but when
he was dressing his injury on the left lower abdomen, he found that the patient had
cyst formation
in his urinary track. The doctor without performing any diagnostic examinations,
with a benefited
intention removes the cyst.
He was released from the hospital on 15th January with a fitness certificate. On 31st
January,
midnight he experienced sudden severe pain in his left lower abdomen and was
immediately rushed
to the hospital. The doctors advised him to go through certain clinical examinations
for his further
treatment.
The reports of the clinical examinations confirmed that he was suffering from
infection in his
urinary track because of the removal of a polipous cyst which was found to be
cancerous after
biopsy test
He filed a petition before the court of competent jurisdiction contending that his
consent was not
taken regarding the removal of cyst.
Argue for and against the parties.

BINOX a popular multiplex cinema hall in Magadhpura City of Rajasthan owned by

Mr.C.Deora.
Each and every week, the new movies used to be released and people used to
gather to see those
movies.Mr.Deora is a fully fledged business man. He has fore slightness how to run
business and
how to make profit. Mr.Deora did a little effort at the time of establishing the cinema
hall by which
the cinema hall was exempted from giving entertainment tax, which was thus
subsidized by the
state. The cinema hall, was running its business successfully with a good earned
profit from its
establishment period 1st september2009 to 2015 without not paying a single rupee
as entertainment
tax .But due to change of government in the state in january2016 as a result of
democratic election,
the cinema hall business was at almost stake not facing profit what it was earned
earlier. The reason
behind this loss was that the new government repudiated the earlier arrangement
of subsidized
amount as entertainment tax and subsequently, the income tax authority
demanded for tax as they
contended that the entertainment tax was actually capital receipt at the hand of the
Mr. Deora.
The Ao of Income Tax Authority disallowed the claims of Mr.Deora as to the nature of
entertainment tax as non capital receipt and held proceedings with retrospective
effect from 1st
September 2009 to till 31st March 2015.
On appeal such claim of Mr.Deora was held yes by CIT (A) and Tribunal but being
aggrieved by
the decision the department moved to appeal to the single bench of High Court.
Issue:
What is the right jurisdiction?
Whether the AO has right authority to initiate the case in later stage while earlier
there is no act of
AO is seen?
Whether subsidized entertainment tax can be treated as capital receipt?

Labor Law II
Moot Proposition 6
Saloni enterprise is a family enterprise employing 55 workers out of which 10 are
below 14 years
of age who were the nearest relative of the owner and 5 were 16 years old. This
enterprise also
established some other industries where they send these employees for some
double shift work
also. One day an accident took place when machine was in motion where 3 persons
were injured
out of which one was a child whose age was not clearly mentioned in a register of
the
establishment.
On the above problem frame issues and prepare arguments.