LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. No. Abbreviation Full Form

1 & And
2 Section
3 AIR All India Reporter
4 Anr. Another
5 AP Andhra Pradesh
6 Art. Article
7 CJ Chief Justice
8 Dt. Date
9 Ed. Edition
10 HC High Court
11 FELP Forum for Ethics in Legal Profession
12 Ltd. Limited
13 Ors. Others
14 PIL Public Interest Litigation
15 Pg Page
16 QBD Queens Bench Division
17 SC Supreme Court
18 SCC Supreme Court Cases
19 UP Uttar Pradesh
20 v. versus
21 W.P. Writ Petition
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

WOODROFFE & AMIR ALI'S COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
Vol. 1, Edn. 4th, Delhi Law House
MULLA'S CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, Vol. 1, Edn. 2nd, Ashok Law House
AVTAR SINGH, CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF, Edn. 11th, Eastern Book Company
DUTT ON CONTRACT, Edn. 10th, Eastern Law House
POLLOCK & MULLA, INDIAN CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF ACTS, Edn. 12th,
Butterworths
SANJIVA RAO'S COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 and Tenders, Edn
11th, Delhi Law House
SURENDRA MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF, EASTERN
BOOK COMPANY
A RAMAIYA, GUIDE TO COMPANIES ACT.Ed.16th,Reprint 2006
K.M GHOSH & DR. K.R CHANDRATRAS COMPANY LAW
MALLICKS , INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872
NELSONS LAW OF INJUNCTIONS, Ed.4th ,Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd
THOMSON, THE LAW OF CONTRACT,Ed.11th

STATUTES REFERRED
THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS ACT, 2015
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
THE GOA, DAMAN & DIU GAMBLING ACT
THE PUBLIC GAMBLING ACT,1867
INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT,1998
SALES OF GOODS ACT, 1930
WEBSITES
www.manupatra.com
www.scconline.com
www.lawfinderlive.com
 www.indiankanoon.org
www.scconline.com
www.jstor.com
www.drinksafely.soton.ac.uk
www.gastro.net.edu
www.hg.org
www.iml.jou.ufl.edu
www.contractlaw.law.com
www.legalservicesindia.com
www.dolr.nic.in
www.businessdictionary.com
www.quora.com
www.nytime.com
DICTIONARIES
Blacks Law Dictionary
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Oxfords Dictionary
CASES REFERRED
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

A suit has been filed before the Delhi Commercial Court by Mr. Aditya Sahni on behalf of Mr.
Swarn Kumar under section 6 of Commercial courts Act, 2015.

The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a
commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over
which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction.

Explanation.For the purposes of this section, a commercial dispute shall be considered to

arise out of the entire territory of the State over which a Commercial Court has been vested
jurisdiction, if the suit or application relating to such commercial dispute has been instituted
as per the provisions of sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE DELHI COMMERCIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE MATTER OR
NOT?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT ARE FULFILLED OR NOT?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE WAGERING CONTRACT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARE ENFORCEABLE OR

NOT?

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST MR. SINGHAL FROM SELLING

MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY IN THE PRESENT CASE OR NOT?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH-

WHETHER THE DELHI COMMERCIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted that the Delhi Commercial Court does not have competent jurisdiction
to entertain the suit filed.

20 of the CPC, Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits
of whose jurisdiction-

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Cause of action has been defined by Brett in Cooke v. Gill1 as follows-

Cause of action has been held from the earliest time to mean every fact which is material to
ntitle the plaintiff to succeed, every fact which the defendant could have a right to traverse 2.
Full Bench held that cause of action means bundle of essential facts which is necessary for
the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed in the suit.

Under Section 20(c) of the Code, a suit can be filed in a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction of cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. It is now well settled that in case of a
contract, the cause of action arises in the following places:

1. The place where the contract has been entered into.

2. The place where the contract has been performed or is required to be performed under
the terms thereof.
3. The place where, in terms of the contract any payment has to be made.3

The court jurisdiction to grant leave under section 20(b) does not depend upon the residence of
the proforma or real defendants in the suit. The principle to be borne in mind while granting or
refusing leave by the court under section 20(b) of the code as stated by the supreme court in
Union of India v. Ladulal Jain4 is that those defendants should not be unduly troubled as the
suit be instituted at a place where they are able to defend themselves.

1
(1873) 8 CP 107
2
In re: D. Lakshminarayan Chettiar, AIR 1954 Mad 549
3
B.C. Paul and Sons v. Union of India, AIR 1978 Cal 423: (1978) 2 Cal LJ 241
4
AIR 1963 SC 1681
It is humbly submitted that both the parties Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 at the time of
signing the contract were present in Goa, the Plaintiff was playing poker in Goa. The plaintiff
has borrowed a sum of Rs.5 crore and signed the majority shares of his company at the same
place i.e. in Goa. Hence, all the transactions arose and were finalized in Goa and therefore, the
cause of action lies in Goa, thus the court in Delhi doesnt have competent jurisdiction.

Thus, the court doesnt have competent jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
 WHETHER THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT ARE FULFILLED OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted that the essentials required for a valid contract are being fulfilled herein
in the present contract between Swaran Kumar and Mr. Akhil Singhal.

The basic essentials of the contract which needs to be fulfilled have been mentioned in the
section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states- All agreements are contracts if they
are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and
with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.

FREE CONSENT
The first basic essential is that the contract must be by free consent and not under any coercion,
undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.5

The present contract is not a result of any of the elements mentioned in free consent listed
above. As the party was not forced to enter into any such contract, rather it was completely his
own discretion to do so thus it clears that the contract was not a result of undue influence.

Section 16 (1) defines A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the
relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to
dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the
other.

Only need of money cannot be a ground for framing a person in a dominant position.6 Also,
considering the mental distress of the Plaintiff he was not suffering from any mental distress 7,
thus he was not under any undue influence. Under section 16 of the Contract act, it has been
held that it is not open to a court to interfere with the contract on the mere ground that a bargain
is on the conscionable in the sense that the rate of interest is excessive8.

Where the debtors consented freely and willingly to pay a high rate of interest in anticipation
of realizing a bumper profit out of their business when assisted by a loan, there cannot be any
question of undue influence.9

5
S. 14
6
Raghunath Prasad Sahu v. Sarju Prasad Sahu AIR 1924 P.C 60
7
S. 16 (2)
8
Dalpat v. Ahmad, 5 OLJ 579: 48 IC 17
9
Chunni Lal v. Christopher, 50 Bom 107:1926 1926 Bom 65: 92 IC 368
COMPETENCY TO THE CONTRACT
Competency to a contract includes the age of majority and soundness of mind of the party while
entering into a contract.10

Section 12- What is a sound mind for the purposes of contracting A person is said to be of
sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable
of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.

Mr. Swaran Kumar, the Plaintiff is competent party to the contract as he is a person of sound
mind and is in his senses while entering into the contract. Mere intoxication does not amount
to unsound mind.11 Thus, even if he has drank alcoholic beverage, he is not of unsound mind,
as no normal person for the first time or in the beginning will start drinking alcohol in such
amount, it is gradually when a person develops capacity to drink he can, and that is the time
when he can even handle the effect of alcohol and also can think rationally under its effect.
Moreover, as his brain was conscious and he was wise enough to call his lawyer when he lost
majority of shares and thus made a rational decision. He while signing the contract knew the
effect of signing the contract, and he was not under any influence too sign the contract. Also,
considering the fact that even after losing 3 crore prior to the contract, he wanted to play the
game, thus, deciding for himself to take money from Mr. Singhal.

LAWFUL CONSIDERATION AND OBJECT

It is humbly submitted that the consideration and object in the contract is lawful.

Section 23 What consideration and objects are lawful, and what not The consideration or
object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if
permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies,
injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to
public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be
unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

13A. Authorised Game. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the
Government may authorised any game of electronic amusement/slot machines in Five Star
Hotels {and such table games and gaming on board in vessels offshore as may be notified}

10
S. 11
11
subject to such conditions, including payment of such recurring and non-recurring fees, as
may be prescribed.

(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any game authorised under sub-section (1).

As per the The Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 it has been specifically
provided that the act will not apply to the games which have been allowed by the government.
Also, it includes the table games and also the one offshore. It can therefore be said that it do
not forms a part of gambling and thus, the object of the contract is not unlawful, as the activity
itself is not declared to be illegal.

Moreover, no public at large is being affected by this contract, thus it do not oppose any public
policy or affect any other person.

Thus, the essentials of a valid contract are being fulfilled and contract is valid.
 WHETHER THE WAGERING CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted that the question of enforceability of the wagering contract doesnt arise
here as the contract is not a wagering contract.

MERE MONEY LENDING AGREEMENT

It is humbly submitted that in the present case the contract between both the parties doesnt
satisfy any of the above essentials as the money lender didnt have any view regarding the win
or loss of the Plaintiff, it was mere a lending of money. Further, the game being played is not
the one among both of them so, there is no chance at all for any chance of win or loss among
both the parties, also considering the essential of interest prevailing, the Plaintiff has an interest
in winning but the Defendant doesnt share any such interest.

COLLATERAL TRANSACTION TO WAGERING AGREEMENT ARE NOT VOID

If an agreement is merely collateral to another or constitutes an aid facilitating the carrying out
of the object of the other agreement, which, though void, is not in itself prohibited, within the
meaning of section 23 of the Contract Act, it may be enforced as a collateral agreement. If, on
other hand, it is part of a mechanism meant to defeat what the law has actually prohibited, the
courts will not countenance a claim based upon the agreement because it will be tainted with
an illegality of the object sought to be achieved, which is hit by section 23 of the Contract
Act12.

In the case of Gherulal Parakh vs Mahadeodas Maiya and Others 13 the Supreme Court of
India held that agreements which are collateral to wagering agreements which are held to be
non-enforceable under Section 30 of the Contract Act, are perfectly legal and can be enforced
in a court of law.

Therefore, by extension, agreements to organize gambling activity between promoters, or

agreement for marketing or provision of services and goods for a casino for instance, are
perfectly legal, unless the objective is to engage in illegal gambling.14

Thus the wagering contract here is enforceable.

12
Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji v. Firm of Kotrike Venkata Setty and Sons, AIR 1975 SC 1223(1975) 2 SCC 208
13
AIR 1959 SC 781, Also see; Gulam Mustaffakhan v. Padamsi AIR 1923 Nagpur 48
14
 WHETHER THE INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST MR. SINGHAL FROM SELLING
MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY IN THE PRESENT CASE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted that the injunction must not be granted in the present suit. The
possession of the shares have been transferred to the Defendant after the Plaintiff lost his
money. Now the possession and the ownership both lie with the Defendant. Thus, it is on the
Defendant about he uses those shares. Also, as contended above that the contract it valid, thus,
there lies no ground to grant an injunction, to restraint selling of shares to another company.
 PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most humbly and
respectfully submitted that this Honble Court may adjudge and declare that:

That afore mentioned contract is a valid contract

The clause of wagering contracts is enforceable.
The transfer of majority shares be allowed and injunction should not be granted.

The Honble Court may also be pleaded to pass any other order, which this Honble Court may
deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

Sd/-

Counsel for Defendant