BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF TAMILRASHTRA

IN THE MATTER OF:

MS. REBECCA SAMMUEL APPELLANT

VERSUS
MS. ANUSHKA MITWANI RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPODENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATION 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
INDIAN BOOKS AND LEGISLATION 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6,7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8,9
ISSUES RAISED 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12,13,14,15,16
PRAYER 17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
AIR ALL INDIA RECORD
SEC. SECTION
HON’BLE HONOURABLE
& AND
II PARAGRAPH
ANR. ANOTHER
ART. ARTICLE
i.e. THAT IS
ORS. OTHERS
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
u/s UNDER SECTION
UOI UNION OF INDIA
V. VERSUS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
SR.NO CASES FOOT NOTE NO.
.
1 Rajveer aggarwal V Vijaykumar Diwakar & anr on 14 October 15
2011, Delhi High Court.
2 Amar Bir Singh V Devinder Pal Singh on 19 July 2014,delhi 15
High Court.
3 In the matter of V mrs. Kumudini Raj on 21 November, 15
2011.Delhi District Court.

4 Sh. Sanjay Chiripal V Sh. Tilak Raj Kapoor on 17 July 2017, 15

Delhi High Court.
5 Mahip Singh V Dawan Singh on 2 July 1888, Allahabad High 16
Court.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

INDIAN BOOKS

SR.NO. BOOKS
1 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950- BY M.P.JAIN.
2 LAW OF TORTS – BY R.K.BANGIA
3 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872 –BY AVATAR SIGH
4 INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 –BY J.D.MAYNE

LEGISLATION REFFERED

SR.NO. LEGISLATION
1 THE CONSTITITION OF INDIA 1950.
2 INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860.
3 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908

LEGAL DATA BASE.

SR.NO. WEBSITES /ARTICLES

1 www.indiakannon.com
2 Https//blog.ipleaders.in
3 www.legalserviceindia.com
4 www.casemine.com
5 www.livelaw.in/news
6 https//lawtrend.in
7 Https//scconline.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The hon’ble High court of Tamilrashtra has the jurisdiction in this matter.
The High Court Act, 1961 provided power and jurisdiction to High Court.
Appellant Jurisdiction: This is for cases where people have raised a complaint about a review
of the judgment given by the district level or subordinate court of that territory. This power is
further divided into two categories:
1. Civil Jurisdiction: This includes orders and judgments of the district court, civil district
court and subordinate court.
2. Criminal Jurisdiction: This includes judgments and orders of the session’s court and
additional session’s court.
3. An appeal for the decision of its subordinate courts.
4. An appeal for decision of revision bench.
The High Court has admitted the appeal as maintainable.

Appeal from orders - In Civil Procedure Code 1908, Section 104 and order 43 deal with
appeal from orders. They state that certain orders are appealable.
Order – The formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree.
Or
And adjudication of a court which does not fall within a decree is an order.
Nature (section 104)
Appeal can be filed only against those orders which are appealable.
Order 43 Rule 1-A where any order is made against a party and the judgment is
pronounced there upon against such a party and decree is drawn up such party may is an
appeal against that decree contend that such a order should not have the made and
judgment have been pronounced.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

This memorandum sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which
the claims are based in the instant case. The appellants affirm that they shall accept any
judgment of this Hon’ble courts as final and upon itself and shall execute in it it’s entirely
and in good faith.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Kyndia is a country located in the southern part of the continent Basia. ‘Kindu’ is a religion which
originated in Kyndia with majority of the individuals from this country practicing the same. However, the
land acted as an abode to various other religions as well.

2. Within Kyndia, in the State of Tamilrashtra, there was a religious structure of the ‘Ranbax’ religion. It
was owned by a private trust and was situated in the city of Belapur. One of the widely practiced customs
of this religion was of animal sacrifice. As per the locals, on every alternate day, a dog was sacrificed in
the structure during the early hours of morning. In certain cases, sacrifices were done as early as 4:00 am
which in turn generated a lot of noise with the wailing and squealing of the animal. This had disturbed a
lot of Kindus who were living in the periphery of the structure, who in turn had notified the head of the
trust and a prominent religious figure of the Ranbax religion, Ms. Rebecca Sammuel, regarding their
inconvenience. On 9th March 2019, in order to resolve the issue, the Kindu organisation ‘Bravo’ which
consisted of Kindu women led by Ms. Anushka Mitwani entered the inner sanctum of the structure in
spite of being warned by the guards and stopped the ceremony from proceeding. Ms. Sammuel sternly
ordered the Kindu women to move out as it amounted to violating and defiling their place of worship. As
per the Ranbax religion, no person belonging to any other religion was allowed to enter the inner
sanctum. If such an entry was done, it would amount to defilement of the religious structure and would
further require ‘Shuddhi-karan’ (purification function) to reintroduce the religious structure for public
use.

3. The women enraged by Ms. Sammuel, gave some passionate interviews to a local media outlet on the
inconvenience caused by Ms Sammuel and group. These interviews shortly went viral with a lot of people
claiming to have the same problem with the group in question.

4. Ms. Sammuel infuriated with this sudden shift of narrative, referred to Ms. Anushka Mitwani along
with the Kindu women as “disgusting Kindu roaches being led by non-principled pig masked as a leader”
in her own interview to a media outlet. This statement spread like wildfire throughout the country.

5. On the day of 25th March 2019, a large group of Kindu women gathered outside the structure headed
by Ms. Sammuel to protest against the statements made by her. In response to this, a group of Ranbax
followers responded with intense sloganeering. Fearing a riot, the Government sealed the structure
temporarily.

6. On the subsequent day Ms. Mitwani filed a case in the Belapur Civil Court against Ms. Sammuel
claiming that her right to reputation was tarnished by the vile statements made by Ms. Sammuel. At the
same time, Ms. Sammuel filed a plaint on the behalf of the trust alleging that Ms. Mitwani conspired with
her followers and trespassed into their property defiling their place of worship. She further claimed that in
order to purify their place of worship, it would require a Shuddhi-karan ceremony the cost of which
should be borne by the Defendant. The Civil Court for the purpose of expeditious proceedings clubbed

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 8

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

the two Plaints to be heard together using its inherent powers. After hearing the arguments, the Hon’ble
Belapur Civil Court held that Ms. Sammuel is liable to pay damages to Ms. Mitwani and at the same time,
dismissed the Plaint filed by Ms. Sammuel on merit. Ms Sammuel appealed this order in the High Court
of Tamilrashtra.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 9

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

ISSUES RAISED

THE RESPONDENT VERY RESPECTFULLY PUT FORTH BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF TAMILRASHTRA THE FOLLOWING QUERIES:

[ ISSUE 1 ]
A] MS. MITWANI IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.SAMMUEL FOR THE
ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS.
[ISSUE 2 ]
B] MS. SAMMUEL IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.MITWANI FOR
COMMITTING DEFAMATION.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 10

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. MS. MITWANI IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.SAMMUEL FOR

THE ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the present matter ms.
mitwani cannot be liable to pay damages to ms.sammuel for committing trespass.

II. MS. SAMMUEL IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.MITWANI FOR

COMMITTING DEFAMATION.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, the ms. Sammuel is
liable to pay damages to ms. Mitwani for the alleged tort of defamation.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 11

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. MS. MITWANI IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.SAMMUEL FOR

THE ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS.
1. It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the defendant are not
liable to pay damages to ms. Sammuel for the alleged tort of trespass.
2. One of the widely practiced customs of this ‘Ranbax’ religion was of animal
sacrifices. As per the locals, on every alternate day a dog was sacrificed in the
structure during the early hours of morning. In certain cases, sacrifices were done
as early as 4:00 am which in turn generated a lot of noise with the wailing and
squealing of the animal. This had disturbed a lot of kindus who were living the
periphery of the structure, who in turn had notified the head of the trust but they
not responding that’s why ms. Mitwani and ‘kindu’ women entered in structure,
only for public issue and with good intension so this is not a trespass.
3. Meaning of interpretation of trespass: trespass can be said to be an action
exceeding the limit carved by the law. It is an intentionally directed, unreasonable
interference with ones person and property. The word ‘intention’ here implies
committing the wrong voluntarily. Trespass allegation can be leveled if the
interference is with ones and third person’s body and private property. It is to be
kept in mind that intention from the essential component of trespass.
Unreasonable behavior is triggered by the mala fides and ulterior intention to
harass another in this matter the reason is clear to stop the nuisance and disturb of
the society in that periphery.
4. Defenses for trespass : public necessity –
The public necessity defense may be used when an individual intentionally enters
onto the land of another in order to protect the community. In order to use this
defense, there must have been to immediate and imperative need to enter the land.
A defendant cannot use this defense if their actions were determined to be
unreasonable under the circumstances.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 12

BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

5. An action will not amount to trespass if the defendant enters another’s property to
abate any public or private nuisance. Any public nuisance which causes harm can
be abated and it will not amount to trespass. The act of the defendant must be
reasonable for the purpose of abating a private nuisance. A public officer who is
authorized to abate public nuisance is privileged to enter any person’s land for the
same purpose at a reasonable time and manner.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 13

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

II. MS. SAMMUEL IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.MITWANI FOR

COMMITTING DEFAMATION.
1. It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the ms. Sammuel is
liable to pay damages to ms. Mitwani for committing defamation. Because the
statement of ms. Sammuel – “disgusting kindu roaches being led by non-
principled pig masked as a leader.” In her own interview to a media outlet. This
statement spread like wildfire throughout the country. And this statement was
insulting to ms. Mitwani & ‘kindu’ womens.
2. Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the
reputation of another he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference
with the property. A man’s reputation is his property, and if possible, more
valuable, than other property. Any intentional false communication, either written
or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decrease the respect, regard, or
confidence in which person is held, or induces disparaging, hostile or
disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person, is called defamation.
3. Essentials of defamation – there are three main essentials of defamation.
a) The statement must be published : Defamation is the publication of a
statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking
members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that
person.
b) The statement must refer to the plaintiff : If the person to whom the statement
was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to the
plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.
c) Defamation must be published: Publication means making the defamatory
matter known to some person other than the person defamed and unless that is
done, no civil action for defamation lies.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 14

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

4. Case Laws:
1) Rajveer aggarwal V Vijaykumar Diwakar & anr.on 14 October 2011, Delhi
High Court.
The instant suit for compensation or damages for defamation and permanent
injunction has been filed compensation or damages for the defamation caused
to the plaintiff on account of the publication of a new items.
2) Amar Bir Singh V Devinder Pal Singh on 19 July 2014,delhi High Court.
Defendant is liable to pay damages or compensation to the plaintiff on
account of defamation, which this court may deem…plaintiff, hence, the
present suit for compensation for defamation to the plaintiff.
3) In the matter of V mrs. Kumudini Raj on 21 November,2011.Delhi District
Court.
Defendant has been defaming the plaintiff by by calling him names ‘Goonda
vakil, jallad, dalla, before the various courts without any cause & reason,
only to demolize the prestigious reputation, dignity, honor & respect of the
plaintiff in the court as well as in plaintiff.
“Plaintiff by this offence of defamation committed by the defendant, as
compensation for defamation. Before proceeding further, it would.
4) Sh. Sanjay Chiripal V Sh. Tilak Raj Kapoor, on 17 July 2017, Delhi High
Court.
When on the face of the words must have clearly injured the reputation of a
plaintiff, they are actionable per se and plaintiff is entitled to get a verdict for
a substantial amount without giving evidence of actual pecuniary loss.
“Directing the defendants to pay the damages for defamation as
compensation to the plaintiff to the amount of rupees four lack only to
measure compensation and to decide whether there has been actual
defamation.

1. Rajveer aggarwal V Vijaykumar Diwakar & anr

2. Amar Bir Singh V Devinder Pal Singh
3. In the matter of V mrs. Kumudini Raj
4. Sh. Sanjay Chiripal V Sh. Tilak Raj Kapoor

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 15

 BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

5) Mahip Singh V Dawan Singh on 2 July 1888, Allahabad High Court.

The action & wording of the defendant in having used insulting expression
on the 10th May 1887.
“ Recovery of rs.300, the compensation of pain to plaintiff soul & defamation
by which terms, understand that.”

5.Mahip Singh V Dawan Singh

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 16

BALAJI LAW COLLEGES SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITATIVE ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES
CITED, MAY THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE
AND DECLARE:

I. MS. MITWANI IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO

MS.SAMMUEL FOR THE ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS.
II. MS. SAMMUEL IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.MITWANI
FOR COMMITTING DEFAMATION.

AND/OR

ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT
AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULY SUBMITTED.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE RESPONDENT SHALL DUTY

BOUND FOREVER.

SD/-

COUNCEL FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 17