nationalmootselectionsproblem.doc

7/31/2019 NationalMootSelectionsProblem.doc

1/4

National Moot Pool Selections 2012-13

Neshib Sejwant was a student at one of Indias best law schools at Bhopal. After

completing his B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) course in April 2007, he received high paying

offers from two of Indias top law firms. However, having been inspired by shows

like Bombay Legal and The Practitioners, he decided that he did not want to take up

either of his job offers which would simply make him a glorified clerk. He went to

Delhi and joined as a junior to a Senior Counsel, Mr. Kunal Panugovel, who then was

also an Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India.

While working for Mr. Kunal Panugovel, Neshib found that Mr. Kunal was often

out of office to fulfill his obligations as an ASG, and consequently a number of new

clients were often lost due to his absence. As an enthusiastic young lawyer, Neshib

felt that there was injustice being done to Mr. Kunal Panugovel, who was losing

out on clients, and also to the clients, who were losing out on the impeccable legal

services of Mr. Kunal Panugovel. Thus, on the 10 th of January 2008, when a certain

Mr. Blain Reggoe Sotham, an Anglo-Indian man, walked into the office asking for

Mr. Kunal, Neshib represented himself as the same and took his brief and counseled

Mr.Blain on his problem, intending to update Mr. Kunal on the case at a later time.

Mr.Blain, on a 2 month official trip to Tokyo in March-April 2003, had gotten

married to a pretty, but not so smart (silly and idiotic by Mr. Blains own admission),

Japanese donkey rearer named Hishoni Gensatpu. Mr. Blain returned to India, while

Hishoni continued to live in Japan. However, after 4 years, in May 2007, he becameinfatuated with another woman in India, Ms.Kaalp Maarkis, an Indian citizen of

German origin, and began to have an affair with her. Mr.Blain had approached

Mr.Kunals office seeking help to conclude all legal formalities, and complete his

marriage to Ms.Kaalp Maarkis. While Neshib intended to update Mr.Kunal about the

1|Page


2/4


case, and ensure that the client received Mr. Kunals services, he was unable to meet

with him due to Mr. Kunals busy schedule.

With the passing of time, Neshib began to feel that injustice was being done to the

client due to the undue delay in the matter, and Neshib decided to go ahead and

handle the matter by himself. During his appearance in the High Court of Delhi in

July 2007, in the court of Justice Daiti Rasa and Justice Orjiy, which also happened to

be his first ever appearance in court, Justice Daiti remarked that she was, irritated

to see a young turk handling such a matter, that too in the absence of his senior.

After he had made his initial submissions, Justice Orjiy adjourned the matter to the

next day and asked him to come back better prepared. Neshib, who felt that the

judges had not even being paying full attention to him, was irritated and vented his

frustration by telling them, You should pay more respect to lawyers. I have been

to an NLU, and am probably better equipped than even you. I will not tolerate such

nonsense in the future, and then walked out of the courtroom. After a few hours,

when he had cooled off, Neshib felt that there may be consequences to his actions,

and decided to apologize to Justices Rasa and Orjiy. He found out from the Court

Registrar that the judges had an appointment at the Taj hotel at 8PM that night,

and made himself present there at the same time. On their arrival, Neshib went and

apologized to them, simply briefed them about this first case he was dealing with,

and told them that he hoped there would be no adverse impact on his case.On the following day, Neshib was charged for contempt of court on multiple

grounds, and after a brief hearing was punished with a fine of one thousand rupees.

Neshib proffered an appeal to the Supreme Court within 10 days.

2|Page


3/4


The matter regarding the divorce and remarriage of Mr. Blain continued in a fresh

courtroom, in front of Justice Bitu Mathos. The proceedings carried on for more

than 6 months, and Mr. Blain, who was a busy person began to get frustrated. He

pressurized Neshib to find him a more acceptable and quicker solution. Under a lot

of pressure, and after a lot of research, Neshib advised Mr. Blain that his marriage to

Hishoni could be considered invalid since she was an idiot, and that he was free to

get remarried to Kaalp Maarkis. On February 2008, Mr. Blain and Ms. Kaalp tied the

knot.

Ms. Tahi Kurma Genstapu, who was the sister of Hishoni, and settled in New Delhi,

came to know out about her brother in laws remarriage. She immediately did some

background research on the whole situation and initiated Bigamy proceedings

against Mr.Blain in the Trial Court at Delhi. The Trial Court held against Mr.Blain,

but this was overturned by the High Court. The matter was then appealed to the

Supreme Court of India. Further, knowing the role of Neshib in the entire process,

she also filed a complaint alleging professional misconduct, on more than one

ground, against the office of Mr.Kunal with the State bar Council. The disciplinary

committee of the State Bar Council found that there was no professional misconduct

in the instant matter.

Unhappy with the decision of the State Disciplinary Committee, Tahi took the matter

to the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court, recognizing that the mattersrelating to Contempt of Court by Neshib, and Bigamy by Mr.Blain were also pending

before it, clubbed all these related matters for a joint hearing on 15th March 2009.

The issues that have to be argued are:

3|Page


4/4


1. Whether the Supreme Court can club the instant matters, and whether they

are maintainable?

2. Whether Neshib is guilty of Contempt of Court?

3. Whether the office of Mr.Kunal is guilty of Professional Misconduct?

4. Whether Mr.Blain has committed Bigamy?

Participants are to determine the grounds on which to allege or defend the

offences of Professional Misconduct and Contempt of Court in the instant

case. Apart from the issues that have already been outlined, participants are

encouraged to identify and argue any other issue that they deem fit.

Strength of the law on each side is irrelevant, as participants will be judged based

on the strength of their arguments from the same side only.

Participants are to identify the parties and prepare arguments from both sides.

4|Page

nationalmootselectionsproblem.doc

Documents