1

IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

DELHI

MOCK TRIAL (Written Submissions): Problem 4

In the matter of:

SINGER CONSULTANT PVT. LTD......................................... PLAINTIFF

V.

WINSOFT TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD ............. DEFENDANT

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Submitted by:
Name Section Roll Number
Somenath Biswas A 21309806903
Nipendra Verma A 21309806596
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. Particulars Page Number

1 LIST OF DATES AND SYNOPSIS 3-4

2 BRIEF FACTS 5

4 OPENING STATEMENTS 6

5 FINAL ARGUMENTS 7
 3

LIST OF DATES

DATE EVENTS
(Month DD, Yr-*)

June, Yr-4 Ms. Neena Elizabeth, Managing Director of M/s WinSoft

Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. (“Defendant”) communicated interest
to take Jubilee Plaza, owned by Mr. Varun Singer (owner of Singer
Consultants Pvt. Ltd.(“Plaintiff”)), on rent for her office.

15th July, Yr-4 Upon request, Ms. Neena visited the said property along with her
manager, Mr. Sooraj Kishan.

12th September, Lease deed signed between both the parties at a monthly rent of Rs.
Yr-4
2,00,000 for the said property and Rs. 8,000 for parking space. A
security deposit of rent equivalent to three months was agreed with a
lock-in period of three years.

15th September, Defendant company shifted their office to the said property.
Yr-4

25th March, Yr-2 Defendant sent a 3 month notice to the Complainant/Plaintiff,

terminating the Lease deed w.e.f. 30th June, Yr-2. It demanded the
adjustment of 3 months security deposit for the aforesaid notice period.

30th March, Yr-2 Defendant company vacated the said property.

26th April, Yr-2 Defendant company sent a legal notice to the Plaintiff raising
grievances regarding maintenance of the said property and alleging
breach of contract.
 4

1st September, Yr-2 Both the parties had a joint inspection of the said property.

* Please note that Yr-0 denotes the current year, Y-1 denotes the previous year, Yr-2 denotes two years ago and so on
so forth.
 5

BRIEF FACTS
1. The Defendant Company(Winsoft Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd.) signed the lease agreement
for the property Jubilee Plaza owned by the Plaintiff Company(Singer Consultants Pvt. Ltd.).
The property was one of the Plaintiff Company’s high-end properties and its rent was Rs.
2,00,000 per month alongwith a parking space for two cars at Rs. 8000 per month. The lease
agreement was signed after several rounds of negotiations and had the standard terms and
conditions, involving what is commonly known as 'Lock-in-Period' for a period of 3 years,
which is a contractually agreed minimum tenure as well as three months’ security deposit
which would be forfeited in case of the breach of contract.

2. The Defendant Company vacated the premises before the end of the Lock-in Period which
has been claimed as a Breach of Contract u/s 73 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. The grounds
given for the by the Defendant Company that, they wanted more space to expand their
business and shifted elsewhere immediately in 5 days and the property was handed over to
the plaintiff company in the same condition it was received, after a joint inspection by both
the plaintiff and the respondent. The defendant company stated that the poor state of
maintenance of the property was embarrassing and damaging the business of them.

3. The Plaintiff company appealed that they are entitled to claim the lease fee or rent for the
remainder of that Lock-in Term, which is 18 months’ rent, with 18% additional interest on
the same, even the same was not written explicitly in the lease agreement. Also, the Plaintiff
demanded to forfeit the 3 months security deposit as they have committed a breach of contract
first.

4. The defendant company argued that, the property was too small to cater their present and
future requirements and the present claim by the plaintiff company is nothing but to extort
money from the defendant. In addition to that, the quality maintenance of the said property
by the plaintiff as agreed in the contract was abysmally neglected and all the request of the
defendant company was neglected by the plaintiff company, however such requests are
denied by the plaintiff.
 6

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Lordship, it is an established legal principle that terms outlined in a contract impose binding
obligations on both parties. In the event of a party failing to fulfill its duties, the contract becomes
void, and the defaulting party bears liability for the breach. Subsequent actions by the non-
breaching party are rendered irrelevant, as the contract terminates following the initial breach.

May it please Your Lordship, I appear as counsel on behalf of the Defendant company, M/s WinSoft
Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., in defense against the claims brought forth by the Plaintiff, Singer
Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Your Lordship, our objective is to demonstrate that the Defendant bears no responsibility for the
losses alleged by the Plaintiff. Moreover, we contend that the Plaintiff itself breached the terms
stipulated in the lease deed and deliberately refrained from seeking tenants despite having ample
time to do so subsequent to receiving the termination notice.
 7

FINAL ARGUMENTS

The underlying principle of equity mandates that those seeking redress must approach the court
with clean hands.

Maintenance of the property, integral to the business's proper functioning as specified in the lease
deed, constitutes an essential contractual obligation. Despite regular and stipulated payments,
Singer Consultants, as demonstrated in their defense, neglected property maintenance after repeated
requests, leading to my client's out-of-pocket expenses. This appalling prior breach absolves my
client of any resulting liability.

During exhaustive negotiations preceding the lease agreement, the lock-in period, crucially devoid
of any penalty provisions, was extensively discussed, as evidenced in the proceedings. Given the
deliberate omission after meticulous deliberation, no reasonable person can presume liability for
lease termination during the lock-in period.

Contrary to Mr. Singer's claim of space inadequacy, my client occupied the premises for two and a
half years, fulfilling all duties until clients' complaints and plaintiff's negligent maintenance
jeopardized the business. The swift move-out within five days, payment of three months' rent for
Jubilee Plaza without occupation, and simultaneous payment for a new property stand as imprudent
only in the face of imminent business jeopardy.

Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, dealing with breach-induced loss, necessitates proof of actual
loss and imposes a duty on the plaintiff to mitigate losses. Despite asserting Jubilee Plaza's
desirability, Singer Consultants failed to secure a new tenant for a substantial 10 months, indicating
either a lack of effort or property unsuitability due to maintenance issues.

Punishing my client for contractual omissions and Singer's wrongs contradicts the principles of
natural justice. My client, having suffered reputation damage, harassment, mental stress, and
substantial rent payment without occupation, is the aggrieved party deserving of damages.

Considering the foregoing, I request Your Lordship to deliver justice to Miss Mina by dismissing
Mr. Singer's plea.