moot court
FIRST MOOT COURT CASE
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
IN THE MATTER OF
SUNITA ………..PETITIONER Vs.
UKO Bank ………..RESPONDENT
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Most Respectfully Submitted to the
Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay At Bombay
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2. REFERENCE
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
7. PRAYER
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. The Constitution of India 1950
2. The Indian Penal Code 1860
3. Law of torts
CASES REFERRED:
1. Jacob Mathews v/s State of Punjab
2. Kasturi Lal v/s State of U.P
3. Hindustan papers corporation v/s Anand Bhattacharjee
4. Shyam sundar v/s state of Rajastan
5. Sitaram v/s Santnuprasad
6. Peninsular and oriental steam navigation co. v/s secretary of state of India WEBSITES:
1) www.google.com.
2) www.manupatra.com
3) www.legalservices.com
4) www.indiankanoon.com
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is herein after most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble High court has the jurisdiction to entertain this petition
STATEMENT OF FACT
1. UKO Bank is one of the Nationalized Bank in India.
2. Sudhir is one of the Account holders of the bank. One day he went to the bank for the regular transaction as he was in hurry to reach the office he wrongly parked his vehicle and entered the bank. At the same time cash box of the bank also arrived.
3. The security guard (Madan) erroneously believed that the act of sudhir as threat to the cash box and shot him dead.
4. Sunita wife of Sudhir (deceased) filed a suit for compensation against the bank for the negligent act of the employee.
5. Bank contended that
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
IN THE MATTER OF
SUNITA ………..PETITIONER Vs.
UKO Bank ………..RESPONDENT
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Most Respectfully Submitted to the
Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay At Bombay
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2. REFERENCE
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
7. PRAYER
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. The Constitution of India 1950
2. The Indian Penal Code 1860
3. Law of torts
CASES REFERRED:
1. Jacob Mathews v/s State of Punjab
2. Kasturi Lal v/s State of U.P
3. Hindustan papers corporation v/s Anand Bhattacharjee
4. Shyam sundar v/s state of Rajastan
5. Sitaram v/s Santnuprasad
6. Peninsular and oriental steam navigation co. v/s secretary of state of India WEBSITES:
1) www.google.com.
2) www.manupatra.com
3) www.legalservices.com
4) www.indiankanoon.com
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is herein after most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble High court has the jurisdiction to entertain this petition
STATEMENT OF FACT
1. UKO Bank is one of the Nationalized Bank in India.
2. Sudhir is one of the Account holders of the bank. One day he went to the bank for the regular transaction as he was in hurry to reach the office he wrongly parked his vehicle and entered the bank. At the same time cash box of the bank also arrived.
3. The security guard (Madan) erroneously believed that the act of sudhir as threat to the cash box and shot him dead.
4. Sunita wife of Sudhir (deceased) filed a suit for compensation against the bank for the negligent act of the employee.
5. Bank contended that