FIRST MOOT COURT CASE
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
IN THE MATTER OF
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
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. The Constitution of India 1950
2. The Indian Penal Code 1860
3. Law of torts
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
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 they have not instructed the security guard to shoot at the customer or to use the weapon recklessly, so the security guard was not acting in the course of the employment. Hence the security guard is individually responsible. 6. Her suit was dismissed by the District court Pune.
7. She filed an appeal before the high court of Bombay.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the act of the security guard is Reckless?
2. Whether the Bank is Vicariously liable?
3. Whether the security guard is acting within the course of his employment?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. That, the act of the security guard is reckless.
2. That, the bank is not vicariously liable for the act of the security guard. 3. That, the security guard is not acting within the course of his employment.
Issue No. 1: That, the act of the security guard is reckless. The Counsels contentions are as follows:
In criminal law, recklessness (also called unchariness) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind"). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both a mens rea and an actus reus; i.e., a person cannot be guilty of the offence for one's actions alone. There must also be an appropriate intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time. Recklessness may constitute an offense against property or involve significant danger to another person. The precise definition of recklessness has been contested and has evolved. It generally involves a person pursuing a course of action while consciously disregarding the fact that the action gives rise to a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Criminal law recognizes recklessness as one of the mens rea elements to establish liability. It shows less culpability than intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document