Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE RESPONDANT TEAM CODE: R 22

1ST NATIONAL ANIMAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPTETION, 2016.

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT

OF SWATANTRA

W.P. (Civil) petition No....../2016

(Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Swatantra)

______________________________________________________________________

Human Society International ......Petitioner

Versus

Union of Swatantra and Others .....Respondent

______________________________________________________________________

Written submission on behalf of Respondent,

R 22,

Counsel for the Respondent.

1|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. ................................................................................................. 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. ..................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS. ................................................................................................... 5
ISSUES RAISED. .................................................................................................................. 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. .......................................................................................... 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.............................................................................................. 10
I. HPGL and its subsidiary are separate entity in the instant matter. ................................... 10
A. HPGL and its subsidiaries are different entities in law, and therefore corporate veil
cannot be pierced and neither the extra-territorial application of Swatantra law can be
there. ................................................................................................................................. 10
B. HPGL is not responsible under Swatantra law for acts or omissions of its
subsidiaries. ...................................................................................................................... 13
II. The technology used in excavation and exploration of oil and natural resources should
not be banned. .......................................................................................................................... 15
A. It is the only viable technique available worldwide to me the growing demand of oil
and its products. ................................................................................................................ 15
III. HPGL has not done any act which is in violation of Consitution of Swatantra. ... 18
A. The slaughter of animals is not banned in Union of Swatantra. ....................................... 18
B. The Act is committed in another jurisdiction. .................................................................. 18
Prayer ................................................................................................................................... 21

2|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
I. Cases:-

Gramophone and Typewriter Ltd v Stanley, [1906] 2 K.B. 856. 12

Stone v. C.C.C. & St. L. Ry, (1911) 202 N.Y.352, 95 N.E.816. 12

Riverside etc. Mills v Menefee, (1915) 237 U.S 189. 13

Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cadahy Packing Co., (1925) 69 L. Ed. 13

Bank of America v Whitney Cent Nat. Bank, (1923) 261 U.S. 171. 14

Bergenthal v State Garage & Trucking Co, (1922) 179 Wis. 42. 15

Lowendahl v. Baltimore and O.R. Co, 240 App. Div. 762(N.Y. App. Div. 1933). 15

Ford and Carter Ltd. V Midland Bank Ltd., (1979) 129 NLJ 543. 16

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra 21

Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005

II. Articles and web materials:-

a. Sam Elson, Legal Liability of Holding Company for Acts of Subsidiary Companies,15

Washington Law Review.

b. Henry W. Ballantine, Separate Entity of Parent and Subsidiary Corporations, 14 California

Law Review.

c. William J. Rands, Domination of a Subsidiary by a Parent.

d. Impact of Marine Acoustic Technology on the Antarctic environment, SCAR Ad hoc

group on Marine Acoustic technology and the environment.

3|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the Honble Supreme Court of

Swatantra invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32, 129 and 142 of the Constitution of

Swatantra.

4|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. The kingdom of great barrier has colonized half of the world and was sought to give

independence to all the colonized territory one by one. The kingdom has signed

almost all international treaties and conventions which were recognized as a

customary international law. The Kingdom of the Great Barrier sought to identify

territories on the basis of a common connection, be it language, culture, religion or

belief-system, and accordingly marked territories as a nation and granted them

independence by legislative enactment of the Parliament of the Kingdom. These

legislations mandated all the independent territories to recognize UDHR as well as all

the basic rights of all living organism in their respective laws.

2. The state of Paratantra and Swatantra got independence on 14th and 15th August 2007

respectively. Both the States in Art 3 of their written constitution accepted all

international treaties and conventions which kingdom of great barrier has ratified.

3. Animal worship was historically prevalent in both the nations but their belief system

was different. The people of Paratantra believed in monotheism while the people of

Swatantra believed in polytheism. While the people of Paratantra worshipped Whale

god (half whale half human form of deity), the people of Swatantra worshipped all

animals each for special quality.

4. HydroCarbon Petroleum Group Ltd. [HPGL] was a multinational company which has

been existed over hundred years and both the countries were promoters of the

company. Majority of shares were concentrated with Swatantra. Due to this reason at

the time of independence HPGL choose recognize its main registered office in

Swatantra and accepted Swatantra jurisdiction.

5. There was a dispute relating Paliata Spot, from where best whale sightings happen.

Therefore the kingdom of great barrier intervened and decided that the spot would be

in Swatantra side and three important sights would be on paratantra side.

5|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

6. About three hundred years ago, on the eve of the Palikattu (a festival which was

celebrated around winter solstice and it was believed that during this period the sprit

of whale God comes to bless the peoples on Paliata Spot) Paratantras sighted a whale

calf dying near dolphins which caused great discomfort to the peoples Paratantras.

7. Consequently Daiji, a supreme religious leader from Paratantra issued a fathawa to

kill all dolphins on Pallikattu. What began as a religious edict, over the years turned

into a worship method for the Paratantras and a nightmare for dolphins. Therefore

every year a group of expert fishermen were selected and the catch the dolphins using

pipe mallet method. The contract for manufacture of steel pipe and mallet was with

Metal Carbon Technology Pvt. Ltd. A fully owned and fully funded subsidiary of

HPGL incorporated in Paratantra.

8. Swatantra over year have opposed Daiji worship mehod but Paratantra have cited

religious reason and the use of dolphin food in response. Due to high killing of

dolphins commercial entities saw great market for processing of dolphin meats in the

area. Due to high profit and easy availability of raw materials, Bio Carbon Pvt. Ltd,

also a wholly owned and wholly funded subsidiaries of HPGL incorporated in

Paratantra involved in meat processing industry also established a unit in that area.

9. Permission were given to several companies in Swatantra for exploration of oil and

natural gas in 2011, but due to close connection with the government of Swatantra

HPGL gained highest no. of contracts. In early 2012 HPGL got permission to

establish equipments for exploration of natural resources on Padmaprastha beach.

10. HSI, an organisation working for protection and welfare of animals all over the world

acts as a registered society in Swatantra. HSI made thorough investigation into the

higher sightings and found out that to appease people, the President of Swatantra had

6|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

directed its armed forces to herd marine mammals especially whales and dolphins to the

Swatantra side. For this purpose various equipment were employed by Swatantra Navy.

But the equipment during its final stages went out of control and all the sea mammals

went to Paratantra side. HSI filed a petition in 2012 praying for mandamus against

government to proscribe the use of Seismic guns. The Supreme Court granted

mandamus recognizing that sesmic guns may cause harm to marine life. This did not

deter HPGL and they started importing equipments for exploration of natural

resources. The Court was again petitioned, but the Government cited this in their

national interest.

11. During festival of pallikattu 2015 no whale sightings happened which caused loss to

the tourism industries and affected the economy of the country. Environmentalist all

over the world blamed both the countries and their greedy corporate for this

extermination of animals.

7|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

ISSUES RAISED.
1. Whether HPGL and its subsidiaries are single entity in the instant matter?

2. Whether the technology used HPGL (backed by Union of Swatantra) is illegal in

nature and therefore should be banned?

3. Whether HPGL is violating the constitution of Swatantra?

8|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.
1. HPGL and its entity are different in the instant matter.

It can very well be derived from the facts under the present matter that Metal Carbon

Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Biocarbon Pvt. Ltd. are wholly owned and wholly funded

subsidiaries of Hydrocarbon Petroleum group Ltd. HPGL and its subsidiaries are different

entities in law, and therefore corporate veil cannot be pierced and neither the extra-territorial

application of Swatantra law can be there. Also HPGL is not responsible under Swatantra law

for acts or omissions of its subsidiaries.

2. The technology used in excavation and exploration of oil and natural resources

should not be banned.

9|Page
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. HPGL and its subsidiary are separate entity in the instant matter.
1. It can very well be derived from the facts under the present matter that Metal Carbon

Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Biocarbon Pvt. Ltd. are wholly owned and wholly funded

subsidiaries of Hydrocarbon Petroleum group Ltd. From the above derivations two

points can be concluded.

A. HPGL and its subsidiaries are different entities in law, and therefore corporate veil

cannot be pierced and neither the extra-territorial application of Swatantra law can be

there.

B. HPGL is not responsible under Swatantra law for acts or omissions of its subsidiaries.

A. HPGL and its subsidiaries are different entities in law, and therefore corporate
veil cannot be pierced and neither the extra-territorial application of Swatantra
law can be there.
2. Limited liability in a company form of organizations just after the origination gained

importance at a fast rate and has been deeply embedded in various legislations all over

the world. HPGL has its subsidiaries incorporated in Paratantra to carry on business in

an absolutely varied industry with an aim to take advantage of the doctrine. The

attractiveness of limited liability with multiple insulation through the holding

company, the increased facility of financing and marketing of securities, the non-

necessity of qualifying as a foreign corporation under onerous conditions in a

particular state, and the economy and efficiency of unified control and among the

features of the holding company plan.1 It should not be noted that if there is a wholly

funded and wholly owned subsidiary then its legal existence as a separate entity

cannot be denied. It is reasonable derivation from the words wholly owned and

wholly funded that there would be identical directors and due to voting rights, a

1
Sam Elson, Legal Liability of Holding Company for Acts of Subsidiary Companies,15 Washington Law
Review, 334

10 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

certain control would be existing between the subsidiary and the parent. But, the fact

that the shares of one company belong to another does not make the subsidiary a mere

alias.2 Various other criteria define an instrumentality such as- identity of

shareholders, identity of officers, the manner of keeping books and records, the

method of conducting the corporate business as a separate concern or a mere

department of the other concern.3 Although there can be an identity of shareholders

and officers, the method of conducting the business is very much differentiated. A

subsidiary can be run as a mere department only in situations where in the same form

of business is being conducted but both the subsidiaries of HPGL are carrying out

varied kinds of businesses that is unassociated with the parents. Further as the facts

of the present matter dictate, that subsidiary Metal Carbon Technology Pvt. Ltd. in the

own name contracted for the manufacture of steel pipes and mallets. Nowhere the

information that of parent companys representation can be acquired from the facts.

3. An ownership or controlling interest does not in itself define the parent and the

subsidiary as a single entity. The ownership of all or majority of the stock of the

subsidiary or a controlling interest therein, or ownership by the same person or

persons of all or majority of stock of both companies does not result in itself in a

merger of the two corporations4 or liability of one for the acts of other.5 Also, even if

for the identity in management in itself does not mean assimilation of the two

activities.6

4. In Stone v. C.C.C. & St. L. Ry.,7 the parent company owned majority of stock, several

of the executive officers and directors of the companies were same and even the

2
Henry W. Ballantine, Separate Entity of Parent and Subsidiary Corporations, 14 California Law Review, 19.
3
Ibid.
4
Gramophone and Typewriter Ltd v Stanley, [1906] 2 K.B. 856.
5
Supra Note 1 at pg. 341.
6
Stone v. C.C.C. & St. L. Ry, (1911) 202 N.Y.352, 95 N.E.816.
7
Ibid.

11 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

offices were in the same building. But there was no single entity awarded due to

evidence showing that the subsidiary made its own contracts, kept its own accounts

and parents major interest was in dividend return in its stock. The facts are identical

to the present matter. HPGL had only interest with regard to the dividend return and

all the contracts were in name of the subsidiaries and third parties without any

involvement of HPGL.

5. Therefore it is contended that the parent company, i.e., HPGL and its subsidiaries are

separate entities for all purposes of prosecution before the law, and the corporate veil

cannot be pierced.

6. Another contention put forward is there cannot be any extra-territorial application of

Swatantra law. Here, Metal Carbon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Biocarbon

Technologies Ltd. Are the subsidiaries incorporated in Paratantra and therefore they

cannot be held liable.

7. A foreign corporation can be personally served with the process only when it is doing

business within a state.8 The subsidiaries are incorporated and are functioning in the

state of Paratantra and all their acts are in accordance to separate legal system and

there is no basis of extra-territorial application of Swantantra law.

8. In Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cadahy Packing Co.9, the technical existence of a subsidiary

was observed by keeping separate books and any transaction between the parent and

the subsidiary was represented by the entries. The court held that a subsidiary

transacting business in a state though a mere a adjacent or instrumentality of a foreign

corporation which owns and controls it, is a separate entity so that the foreign

corporation is not doing business there itself.10

8
See, Riverside etc. Mills v Menefee, (1915) 237 U.S 189.
9
Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cadahy Packing Co., (1925) 69 L. Ed.
10
Supra Note 2, at Pg no 13

12 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

9. Therefore even if the argument that the subsidiary was a mere adjacent is accepted

and considered then also a separate entity title has to be observed and preserved,

Metal Carbon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Biocarbon Pvt. Ltd. being foreign

subsidiaries of HPGL.

10. The extra-territorial application of legal system can be there when the parent

maintains a public presence on behalf of the subsidiary. The jurisdiction taken of

foreign corporation flows from the fact that the corporation itself does business in the

state in such a manner, and to such an extent that its actual presence there is

established.11

11. HPGL, being an oil company cannot practically establish its presence on behalf of its

subsidiaries since they are immersed in different industries. Further the facts provide

that the contract for manufacture of instruments was with Metal Carbon Technologies

Pvt. Ltd. And there was no sort of facts which aim at showcasing actual presence of

HPGL in Paratantra.

B. HPGL is not responsible under Swatantra law for acts or omissions of its
subsidiaries.
12. It has already been established that HPGL and its subsidiaries are separate entities and

based on that there cannot be any liability of HPGL for acts of its subsidiaries. The

subsidiaries are being managed as separate companies and all the finances are being

managed since both the subsidiaries are earning adequate profile so as to sustain itself

without support of the parent company. Thus where subsidiary is adequately financed,

maintains a separate organization with separate transactions, the parent will not be

held liable for the tort of the subsidiary though they occupied the same building, and

were both engaged in the same form of business.12

11
Bank of America v Whitney Cent Nat. Bank, (1923) 261 U.S. 171.
12
Bergenthal v State Garage & Trucking Co, (1922) 179 Wis. 42.

13 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

13. When HPGL and its subsidiaries are engaged in distinct industries with their working

environment in different jurisdiction, then it can very well be inferred that no liability

would arise for HPGL. Further the working environment and legal standards within

which both the subsidiaries were functional was that of Paratantra, and their acts were

in accordance with the laws of Paratantra. No violation of laws and lawsuits existed

against the subsidiaries in Paratantras jurisdiction. Therefore no liability can arise

thereof.

14. In the case of Lowendahl v. Baltimore and O.R. Co.13 three clauses were laid down-

1. Control, not mere majority or complete stock control but complete domination.

2. Such control must have been used to commit fraud or wrong.

3. The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury.

15. None of the above laid clauses were met in the present matter. Nowhere did the facts

suggest that there was any kind of control apart from owning of 100% stock. No fraud

or wrong was committed since the subsidiaries functioned in accordance with

Paratantras law. A Parent company could be held as direct obligor for the acts of

subsidiaries under following circumstances-

1. Where the affiliated corporations are held out to public as single enterprise.

2. If the parent represents it stands behind or considers itself liable for the

obligations.

3. If the parent leads a plaintiff to reasonably believe that parent is party to

contract.14

16. An appropriate conclusion from the facts can be obtained that HPGL did not present

itself as a single enterprise as of subsidiaries. Neither did it take responsibility for the

acts nor did it wake the third parties believe that HPGL was involved in the contract.

13
Lowendahl v. Baltimore and O.R. Co, 240 App. Div. 762(N.Y. App. Div. 1933).
14
William J. Rands, Domination of a Subsidiary by a Parent.

14 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

17. Finally it is argued that liability should not be there as the creditors are involved if

separate legal existed is taken away.

18. In the comments of Lord Wilberforce in Ford and Carter Ltd. 15 When creditors

become involved as they do in the present case, the separate legal existence of the

constituent companies of the group has to be respected.

19. If a parent corporation is held liable for the obligations of its subsidiary the

shareholders of the parent are hurt through the lowering of the value of their

investment 16.Therefore with regard to the above arguments the parent company

should not be held liable for the acts of the subsidiaries.

II. The technology used in excavation and exploration of oil and natural
resources should not be banned.
20. The technique and instruments employed by hydro-carbon group limited although has

a detrimental and as portrayed have a destructive effect on marine wild life, it

should not be banned since it is the only viable technique available worldwide to meet

the growing demand of oil and its products. [A] Economic development in any nation

requires powering of industry and there by oceans became huge source of oil reserves.

Seismic surveying is a vital part of exploring oil and gas which is critical to producing

the energy required in the businesses and homes with oil fields and wells present on

land rapidly being depleted and reaching the saturation point. [B]

A. It is the only viable technique available worldwide to me the growing demand of

oil and its products.
21. Seismic technologies have created a revolutionary advancement in exploration of oil.

There is definitely no need for professing why oil is important for any economy or for

the mankind. Without seismic survey oil wells would have to be dug up or large scale

15
Ford and Carter Ltd. V Midland Bank Ltd., (1979) 129 NLJ 543.
16
William P. Hack, & Tracy G Benson, Shareholder Liability for Inadequate Control.

15 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

drilling would have to take place that happened at massive rates in U.S. states such as

Texas during Standard Oil. This caused destruction of the whole landscape. It would

have been very much expensive to have drilled through the sea-bed which could have

caused extermination of thousands of marine species. Now with this seismic

information accurate plan locations for wells, reduction in probability of drilling dry

wells and consequently the need for further drilling can be there.17

22. Before providing any agreement as to why the technique should be banned, it has to

be understood how the seismic gun functions. In seismic surveying, sound waves are

mechanically generated and sent into the earth. Some of this energy is reflected back

to recording censors, measuring devices that record accurately the strength and time it

has taken for this energy to travel through the various layers in the earths crust and

back to location of sensors18. These recordings are converted into visual images which

provide an accurate image of the sea-bed.

23. Now when it comes down to the environment and marine life, in over three decades of

world-wide seismic surveying, there is no evidence to suggest that sound from E&P

seismic activity has resulted in any physical and auditory injury in any marine

mammal species19.

24. The physical (auditory) effects are Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent

Threshold Shift (PTS). Research has found that TTS didnt occur in beluga whale

until exposure levels of 226 dB were reached. This sound limit within approx, tens of

meters of an air gun array PTS can only occur due to repeated TTS failure which

17
Environmental Benefits of Seismic Surveys, IAGC, available at
http://www.iagc.org/uploads/4/5/0/7/45074397/iagc_1_pager_sesimic_benefits_final_approved_2014-
th
06_12.pdf Last Visited on 28 July 2016
18
An Overview of Marine Seismic Operations, OGP & IAGC, April 2011, available at
http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/448.pdf
19
Seismic Surveys & Marine Mammals, International Association of Oil and gas producers, OGP & IOGC,
available at http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/358.pdf

16 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

during normal mitigation strategies is prevented20. Very little is known about the

sound levels at which the hearing damage or physical injury to whales and dolphin

could take place. The most likely scenario for injury of an animal by acoustic

equipment would be if equipment were turn on with full power while the animals

were close to it. Seismic surveys are required to soft start or ramp start by

gradually increasing gun members and pressure over a period so that animal has time

to swim away before time reaches dangerous levels.21

25. Further according to BOEM, seismic surveys in the Atlantis OCS, should not cause

any death or injuries to the hearing of marine mammals or sea turtles22.

26. In the word of the federal bureau of ocean energy management there has been no

documented scientific evidence of noise from air guns used in geological and

geophysical (G&G) seismic activities adversely affecting marine animal population or

measures taken also the coastal communities.

27. Despite all these negligible risks the industry follows certain standards.

Trained protected species observers (PSOs) are onboard to watch for animals.

Operations stop if certain animals enter and exclusion zone.

When operations starts, ramp-up procedure is followed.23

28. Furthermore Passive Acoustic Monitoring Systems are there in locations of the

operations which detect the presence of marine mammals (whale or dolphin). During

seismic operation which allows mitigation measures that minimize the potential

impact of manmade sound24.

20
Ibid
21
Impact of Marine Acoustic Technology on the Antarctic environment, SCAR Ad hoc group on Marine Acoustic
technology and the environment.
22
Seismic Surveying 101, IAGC, IPAA & NOIA, available at http://www.api.org/~/media/files/oil-and-natural-
gas/exploration /offshore/seismic-survey-factsheet.pdf
23
ibid
24
Available at http://www.seismicsurvey.co.nz

17 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

29. Based on the above findings it is contended that the technology is required and is

essential with a high priority level and therefore should not be banned.

III. HPGL has not done any act which is in violation of Consitution of Swatantra.
30. HPGL is not in violation of the constitution because the slaughter of animals is not

banned in Union of Swatantra. [A] And the act takes place in another territory. [B]

A. The slaughter of animals is not banned in Union of Swatantra.

31. The facts of the case observe that the legal system and the legal history of the Union

of Swatantra is pari materia with that of India. Thereby it can be concluded that the

Union ofSwatantra although practices polytheism for religious purposes but nowhere

does the constitution specifically states for prohibition of the slaughter of animals for

the purposes of meat. Article 48A of the constitution Protection and Improvement of

environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife but this article is contained in

the Directive Principles of State Policy which are not enforceable in law. Similarly

Article 51A (g) talks about to protect and improve the natural environment including

forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. This also

is included in the DPSP and hence is not enforceable in law.

B. The Act is committed in another jurisdiction.

32. Supreme Court also rejected a petition in the year 2014 presided by a bench headed

by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu which was filled to put ban on killing of animal for

religious purposes. It held that At the end of day a balance..a harmony has to be

maintained between faith, religion and such orders These are very sensitive matters.

We cannot close our eyes to centuries old traditions followed and start examining

them. Similarlly in the instant case the tradition of killing dolphins is been followed

since last many years and now it cannot be banned or treated as unconstitutional as

18 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

this is also very sensitive matter. People of paratantra also have right to religion as per

Article 25 of Pratantra constitution which provide them equal right to claim religious

rights over other who domain them. If people of Swatantra can claim religious right to

not kill dolphins as they are their deity then, people of Paratantra can also claim their

religious right here to follow their traditions and customs.

33. Also, as per the fact it was reported by some news channels that HPGL delibrately

forced the mammals to enter the paratantra side from swatantra side which would lead

to commercial benefits to its subsidiuaries. This is to bring in notice that those report

was given by news reporters which under matter of law and substance cannot be

relied on. Those mammals might have gone their by themselves and not by force and

if its not by force then as a matter of fact people of pratantra has right to practice their

religion as given under Article 25 of Pratantra Constitution. Also, now those marine

species are under the territory of Pratantra and not Swatantra. So, People of Pratantra

can practice their religion, custom and tradition. Subsidiaries of HPGL also are in

territory of Pratantra and they killed dolphins so as to appease the people of Pratantra

who celebrates Palikattu joyfully as it is one of their sacred festival of the country and

killing of dolphins during Palikattu are their traditions which is been followed by

them since last many years just like on Bar-e-id muslims have tradition to kill goat.

34. Now, as the fact says that subsidiaries of HPGL are in Paratantra, dolphins are killed

in Pratantra to celebrate Palikattu it can be said that this matter is outside the

jurisdiction of Swatantra.In the matter of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious

Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt25 it

was held that Under article 26(b), therefore a religious denomination or organization

enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies

25
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri
Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005

19 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority

has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters. Hence this matter

is within the jurisdiction of Pratantra under any matter concerned.

20 | P a g e
 Written Submission on behalf of Respondents.

Prayer
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Government of the
Union of Swatantra requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:

Before declaring any technology illegal, an assessment of cost-benefit analysis in the

context of environment-development paradigm is essential, which having not been

done in the Public Interest petition, it is liable to be dismissed with costs;

. HPGL and its subsidiaries are different entities in law, and there cannot be any extra

territorial application of Swatantra Law;

HPGL is not responsible under the extant Swatantra law for the acts or omissions of

its subsidiaries;

Corporate Veil cannot be lifted;

No ban can be imposed on the present methods of hydrocarbon exploration;

While dolphins are undoubtedly sacred under the Swatantra law, any adventure into

the pipe-mallet method may result in acrimony between the two nations, as the Daiji

method is very sacred for the Paratantras and comity of nations must be maintained at

any cost as mandated under the Constitution;

And pass any other order that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed

R 22

Council on behalf of respondant.

21 | P a g e