Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Negligence and Strict Liability in Tunnel Construction: Respondent's Analysis, Lecture notes of Law

This legal memorandum presents a compelling case for the respondent, m/s imperial builders, in a legal dispute concerning the construction of a tunnel. It delves into the complexities of negligence and strict liability principles, examining the potential application of the rylands v. Fletcher doctrine. The memorandum also explores the defense of act of god and the state government's responsibility in protecting the right to life and environmental integrity. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal arguments and relevant case law, making it a valuable resource for students of law and environmental law.

Typology: Lecture notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 10/18/2024

varnika-singh-1
varnika-singh-1 🇺🇸

1 document

1 / 18

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
“AEQUITAS” INTRA- MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Before
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARADWAR
CRIMINAL CASE No. _______/2023
FOR EXCERCISING A WRIT PETITION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
SURVIVING RESIDENTS OF
(PETITIONER)
V.
STATE GOVERNMENT AND M/S IMPERIAL
BUILDERS
(RESPONDENT)
SUBMISSIONS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12

Partial preview of the text

Download Negligence and Strict Liability in Tunnel Construction: Respondent's Analysis and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

“AEQUITAS” INTRA- MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Before

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARADWAR

CRIMINAL CASE No. _______/

FOR EXCERCISING A WRIT PETITION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

SURVIVING RESIDENTS OF

(PETITIONER)

V.

STATE GOVERNMENT AND M/S IMPERIAL

BUILDERS

(RESPONDENT)

SUBMISSIONS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................

Index of Authorities………………………………………………………………………….

Statement of Jurisdiction.........................................................................................................

Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................................

Issues Raised ............................................................................................................................

  1. Wheather M/S Imperial Builders are guilty of negligence towards the residents of Devdwar by proceeding with construction of tunnel?
  2. Alternatively, whether the construction of the tunnel and subsequent management of glacial water by M/s Imperial Builders be classified as a non-natural use of land, thereby invoking strict liability principle laid down by Rylands v. Fletcher?
  3. Is the defense of Act of God tenable for M/s Imperial Builders?
  4. Whether the State Government adequately protected the rights to life and environmental integrity?

Summary of Arguments ..........................................................................................................

Arguments Advanced..............................................................................................................

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………

4 | P a g e

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

1. Primary Sources

1.1 Cases

SRNo. Case Laws Citation

1.2 List of Statutes

1. The Indican Penal Code, 1860

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

3. The Indican Evidence Act, 1872

4. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Secondary Sources

5 | P a g e

1.1.List of Books i) 1.2.Website Referred

  1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.
  2. Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
  3. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
  4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.
  5. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.

7 | P a g e

STATEMENT OF FACTS

CRIMES FOR WHICH MR. X

WAS ACCUSED

Section 302 of the Virelian Penal Code was used to prosecute Mr. X, a Virelia citizen, for the savage 1995 murder of his spouse. In 1998, Mr. X received a life sentence. Mr. X and his cellmate, Mr. Y, developed an unexpected bond while he was incarcerated. Because of this relationship, Mr. X was able to marry Mr. Y's daughter in 2001, which brought a special dimension to his life in prison. Suspicion of his wife's adultery caused Mr. X to conduct a terrible crime in 2005, upending the peace of prison life. He brutally murdered his wife and twin sons during a brief parole visit, casting a shadow over his turbulent background. Even after admitting to the murders, Mr. X said nothing at all in his first

DECISION OF COURTS AND

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH

WAS GIVEN

Mr. X received mediocre legal counsel from his government-appointed attorney, who demonstrated no desire to put up a strong defense. As a result, he was found guilty in accordance with Sections 302 and 303 of the Virelian Criminal Code. The Sessions Court sentenced Mr. X to death in 2009. It was a severe ruling. However, there was internal conflict among the High Court judges, which gave rise to a complicated legal context for this decision. The Supreme Court rejected attempts to appeal the ruling in 2010, stating that there were no substantial legal issues. Attempts after that, such as a 2013 mercy petition, were likewise fruitless. In 2016, a mistake by prison

8 | P a g e

MERCY PETITION AND

NEGLIGENCE

officials left Mr. X in the general inmate population instead of the designated death row cells, which turned the wheels of justice in an unexpected direction.

PETITION BY HUMAN RIGHT

ADVOCAY GROUP

A human rights advocacy group responded when a death warrant was issued on New Year's Day of

  1. In their writ petition, they claimed that there had been procedural errors and constitutional violations during Mr. X's trial. The petition cited a number of legal inconsistencies and claimed that Mr. X's constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial had been violated. The main contention of the argument was that Mr. X's right to pursue all available legal options was disregarded in the hurry with which the death warrant was issued, raising questions about the possible breach of natural justice norms. The petitioners contended that applying the death penalty in this particular case would have been cruel and unusual punishment, which would be in direct opposition to the constitutional protections against such treatment.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE

AGAINST MR. X

One of the main points of contention that raised questions about the general fairness of the legal system was the claimed absence of strong legal representation during the trial. When forensic evidence was introduced, Mr. X's case unexpectedly changed, even though all legal options had been exhausted. The evidence against him seemed to be strengthened by this, including the recreation of the crime scene and DNA analysis. Important details that established a clear connection between the horrific acts carried out during that fatal parole visit

10 | P a g e

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1 WHETHER M/S IMPERIAL BUILDERS ARE GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE

TOWARDS THE RESIDENCE OF DEVDWAR BY PROCEEDING WITH

CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNEL

ISSUE 2 ALTERNATIVELY, WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TUNNEL

AND SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT OF GLACIAL WATER BY M/S IMPERIAL

BUILDERS BE CLASSIFIED AS A NON NATURAL USE OF LAND, THEREBY

INVOKING STRICT LIABILITY PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY RYLANDS V.

FLETCHER?

ISSUE 3 IS THE DEFENCE OF ACT OF GOD TENABLE FOR M/S IMPERIAL

BUILDERS?

ISSUE 4 WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED THE

RIGHT TO LIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY?

11 | P a g e

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 WHETHER M/S IMPERIAL BUILDERS ARE GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE

TOWARDS THE RESIDENCE OF DEVDWAR BY PROCEEDING WITH

CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNEL

ISSUE 2 ALTERNATIVELY, WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TUNNEL

AND SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT OF GLACIAL WATER BY M/S IMPERIAL

BUILDERS BE CLASSIFIED AS A NON NATURAL USE OF LAND, THEREBY

INVOKING STRICT LIABILITY PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY RYLANDS V.

FLETCHER?

13 | P a g e

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 WHETHER M/S IMPERIAL BUILDERS ARE GUILTY OF

NEGLIGENCE TOWARDS THE RESIDENCE OF DEVDWAR BY PROCEEDING

WITH CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNEL

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Indica that M/S imperial Builders are not guilty of negligence towards the residence of devdwar by proceeding with construction of tunnel and by following every due care without any breach

M/S Imperial Builders was given contract by the government for construction of tunnel linking devdwar with shivmath with significance aim to lessen the travel distance between these two locations. Shivmath is an ancient holy place and revered Hindu temple dedicated to lord Shiva where many visitors and pilgrims go to offer their respect and prayers. It was well known that the series of environmental disaster like forest fires , earthquakes landslides, flash floods etc. had seen taking place from time to time. There was disaster in dhamoli village in February 2021 due glacial movements and subsequent flash floods in June 2021 in rani village. The state was fully aware of the loss of human life as result of these disaster. However with a view and ……………….. to facilitate and make easy and short way to public

14 | P a g e

ISSUE 2 ALTERNATIVELY, WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TUNNEL

AND SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT OF GLACIAL WATER BY M/S IMPERIAL

BUILDERS BE CLASSIFIED AS A NON NATURAL USE OF LAND, THEREBY

INVOKING STRICT LIABILITY PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY RYLANDS V.

FLETCHER?

16 | P a g e

ISSUE 4 WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED THE

RIGHT TO LIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY?

17 | P a g e

PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implode before the Hon‘ble SUPREME Court of Virelia that may be pleased to:

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: S/d_____________ Date: XX/XX/XXXX PUBLIC PROSECUTOR