Download RESPONDENT MEMORIALMEMORIAL ON APPELLANT AND ARTICLE 136 F and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!
2 ND^ GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 - 20 (THE INTERNATIONAL
PAPERLESS MOOT)
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~ PAGE |X
GUIMCC
2 ND^ GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
(International Paperless Moot), 2019- 20 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WAKANDA IN THE MATTERS OF S.L.P. (C) No. ____/ SKYNET (P.) LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS WAKANDA PATENT OFFICE ...RESPONDENT ALONG WITH W.P. (C) NO. _____/ PAVITRA (NGO) ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF WAKANDA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT ALONG WITH T.C. (C) NO. _____/ PHILIP JONES ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF WAKANDA ...RESPONDENT ALONG WITH T.C. (CRI) NO. ____/ UNION OF WAKANDA ...COMPLAINANT VERSUS SKYNET (P). LTD. & ANR. ...RESPONDENT As submitted to the Chief Justice & other puisine Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of WAKANDA ME M OR I AL O N BE HA L F O F RE SP O NDE NT S
GUIMCC
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE |II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... III Index of Authorities .................................................................................................................IV Statement of Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................VI Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................. VII Issues Raised ......................................................................................................................... VIII Summary of Arguments ...........................................................................................................IX Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 1 I. WHETHER A CASE IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST SKYNET, GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA, AINET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY ................................................................... 1 II. WHETHER SKYNET CAN BE TREATED AS A STATE UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................................................................................................................ 3 III. WHETHER SKYNET, AINET, XMEN ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE MASSACRE COMMITTED .......................................................................................................................... 4 IV. WHETHER SKYNET OWNS PATENT OVER THE MECHANICAL ORGANS, CENTRALIZED CHIP SYSTEM OR XMEN...................................................................................................... 5 V. WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON ‘BAN OF AI FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS’ ........................................... 7 VI. WHETHER ANY ACT OF OPPRESSION OR MISMANAGEMENT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA...................................................................................... 8 Prayer .......................................................................................................................................XI
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE |IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511 (India).
- PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 -
- Ashirruddin Ahmed v. R. AIR 1949 CAL 182 (India). CASES
- Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd., (2008) 36 Mad. 440 (India).
- Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661(India).
- Delhi Judicial Service Assn v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 (India).
- Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 (India).
- Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala v. Samaldas Sankalchand Shah, AIR 1934 Bom 407 (India).
- Mulk Raj v. New Kenilwoth Hotels Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1917 (India).
- Novartis AG & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 1 SC 80 (India).
- Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111(India
- R v. M’Naghten (1843) 8 E.R.718 (England).
- Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857 (India).
- Ram Narain Kher v. Ambassador Industries New Delhi & Anr., AIR 1976 Del 8 (India).
- RBI v. Sharada Devi, (2005) 10 SCC 178 (India).
- Rickmann v. Thierry, (1896) 14 RPC 105 (HL) (England).
- S.P. Samarth Kumar v. UOI, (1987) 1 SCC 124 (India)
- Secy State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 126 (India).
- Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC
- Som Prakash Rekhi v. UOI, (1981) 1 SCC 449 (India).
- State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309 (India);
- State Trading Corp. of India Ltd. v. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811(India).
- Sukdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421(India).
- Ujjam Bai v. State Of U.P, AIR 1962 SC 1621 (India).
- UOI v. Harbans Singh Tuli & Sons Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 520 (India)
- The Companies Act, No. 13 of 2013, INDIA CODE (2019), STATUTES
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE |V
TREATISES
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 2(1)(g), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. ... 7 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WAKANDA CONST. art. 253 .................................................................................................... 7 JOURNAL Gabriel Hallevy, The Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence Entities, 4 AKRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL 171 - 200 (2010). ........................................................ 4, 5 Glanville Williams, Liability for Independent Contractors , 14(2) THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL 180 - 198 (1956). ...................................................................................................... 8 Jeremy Horder, Strict Liability, Statutory Construction and the Spirit of Liberty , 118 LAW Q. REV. 458 (2002). .................................................................................................................... 5 ARTICLE Dr. SK Agarwal, Implementation of International Law in India: Role of Judiciary, SSRN 1, 2 (2010). .................................................................................................................................... 7 Torben Spaak, Kelsen on Monism and Dualism, SSRN, 2,3 (2013........................................... 7 WEBSITE SOURCE Alexandre Gonfalonieri, What is an AI Algorithm, MEDIUM, (Apr. 22, 2019), https://medium.com/predict/what-is-an-ai-algorithm-aceeab80e7e3. ................................... 7 BOOKS MP JAIN & SN JAIN, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2006 (7th ed. 2011)...................... 1 MP JAIN & SN JAIN, PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTION LAW 2006 (7th ed. 2011). ......................... 2
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE |VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
In the year 2050, multiple incidents were accounted where missiles were launched as a precautionary measure by AIs installed in warships. For the ethical use of AI, UN Security Council in UN introduced an agreement “BAN of AI for MILITARY APPLICATIONS”, which was also signed by WAKANDA but they did not ratify it. SKYNET ~ GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA ~ X-MEN SkyNET (P.) Ltd. is a company in WAKANDA, with the objective of promotion of science and research in the field of AI. An AI named AINET, responding to human emotions and touch was developed and SkyNET got patent rights over it. With the help of AINET, it successfully developed artificial mechanical organs which were used on the field to save human lives. To establish a centralized mechanism, AINET created a small chip to be implanted in human brain. This chip was connected to the server of AINET for adjustments. Patent application over mechanical chips and central chip was rejected by the Patent Office. GoW hired a group of Cyborgs known as XMEN independently for their service in the field of search and rescue, in cases of natural calamities and artificial disasters. Subsequently, GoW acquired 59% stakes in SkyNET with the ultimate goal of using its technology for military purposes. Use of XMEN shifted towards military search and rescue missions. MARDOCK AND MASSCARE COMMITTED Mardock with an intention to acquire the source code and programming of AINET remotely attacked the server of SkyNET. This led to multiple malfunctions in AINET. Following this, AINET became independent and took XMEN under its control. As preventive measure, it started ordering XMEN to attack humans on a random basis leading to chaos amongst the people. They invaded the company’s servers causing human casualty and loss of property. RESULTED LITIGATION SkyNET filed a petition under Art. 136 against the Patent Office. Pavitra filed a petition under Art. 32 against GoW for violation of treaty. Mr. Philip Jones filed a petition for oppression and mismanagement against GoW in NCLT and cognizance was taken against SkyNET, AINET, X-MEN and Mardock Corp. for the murder by Criminal Court and all cases were transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE |VIII
ISSUES RAISED
I. WHETHER A CASE IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA,
SKYNET, AINET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY?
II. WHETHER SKYNET CAN BE TREATED AS A “STATE” UNDER THE PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES?
III. WHETHER AINET, X-MEN, SKYNET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
FOR THE MASSACRE COMMITTED?
IV. WHETHER SKYNET OWNS PATENT OVER THE MECHANICAL ORGANS, CENTRALIZED
CHIP SYSTEM OR X-MEN?
V. WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT ON BAN OF AI FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS?
VI. WHETHER ANY ACT OF OPPRESSION OR MISMANAGEMENT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY
GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA?
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE |X
[VI] WHETHER ANY ACT OF OPPRESSION OR MISMANAGEMENT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY
GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the GoW firstly, cannot be sued on behalf of SkyNET [A] secondly, has not committed any act of oppression or mismanagement [B] and thus, should not be held liable for the same under the Companies Act, 2013.
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE | 1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER A CASE IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST SKYNET, GOVERNMENT
OF WAKANDA, AINET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY
(¶1) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present appeal is not maintainable as firstly, that the petition under Art. 32 is not maintainable [A] secondly, that special leave should not be granted to petition under Art. 136 [B] and thirdly, there exist no necessity to invoke jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the COW [C] [A] THAT THE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. (¶2) It is humbly submitted that the present petition is not maintainable under Article 32, as there exists no violation of fundamental rights in the present matter. It is well settled that jurisdiction under present article cannot be invoked simply to adjudge the validity of any legislation or an administrative action unless it violates the fundamental right. Herein, the state is only a signatory to the treaty of Ban on the use of AI for military purposes i.e. it is not creating any obligation on the state. Hence, there is neither any violation of fundamental rights nor the treaty has been ratified and municipal law has not been enacted for the same which resultantly substantiate that no fundamental right has been violated. [B] THAT SPECIAL LEAVE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136. (¶3) It is humbly submitted that the present appeal should not be granted special leave as the jurisdiction is invoked where the court interferes when the question of law involved^1 and the conclusion is perverse^2 or where the interest of justice so requires^3. It does so only when exceptional and special circumstances exist^4 , substantial and grave injustice has been done and, was shocking to the judicial conscience of the Court^5. Here in the present matter no grave in justice is involved as the patent office has rejected the patent after the examination process and the rejected patent falls in the list as given under section 25(1)(a) of the Patents Act, 1970, hence the appeal is not maintainable under Art. 136.^6 (^1) Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323 (India). (^2) Secy State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 126 (India). (^3) Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 (India). (^4) RBI v. Sharada Devi, (2005) 10 SCC 178 (India). (^5) Delhi Judicial Service Assn v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 (India). (^6) MP JAIN & SN JAIN, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2006 (7th ed. 2011).
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE | 3
II. WHETHER SKYNET CAN BE TREATED AS A STATE UNDER PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES
(¶8) It is humbly submitted that SkyNET cannot be considered to be State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the COW firstly, SkyNET does not satisfy the test of ‘other authorities’ [A] and s econdly, that SkyNET is not a statutory body [B]. [A] THAT SKYNET DOES NOT SATISFY THE TEST OF ‘OTHER AUTHORITIES’. (¶9) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that SkyNET is not State under Art. 12 of COW as to be considered a State, the company must establish that the body is financially, functionally and administratively^10 dominated by or is under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive.^11 (¶10) It is further submitted that financial assistance from the Government should meet all expenditure of the company, and initial capital was provided by the Central Government and capital could be increased in such manner as the Government may determine.^12 In the present matter, government has only 59% shares and it is just one of the many avenues to derive its funds. Moreover, there are private individuals^13 of eminence and independence who cannot be regarded as the hands and voice of the State. 14 Hence, it does not fall within the ambit of the ‘other authorities’ as stated under Art. 12 of COW. [B] THAT SKYNET IS NOT A STATUTORY BODY. (¶11) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that SkyNET is not statutory body as it neither owes its birth to a statute nor is there any other statute conferring it with such powers as would enable it being branded as an authority.^15 The indicium of power is absent.^16 Furthermore, the power to be invested with statutory power^17 to issue binding directions to third parties is also absent.^18 Therefore, SkyNET cannot be considered to be State within the meaning of Art. 12 of COW. (^10) Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857 (India). (^11) Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111(India). (^12) S.P. Samarth Kumar v. UOI, (1987) 1 SCC 124 (India). (^13) Som Prakash Rekhi v. UOI, (1981) 1 SCC 449 (India). (^14) Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661(India). (^15) State Trading Corp. of India Ltd. v. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811(India). (^16) Ujjam Bai v. State Of U.P, AIR 1962 SC 1621 (India). (^17) Sukdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421(India). (^18) Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111(India).
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE | 4
III. WHETHER SKYNET, AINET, XMEN ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE
MASSACRE COMMITTED
(¶12) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that SkyNET, AINET, XMEN are not liable for the massacre committed because firstly, AINET does not have the capacity to possess mens rea [A]. Secondly, SkyNET, is not liable for acts committed by AINET as the act was result of novus actus interveniens [B]. Thirdly, X-MEN were incapable to understand the nature of their act [C]. [A] THAT AINET DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO POSSESS MENS REA. (¶13) It is humbly submitted that AINET is not liable for the criminal massacre as it is an innocent agent. To make a person criminally liable there should exist actus reus or mens rea. If either of them is absent there is no criminal liablity. An AI has no mental capacity to possess mens rea. The intermediary is regarded as a mere instrument, albeit a sophisticated instrument, while the party orchestrating the offense is the real perpetrator as a principal in the first degree and is held accountable for the conduct of the innocent agent. (¶14) Furthermore, in the present case the AI malfunctioned only after the breach by Mardock Corp.^19 and transferred its data to an independent server and made major tweaks in the centralized chips, and asked XMEN to attack humans on a random basis as a preventive measure.^20 Hence, the liability of AINET does not exist as the mental capacity to form the mens rea is absent. In addition, AINET would not have acted in this way had it not been provoked to safe itself from external sources. [B]. THAT SKYNET IS NOT LIABLE FOR ACTS COMMITTED BY AINET AS THE ACT WAS RESULT OF NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS. (¶15) It is humbly submitted that the resultant act was the result of novus actus interveniens^21 and SkyNET has no liability for the same. The remote attack on the server of SkyNET to acquire the source code and programming of AINET^22 by Mardock Corp. broke the chain of causation freeing SkyNET from all the liabilities as the incident was unforeseeable by SkyNET. (^19) Moot Proposition, ¶9. (^20) Moot Proposition, ¶9. (^21) Gabriel Hallevy, The Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence Entities, 4 AKRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL 171 - 200 (2010). (^22) Moot Proposition, ¶9.
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE | 6
[A] THAT THE MECHANICAL ORGANS ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE PATENTS ACT, 1970.
(¶20) It is humbly submitted that Section 3 clause (i) does not allow patenting of any medicinal, surgical^31 , curative, prophylactic^32 , diagnostic, therapeutic^33 , or other types of treatments of human beings or animals to render^34 them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products.^35 As per the facts, SkyNET is trying to save many human lives including army veterans, blast survivors, patients ailing of incurable diseases. Now patients ailing of incurable diseases is a direct contradiction^36 and violation of section 3 (i), and due to such circumstances prevailing, SkyNET will not be granted patenting rights over mechanical organs.^37 [B] THAT SKYNET IS NOT THE FIRST AND TRUE INVENTOR CENTRALIZED CHIP. (¶21) It is humbly submitted that SkyNET is not the true and first inventor of the centralized chip as it is invented by AINET and SkyNET owns no ownership over the invention made by AINET as the invention made by AINET was unrelated to his job responsibilities.^38 Furthermore, pre grant opposition can be filed by any person on the ground that the invention^39 does belong to someone else and not to the applicant^40 hence, the condition laid down in section 25(1)(a) of Patents Act, 1970, stand satisfied here. Hence, when AINET came up with the idea to develop a centralized chip, AINET becomes the true and first inventor. (¶22) Furthermore, AINET, with its own feature of internal modifying and tweaking, was able to develop a centralized chip. This chip if placed in a human brain that has had too many mechanical organs attached, will send infra-red waves to the mechanical organs helping synchronize everything smoothly, for a safer and reliable functioning of the mechanical organs and the commands sent by the brain. This chip would also help tweak and adjust certain bugs if arose in the future in a certain human who has undergone such a procedure. 41 (^31) Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala v. Samaldas Sankalchand Shah, AIR 1934 Bom 407 (India).. (^32) Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511 (India). (^33) Rickmann v. Thierry, (1896) 14 RPC 10 5 (HL) (England). (^34) Press Metal Corporation Limited v. Noshir Sorabji Pochkhanwalla & Anr., AIR 1983 Bom 144 (India).. (^35) Indian Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, INDIA CODE (2016), §3(i). (^36) Novartis AG & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., (2013) 1 SC 80 (India). (^37) Moot Proposition, ¶5. (^38) Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd., (2008) 36 Mad. 440 (India). (^39) Novartis AG & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., (2013) 1 SC 80 (India). (^40) Ram Narain Kher v. Ambassador Industries New Delhi & Anr., AIR 1976 Del 8 (India). (^41) Moot Proposition, ¶5.
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE | 7
V. WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS VIOLATED THE
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON ‘BAN OF AI FOR MILITARY
APPLICATIONS’
(¶23) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the GoW has not violated the International Agreement on ‘BAN of AI for MILITARY APPLICATIONS’ because firstly, the GoW has not ratified the international agreement [A] and secondly, GoW has not used AI for military purposes [B]. [A]. THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS NOT RATIFIED THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON BAN OF AI FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS. (¶24) It is humbly submitted that the GoW is not bound by the international agreement because the State of WAKANDA follows the dualistic approach in respect of international laws.^42 The dualistic approach requires the Govt. to ratify any signed agreement in order to give effect to the same.^43 The power of giving effect and enactment of domestic or municipal laws in compatible with international treaties or decisions made at conference, rests with the Parliament.^44 Article 2(1)(g) of VCLT, 1969, defines ratification as a consent to be bound by the law.^45 It is pertinent to note that post 21st^ December, 2050, the GoW has taken no steps towards the ratification of the agreement thus, implying that the Govt. never consented to be bound by the same and did not mean to implement the agreement at a domestic level. [B]. THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS NOT USED AI FOR MILITARY PURPOSES. (¶25) It is humbly submitted that the GoW has not violated the international agreement of ‘Ban of AI for Military Applications’ as it has not used AI for military purposes. The use of XMEN does not qualify as the use of AI because AIs are made of algorithms.^46 XMEN on the other hand, are mortals that have mechanical organs and a human brain.^47 The implantation of centralized chip in the brain that merely sends infra-red waves to the mechanical organs^48 does not imply that humans have become AIs. (^42) Dr. SK Agarwal, Implementation of International Law in India: Role of Judiciary, SSRN 1, 2 (2010). (^43) Torben Spaak, Kelsen on Monism and Dualism, SSRN, 2,3 (2013). (^44) WAKANDA CONST. art. 253. (^45) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 2(1)(g), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. (^46) Alexandre Gonfalonieri, What is an AI Algorithm, MEDIUM, (Apr. 22, 2019), https://medium.com/predict/what- is-an-ai-algorithm-aceeab80e7e3. (^47) Moot Clarifications, ¶3. (^48) Moot Proposition, ¶5.
PAP ER L ES S MOO T ), 2019 - 20
~ME M OR I A L O N BEH AL F O F RE SP ON DE N T ~ PA GE | 9
reasonably inferred that filing this claim and having GoW removed as the director^55 would be beneficial to Mr. Jones. (¶31) It is further submitted that the applicant’s claim for oppression is frivolous. After the acquisition, the functions of the company have in no way, become prejudicial to the interest of the public or of the company. The X-MEN were hired by the GoW with an aim to save people during search and rescue missions.^56 Using the same resources, with the same purpose but with a specific group in mind is not oppressive in nature. This act done in furtherance to what was being done prior to the acquisition of shares cannot be said to be in prejudice to the interest of the company. (¶32) The claim for mismanagement is vexatious as the functioning of the company has not deviated from the company’s object. The company’s object of promotion of science and technology with special reference to AI,^57 has not been altered as merely the group of people that X-MEN were providing aid to has changed. This does not signify that the company is functioning ultra vires to its object and that there has been a violation of the MoA, thereof. (¶33) Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the claims of the applicant, Mr. Philip Jones, is false and causing unnecessary trouble to the GoW. Thus, GoW is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the frivolous and vexatious suit filed as per Section 245(8).^58 (^55) The Companies Act, No. 13 of 2013, INDIA CODE (2019), §242(2)(h). (^56) Moot Proposition, ¶7. (^57) Moot Proposition, ¶3. (^58) The Companies Act, No. 13 of 2013, INDIA CODE (2019), §245(8).
2 ND^ GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 - 20 (THE INTERNATIONAL
PAPERLESS MOOT)
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT~ PAGE |XI
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: Dismiss the instant appeal & petitions with all costs. AND/ OR Pass any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the respondent shall forever be duty bound. Date: ** Place: Sd/- COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)
