Cover page email id- Sharanyakundu92@gmail.

com

Before

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI

UNDER article ___of the constitution of india

Nidhi Gupta Appellant

V.

Daenerys Targaeryan Respondent

Name of the competition

Memorandum on behalf of appellants

Name of your parties and the side they are representing

Name of your competition

Written d
 ii

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities ............................................................................................... iii

List of Abbreviation ............................................................................................... iv

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

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

Issues Raised .......................................................................................................... vii

Summary of arguments ....................................................................................... viii

Arguments Advanced ..............................................................................................1

I. THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACT ............................................................................. 1

A. THAT THERE WAS A LAWFUL CONSIDERATION ............................................................... 2

prayer ........................................................................................................................3
 iii

Table of Authorities

INDIAN CASES

P narayan patent law 455 4th ed eastern law house 2006 ................................................................ 2

Party A v Party B ,AIR 12 SC 2014 ............................................................................................... 2

 iv

List of Abbreviation
 v

Statement of Jurisdiction
 vi

Statement of Facts
 vii

Issues Raised
i. I whether there was a contract?

ii.Whether there was a breah of contract

 viii

Summary of arguments
That there was a breach of contract

That there was a breach of contract

No authorities

Have only fact and legal principle, 6-7 line max

 1

Arguments Advanced

I. THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACT

Barbados v Trinidad Tobago maritime delimitation case1 is particularly significant to the

consent and enforcement of arbitral awards.1 The dispute between the two countries was
primarily a clash between what Barbados claimed was its Exclusive Economic Zone and
Trinidad and Tobago’s continental shelf.

“Barbados took the maritime delimitation dispute to PCA based on article 287
clause 3 as none of the countries had made declarations for choice of dispute
settlement mechanisms described under clause 1 of article 287. The PCA had
held that pursuant to article 287 (3), it had jurisdiction over the case. For
delimitation, Barbados claimed” 2-

“International authority clearly prescribes that the Tribunal should start the process of
delimitation by drawing a provisional median line between the coasts of Barbados and
Trinidad and Tobago. This line should be adjusted so as to give effect to a special
circumstance and thus lead to an equitable solution. The special circumstance is the
established traditional artisanal fishing activity of Barbadian fisher folk south of the median
line.”

Trinidad and Tobago on the other hand felt no need to deviate from the provisional median line3,
to establish its continental shelf and EEZ.

Method of delimitation of maritime boundary4 followed two-step delimitation process referred to

as the “equidistant/relevant circumstances” principle.in this, delimiting provisional equidistant
line was the first step and subsequent adaptation of the provisional

line to the special circumstances of the case to achieve an equitable result the second step. The
award also upheld the proportionality test as being the only way to verify the equitability of the
result. This “two-step” method is not mandatory but the most adequate in order to avoid a
subjective determination. Though it leaned more towards what Trinidad claimed, both countries

1
Sharanya kundu, Indian penal code 445(1st ed., Universal law publishing house 2012)
Sharanya kundu, ipc 445 (Amadeus ed, 1st ed, Universal Law publishing 2012)
 2

declared themselves to be the winners. Also while examining the 2evidence, the tribunal had
observed that there was risk of giving undue weight to written reports presented as simple record
of hearsay evidence and oral tradition and therefore gave credibility only to those documents
written contemporaneously with the event described and lesser weightage was given to
documents recorded after the dispute started. Therefore hold3ing the same logic, all Chinese
documents that give “evidence” of Chinese control of spratly or Paracel islands if are based on
hearsay, then the weightage of that is tremendously less4.

A. THAT THERE WAS A LAWFUL CONSIDERATION

2
Supra note 1 pg. 500¶5.
id.,pg.500¶5 .
Amadeus, Mens rea, in sharanya kundu, ipc, ….
Sharanya kundu, money laundering,1 Harv. L. Rev.23, 25 (2012).
3
P narayan patent law 455 4th ed eastern law house 2006
4
Party A v Party B ,AIR 12 SC 2014
.
 3

prayer
 4

Margin- normal

Page layout border.

Justified

Times new roman

12

AaBbCc style