TEAM CODE: 03

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

PADMAVATHI
(APPELLANT)
V.

QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. &

OTHERS
(RESPONDENTS)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CHALLENGING THE DISMISSAL
OF THE MATTER BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................5

I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED...............................................................5

II. STATUTES REFERRED..................................................................................................5

III. TABLE OF CASES.........................................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................9

ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................................11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................13

1. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT 13

Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special Leave is
not maintainable.........................................................................................................13

Non-interference in the decision of the lower courts:................................................................................14

Scope of Powers under Article 136:..........................................................................................................15

Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied:..................................................................................15

Grounds of rejection:.................................................................................................................................16

2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF

MR. BHULLAR AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WILL NOT BE
VALID.................................................................................................................................16

Extent of Authority of an Agent................................................................................................................16

Creation of Agency by Estoppel................................................................................................................17

Doctrine of Constructive Notice................................................................................................................18

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Indoor Management are applicable............................................................19

3. THE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A GOOD CLAIM AT THE TIME OF SERVING
THE NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT TO THE RESPONDENT......................................22

Page | 2
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
There was a case of deviation by the ship.................................................................................................22

A case for Constructive Total Loss cannot be made out...........................................................................22

A case for Actual Total Loss cannot be made out.....................................................................................23

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................26

Page | 3
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. &: And

2. AIR: All India Reporter

3. All : Allahabad

4. Bom : Bombay

5. Cal: Calcutta

6. Co.: Company

7. Corp.: Corporation

8. Del : Delhi

9. Edn.: Edition

10. Hon’ble: Honourable

11. HC : High Court

12. Ltd: Limited

13. No: Number

14. Ors: Others

15. p: Page

16. pp: Pages

17. Pvt.: Private

18. SC: Supreme Court

19. SCC: Supreme Court Cases

20. SCR: Supreme Court Reports

21. Sec.: Section

22. Ss.: Sections

23. v: Versus

24. vol.: Volume

Page | 4
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED:

1. A Ramaiya's Guide to the Companies Act, Butterworth Wadhwa, 17th Revised
Edition, 2010.
2. C R Dutta on The Company Law, Lexis Nexis Publishers, 6th edition, 2008.
3. Chitty on Contracts, Sweet and Maxwell, 24th Edition, 1977.
4. Company Law and Practice by A.K Majumdar and Dr. G.K. Kapoor, Taxmann
Publishers, 18th edition, 2013.
5. Company Law by Avatar Singh, Eastern Book Company, 15th Edition, 2007
6. Contract and Specific Relief by Avatar Singh, Eastern Book Company, 11th Edition,
2013
7. Palmer's Company Law, Sweet and Maxwell, 2007.
8. Pollock and Mulla on Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, Butterworths
Wadhwa, 13th Edition.
9. The Law of Contract, Edited by Michael Furmston, Butterworths Wadhwa, Third
Edition, 2007.
10. Colinvaux's Law of Insurance, Sweet & Maxwell, Sixth Edition, 1990.
11. Law of Insurance by Avatar Singh, Eastern Book Company, Second Edition, 2010.
12. The Law relating to Marine Insurance by B.C. Mitra, University Book Agency Fourth
Edition, 2001.
13. Modern Law of Insurance by K.S.N. Murthy & K.V.S. Sarma, Butterworths Wadhwa,
Fourth Edition, 2010.
14. Arnould's Law of Marine Insurance and Average by Jonathan Gilman and Robert
Merkin, Sweet & Maxwell, Seventeenth Edition, 2008.

II. STATUTES REFERRED:

1. Constitution of India

2. Indian Contract Act, 1872

3. Marine Insurance Act, 1906 ( United Kingdom)

4. Marine Insurance Act, 1963

5. The Companies Act, 1956

Page | 5
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
III. TABLE OF CASES: Cases

1. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546............13

2. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15....................13
3. Akooji Jadwat Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.,
AIR 1972 Cal. 228.......................................................................................................24
4. Ali v. Roberts Cotton Assn., (1963) 1 SC 244..............................................................18
5. Anand Bihari Lal v. Dinshaw & Co, (1946) 48 BOMLR 293.....................................20
6. Anderson v. Wallis, (1813) 2 M & S 240, also cited in Arnould, 17th Edition, at 1359.
......................................................................................................................................23
7. Armagas Ltd v.Mundogas SA, The Ocean Frost, [1986] AC 717...............................17
8. Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563................................14
9. Ballantine, Private Corporations, (1927) 347 at p. 110..............................................17
10. Bocking Garage v. Mazurk ,[1954] CLY 14................................................................18
11. Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999
SC 186..........................................................................................................................16
12. City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143..............................................16
13. Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78........16
14. DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414................................................................14
15. Deers Inc. v. DeRuyter, 9 Wash App 240....................................................................17
16. Grant v.Norway (1851) 10 CB 665..............................................................................17
17. Green v. Young, (1702) 2 Salk. 444 also cited in Arnould, 17th Edition, 2008 at para
14-24............................................................................................................................22
18. Harshat J. Shah v.LIC, (1997) 5 SCC 64....................................................................18
19. Jacobs v.Morris, (1902) 1 Ch 816 (CA)......................................................................18
20. Kamal Singh Dugar v. Corporated Engineers (India) Ltd., AIR 1963 Cal 464..........18
21. Kotla Venkataswamy v. Chinta Ramamurthy AIR 1934 Mad 579..............................19
22. Kreditbank Cassel v. Schenkers Ltd [1927] 1 KB 826.................................................21
23. Kreditbank Cassel v. Schenkers Ltd., [1927] 1 KB 826..............................................20
24. Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359..........16
25. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)......................................15
26. Kuwait Airways Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co, [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 664.................25
27. Leckenby v.Wolman, [1921] WN 100..........................................................................18
28. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618.....................................................13

Page | 6
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
29. Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Member Ltd, [2010] EWHC 280 (Comm)...........25
30. Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Member Ltd, 2011 EWCA Civ 24 : (2011), para.
15, 16............................................................................................................................23
31. Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Member Ltd, 2011 EWCA Civ 24 : (2011), para.
56..................................................................................................................................25
32. Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358.................................................................14
33. Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492. .14
34. Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253..................16
35. N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196.....................................................13
36. Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622..........................................14
37. Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v. Wright, [1970] 2 Lloyd's Rep 365 .24
38. Panchanan Misra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299......................................14
39. Pole v.Leask, (1862) 33 LJ Ch 155..............................................................................17
40. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169..............................................................13
41. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v.Maharaja of Kasimbazar China Clay Mines, ILR (1951) 1
Cal 420.........................................................................................................................17
42. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806..................................13
43. Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323
......................................................................................................................................13
44. Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785..................................16
45. Smith v. Hansen, 63 Wash App 355............................................................................17
46. Sri Krishna v. Mondal Bros.& Co. AIR 1967 Cal 75..................................................21
47. Sri Krishna v. Mondal Bros.& Co., AIR 1967 Cal 75.................................................20
48. T.R Pratt (Bombay) Ltd. v. E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd., AIR 1936 Bom 62..................19
49. Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104.......................................15
50. Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573....................................14
51. V/O Rasnoimport v.Guthrie & Co. Ltd., [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1................................18
52. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467............................13

Page | 7
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS, NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, HEREBY

HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDIA.

THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS SPECIAL LEAVE FOR

APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

Page | 8
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 M.V. Shazia, a vessel owned by the Modular Shipping Corporation, which is reputed
for the services rendered by it, was hired by Petro Oil Corporation, a state owned
entity in India, for the purpose of carrying cargo between Malaysia and Mumbai.

 The Vessel, took a deviation from the normal route, during which, the Vessel was
captured by Somali Pirates on 19 August, 2013, near Jaffna, Sri Lanka. On 20 th
August, Modual Shipping Corporation sent a mail to Petro Oil Corporation, stating
that negotiations were being carried on with the Pirates.

 Meanwhile, a U.S. Naval Ship intercepted a message between the Somali pirates
which gave them cause to believe that the vessel with its crew and cargo were not
likely to be released in short order as the pirates were not satisfied with the ongoing
negotiations. All the negotiations were carried on without the consultation of the
Cargo owners, i.e. Petro Oil Corporation.
 Petro Oil Company was still out of possession of its cargoes and planned to initiate
negotiations with its insurer, the National Insurance Corporation (NIC) having its
registered office at Kolkata.
 Initially, the insurance contract only covered 80% of the total loss due to a Pirate
intervention. However, Mr. Das who is authorized on behalf of Insured Company
(POC) called up Mr. Bhullar who is authorized on behalf of the Insurance Company
(NIC) to amend these terms, requested Mr. Bhullar to increase the cover to 100%.

 Mr. Bhullar replied in affirmative and said that this proposal would most likely be
approved by his Board. However, he further added that he will himself reply in one
week time after taking approval of the Board. The Insurance Contract provided a
clause wherein a Contract could be amended on mutual consent of both the parties in
a written or an oral manner. Subsequently, Petro Oil Company served a notice of
abandonment to NIC on 17 October 2013. The same was rejected by the Insurance
Company.
 The Pirates were given a ransom of US $2 million by MSC; the voyage to Mumbai
was completed on 4 November 2013.
 Petro Oil Corporation commenced proceedings against National Insurance
Corporation at the Bombay High Court for rejection of their claim for treating the

Page | 9
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 cargo as total loss, demanding 100% of the value of the goods. Bombay High Court
dismissed the matter on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. A division bench of the same
court also dismissed the matter in-limine.

 Aggrieved by the decision of Bombay High Court, POC has preferred a Special Leave
Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India claiming 100% of total loss and
arguing that contract does not specifically or expressly bars the jurisdiction of Court
in Bombay

Page | 10
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT.

2. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT COMPANY, NATIONAL INSURANCE

CORPORATION IS BOUND BY THE CONTRACT AS AMENDED BY MR.
BHULLAR.

3. WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAD A GOOD CLAIM AT THE TIME OF

SERVING THE NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT TO THE RESPONDENTS.

Page | 11
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

HON’BLE COURT.

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that in the given factual matrix, there is no
necessity or compulsion for the intervention of this Hon’ble Court and invoking its powers
under Article 136. The Appellants have committed a breach of contract by failing to approach
the Courts in Delhi as was provided under the Contract. The Bombay High Court expressed
the same while dismissing the matter.

2. THE RESPONDENT COMPANY, NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION IS NOT

BOUND BY THE CONTRACT AS AMENDED BY MR. BHULLAR.

It is humbly submitted that a company shall not be bound the acts of its agent or an
employee, as the case maybe, if the respective agent or employee, while dealing with a third
party, acts beyond the scope of the authority as vested with him. Similarly, a company shall
not be liable if a third party is negligent while making transactions with the company. It is
humbly submitted that the Board of National Insurance Company did not approve the
Contract, and hence, the contract was never subject to any amendment whatsoever.

3. THE APPELLANTS DID NOT HAVE A GOOD CLAIM AT THE TIME OF SERVING
THE NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT TO THE RESPONDENTS.

The petition neither had a good claim of Actual Total Loss nor Constructive Total Loss at the
time of serving the notice of abandonment. Respondent is not liable to indemnify the
petitioner, as there was a deviation in the route of the vessel, changing the nature of the risk
the respondent had agreed to indemnify Appellants under. Moreover, Appellants are in
violation of the principle of Uberrima Fides.

Page | 12
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special Leave is not
maintainable
Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a discretionary power to the
Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional
circumstances1. In Pritam Singh v. The State2, the Supreme Court held that the power under
Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. In concluding the
discussion on Article 136 in the same case, it was held the by the Supreme Court that ‘
Generally speaking, this court will not grant Special Leave, unless it is shown that
exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been
done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review
of the decision appealed against.’

Although the power has been held to be plenary, limitless3, adjunctive, and unassailable4, in
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India5 and Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri6,
it was held that the powers under Article 136 should be exercised with caution and in
accordance with law and set legal principles.

In the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi7 and Shivanand Gaurishankar

Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills8, the Supreme Court has criticized the approach of
settling private disputes under Article 136, stating that it would lead to confusing results and
lack of precedents. The Court observed that the Court is not bound to interfere even if there is
error of law in the impugned order9.

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that there was no error in the judgement of the
Bombay High Court; the contract between the Appellants and the Respondents provided

1
N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196
2
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
3
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
4
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
5
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618
6
Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15
7
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806
8
Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323
9
Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358
Page | 13
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 Delhi as the place of suing, and the Bombay High Court has observed the same in while
dismissing the matter. The counsel for the Respondents would also like to submit to this
Hon’ble Court that there is no pressing matter or question of law, for which, the intervention
of this Court would be necessary, i.e. there is no necessity to invoke the jurisdiction conferred
upon this Hon’ble Court under Article 136.

Non-interference in the decision of the lower courts:

If it appears prima facie that the order in question cannot be justified by any judicial
standard, the ends of justice and the need to maintain judicial discipline require the
Supreme Court to intervene10; the Supreme Court in this case pointed out the errors of
the High Court, but, did not interfere in the decision of the High Court. The Supreme
Court does not interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal if it has taken
all the relevant factors into consideration and there has been no misapplication of the
principles of law11.

Normally, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not
interfere with the findings of the fact concurrently arrived at by the tribunal and the
High Court unless there is a clear error of law or unless some important piece of
evidence has been omitted from consideration12.

A question is not allowed to be raised for the first time in an appeal before the
Supreme Court13. It would refuse a question to be developed before it when it had
neither been urged before the High Court nor before the Appellate Tribunal14.

Though Article 136 is conceived in widest terms, the practice of the Supreme Court is
not to interfere on questions of fact except in exceptional cases when the finding is
such that it shocks the conscience of the court15.

The Supreme Court in the instant case need not interfere in the decision of the High
Court of Bombay. The High Court of Bombay, while dismissing the matter,
observed that it is not the right forum for deciding the matter; this decision of the
High Court can be attributed to the place of suing as provided in the Contract
between the Appellants and the Respondents, which remains intact vis-à-vis the
amendments to the contract subsequently.

10
Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573
11
DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414
12
Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492
Page | 14
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
13
Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622
14
Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563
15
Panchanan Misra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299

Page | 15
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the Petition for Special Leave
and allow the matter to be first heard by a Court in Delhi, subsequent to which, an appeal
might be preferred in this Hon’ble Court.

Scope of Powers under Article 136:

It is humbly submitted that if Special Leave is granted, the matter is registered as an
appeal and the Court does not take into cognizance all the points that may arise on
appeal and decide them on Merits16. The Supreme Court has also held that “it is not
bound to go into merits and even if we do so and declare the law or point our the error
– still we may not interfere if the justice of the case on facts does not require
interference or if we feel that the relief could be moulded in a different fashion.”17

The Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala18 held that Article 136
consists of two distinct stages, the first stage where the matter is merely being decided
if it is to be accepted as an appeal or not; if the Supreme Court decides to adjudicate
the matter, it becomes an appeal, if otherwise, the matter was never an appeal.

Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that by reason of lack of any
specific matter that requires the intervention of this Hon’ble Court, the Court need not
entertain the matter; however, if this Hon’ble Court does decide to accept the Petition
for Special Leave, it is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court only adjudicate
upon the order of the Bombay High Court, i.e., not to hear this Appeal on merits, but
merely, on the right place of suing.

Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied:

The Supreme Court has exercised its Jurisdiction under Article 136 under the
following circumstances-

(i) When the Tribunal ostensibly fails to exercise its patent jurisdiction.19

(ii) When there is an apparent error on the face of the decision20.

(iii) The tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence21

16
Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
17
Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
18
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)
19
Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999 SC 186
20
Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
Page | 16
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 (iv) The tribunal acts against the principles of Natural Justice 22, or has approached the
question in a manner likely to cause injustice23

1.4.2 In the instant case, the Bombay High Court has not committed any error in law. The
High Court has respected the subsisting contract between the parties and has observed that it
was not the right forum for adjudicating the matter. There is no breach in law or natural
justice; to say the decision of the Bombay High Court was wrong would be wrong because
the matter has not been adjudicated on merits whatsoever. Hence, it is humbly submitted to
this Hon’ble Court that no grounds can be made out for accepting this petition for Special
Leave.

Grounds of rejection:

In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another24, it was held that a petition
seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons The question
raised by the petitioner for consideration by this Court being not fit for consideration or
deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court; it is humbly submitted that there is no ground
for invoking this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136.

2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF

MR. BHULLAR AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WILL NOT BE
VALID.

Extent of Authority of an Agent

Section 187 of the Indian Contract Act defines the extent of authority vested in the agent in
the course of dealings with the third parties. It reads as, “An authority is said to be express
when it is given by words spoken or written. An authority is said to be implied when it is to
be inferred from the circumstances of the case; and things spoken or written, or the

21
Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78
22
City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143
23
Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253
24
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359
Page | 16
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances of the case.”

As denoted from the circumstances, Mr. Bhullar acted in the capacity of an agent
while representing National Insurance Corporation in the negotiations for the
amendment of the contract. However, the authority conferred on him was restricted
only to the negotiations pending the approval of the directors. Hence, any
representations that were made by him were beyond the scope of his authority.

An agent has "apparent authority" to bind a corporate principal when the corporate
principal does something by word or deed to cause a third party to reasonably believe
that the agent has authority to act, even though the agent lacks such authority.25 In
order for a corporate principal to be liable, the principal must communicate, directly
or indirectly, with the third party in a manner sufficient to instil a reasonable belief of
the agent's authority, based upon objective manifestations of the principal. 26 Such a
belief is not "reasonable" if the third party had such "knowledge of facts as would
reasonably require him to inquire as to the authority of the agent.27

Creation of Agency by Estoppel

On the same basis, the creation of agency by estoppels cannot be argued by the
Appellants due to the fact that Mr Bhullar as an agent has been held out to have a
limited authority to effect an amendment in the contract. If the agent is held out as
having only a limited authority to do, on behalf of his principal, acts of a particular
class, the principal is not bound by an act outside that authority even though it be an
act of that particular class.28 The onus lies upon the person dealing with the agent to
prove either real or ostensible authority29, and it is a matter of fact in each case
whether ostensible authority existed for the particular act for which it sought to make
the principal liable.30 No representation made solely by the agent as to the extent of
his authority can amount to holding out by the principal.31

25
Ballantine, Private Corporations, (1927) 347 at p. 110.
26
Smith v. Hansen, 63 Wash App 355.
27
Deers Inc. v. DeRuyter, 9 Wash App 240.
28
Grant v.Norway (1851) 10 CB 665; Armagas Ltd v.Mundogas SA, The Ocean Frost, [1986] AC 717
29
Pole v.Leask, (1862) 33 LJ Ch 155 ; Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Maharaja of Kasimbazar China Clay Mines,
ILR (1951) 1 Cal 420.

Page | 17
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
30
Leckenby v.Wolman, [1921] WN 100 ; Bocking Garage v. Mazurk ,[1954] CLY 14.
31
V/O Rasnoimport v.Guthrie & Co. Ltd., [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1.

Page | 18
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 In the LIC case32, it was argued that the LIC was liable on the basis of the doctrine of
apparent authority of the agent to collect premium from the policy holders. Though collection
of premium amount is a general practice followed by the LIC agents, it was found that the
LIC had not by any of its conduct induced the policy holders into believing that the agents
were authorised to collect premium.

In the present circumstances, Mr. Bhullar who had been authorised by the National Insurance
Company to negotiate the amendment of the contract exercised his authority negligently.
Hence, the National Insurance Corporation will not be vicariously liable for the acts of Mr.
Bhullar. The requirement of the passing of the resolution by the Board of Directors was an
essential one and Mr. Das, who was authorized by the Petroleum Oil Corporation , had
knowledge about it.

Where a person contracting with the agent has actual or constructive notice of any restriction
on the agent’s ostensible authority, he is bound by the restriction. Thus, where an agent,
authorised by the power of attorney to operate a business, but not to borrow money, produced
the power of attorney to a lender he asked for a loan, but the lender did not read it and
advanced a loan, he could not recover it from the principal because he had a constructive
notice that the agent had no power to borrow. 33
Once an ostensible authority is created, the
principal becomes bound by agent’s acts within the scope of such authority. He cannot rely
upon any private restrictions upon the agent’s authority.34

Doctrine of Constructive Notice:

Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for the Doctrine of Constructive
Notice, according to which, a company is protected against third parties dealing with
the company; the third party is presumed to have knowledge of the company’s public
documents, recorded in the relevant register by the Registrar. The presumption arises
because there documents are open to public for inspection.

Any outsider who intend to deal with the company to be informed of the contents of
such documents available for inspection at the Registrar‟s office as well as statutory
records available for inspection at the registered office of the company in their own
interest, and even

32
Harshat J. Shah v.LIC, (1997) 5 SCC 64.
33
Jacobs v.Morris, (1902) 1 Ch 816 (CA)

Page | 19
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
34
Sarshar Ali v. Roberts Cotton Assn., (1963) 1 SC 244 ; Kamal Singh Dugar v. Corporated Engineers (India)
Ltd., AIR 1963 Cal 464.

Page | 20
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 if they do not do so they are deemed in law to have done so and have the knowledge of
contents, and they will not be heard to say that they did not do so35.

In one of the Madras case that of Kotla Venkataswamy v. Chinta Ramamurthy36 , the
Articles of association of the company required that all documents should be signed
by the managing director, secretary and the working director on behalf of the
company. A deed of mortgage was executed by the secretary and the working director
only. The court held that no claim would lie under such deed. The learned judge
observed that the mortgagee should have consulted the articles before the deed was
executed. Therefore, even though the mortgagee may have acted in good faith and the
money borrowed applied for the purpose of the company, the mortgage was
nevertheless invalid.

Thus, persons dealing with a body corporate, incorporated company or a society are
bound to take notice of disabilities imposed on the body corporate and its officials by
the memorandum and articles or other documents of constitution37

Consequently, if a person enters into a contract which is beyond the powers of the
company, as defined in the memorandum, or outside the limit set on the authority of
the directors as per the memorandum or articles, he cannot, as a general rule, acquire
any rights under the contract against the company.

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Indoor Management are applicable

The exceptions to the doctrine of indoor management are as under:

Knowledge of irregularity: When a person dealing with a company has actual or constructive
notice of the irregularity as regards internal management, he cannot claim benefit
under the rule of indoor management. In the case of T.R Pratt (Bombay) Ltd. v. E.D.
Sassoon & Co. Ltd.38, Company A lent money to Company B on a mortgage of its
assets. The procedure laid down in the articles for such transactions was not
complied with. The directors of the two companies were the

35
Taxmann‟s Company Law by Krishnamurti D.S.R., 2006 Ed. Page 295
36
Kotla Venkataswamy v. Chinta Ramamurthy AIR 1934 Mad 579

Page | 21
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
37
Taxmann‟s Company Law & Practice By Majumdar AK 1995 Ed. Page 143
38
T.R Pratt (Bombay) Ltd. v. E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd., AIR 1936 Bom 62

Page | 22
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 same. Held, the lender had notice of the irregularity and hence the mortgage was not
binding.

Negligence: Where a person dealing with a company could discover the irregularity if he had
made proper inquiries, he cannot claim the benefit of the rule of indoor management.
The protection of the rule is also not available where the circumstances surrounding
the contract are so suspicious as to invite inquiry, and the outsider dealing with the
company does not make proper inquiry. In Anand Bihari Lal v. Dinshaw & Co39, the
plaintiff, in this case, accepted a transfer of a company's property from its accountant.
Held, the transfer was void as such a transaction was apparently beyond the scope of
the accountant's authority. The plaintiff should have seen the power of attorney
executed in favour of the accountant by the company.

Acts outside the scope of apparent authority: If an officer of a company enters into a contract
with a third party and if the act of the officer is beyond the scope of his authority, the
company is not bound. In such a case, the plaintiff cannot claim the protection of the
rule of indoor management simply because under the articles the power to do the act
could have been delegated to him. The plaintiff can sue the company only if the
power to act has in fact been delegated to the officer with whom he entered into the
contract. In Kreditbank Cassel v. Schenkers Ltd.40, a branch manager of a company
drew and endorsed bills of exchange on behalf of the company in favour of a payee to
whom he was personally indebted. He had no authority from the company to do so.
Held, the company was not bound.

Similarly in Sri Krishna v. Mondal Bros.& Co41., the manager of a company had the
authority under the Memorandum and the Articles of the company to borrow money.
He borrowed money on a hundi but did not place the money did not place the money
in the coffers of the company. It was held that the company was bound to honour
the hundi. It could not defeat the bona fide claim of the creditor for recovery of the
money on the ground of fraud of its own officer.

Acts outside the scope of apparent authority - If an officer of a company enters into a contract
with a third party and if the act of the officer is beyond the scope of his

39
Anand Bihari Lal v. Dinshaw & Co, (1946) 48 BOMLR 293
40
Kreditbank Cassel v. Schenkers Ltd., [1927] 1 KB 826
41
Sri Krishna v. Mondal Bros.& Co., AIR 1967 Cal 75
Page | 23
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 authority, the company is not bound. In such a case, the plaintiff cannot claim the
protection of the rule of indoor management simply because under the Articles the
power to do the act could have been delegated to him. The plaintiff can sue the
company only if the power to act has in fact been delegated to the officer with whom
he has entered into the contract.

In Kreditbank Cassel v. Schenkers Ltd.42, a branch manager of a company drew and

endorsed bills of exchange on behalf of the company in favour of a payee to whom
he was personally indebted. He had no authority from the company to do so. It was
held that the company was not bound. But if an officer of a company acts
fraudulently under his ostensible authority on behalf of the company, the company is
liable for his fraudulent act.

In Sri Krishna v. Mondal Bros.& Co.43, wherein The manager of a company had the
authority under the Memorandum and the Articles of the company to borrow money.
He borrowed money on a hundi but did not place the money did not place the money
in the coffers of the company. It was held that the company was bound to honour
the hundi. It could not defeat the bona fide claim of the creditor for recovery of the
money on the ground of fraud of its own officer.

It is hence humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that by virtue of the current factual
matrix falling within the exceptions to the Doctrine of Indoor Management, as
mentioned above, the Appellants cannot claim any of the exceptions and attempt to
bind the Respondents. The Respondents have done no misrepresentation of facts
whatsoever. An act of negligence on the part of the Appellants shall not make the
Respondents binding under whatsoever circumstances. Hence, any contractual
liability, if at all, would only be as per the initial contract and not as per the amended
contract.

42
Kreditbank Cassel v. Schenkers Ltd [1927] 1 KB 826

Page | 24
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
43
Sri Krishna v. Mondal Bros.& Co. AIR 1967 Cal 75

Page | 25
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 3. THE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A GOOD CLAIM AT THE TIME OF
SERVING THE NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT TO THE RESPONDENT.

There was a case of deviation by the ship

It is humbly submitted that the Respondent’s liability under the policy is discharged due to the
deviation made by the MV Shazia. In the present matter, a deviation could only have occurred
had the vessel taken a route other than the normal or customary route44. It is therefore
submitted at the outset that a deviation from normal customary route to another would
constitute to be a ‘deviation’ within the meaning of Section 48 of the Marine Insurance Act,
1958.

Any failure to comply with the normal customary route changes the nature of risk which the
insurer has assumed for indemnifying the insured.45 MV Shazia deviated from the normal
route, and hence it is prayed that the respondent’s liability under the policy stands discharged.

It is also submitted that such a deviation is not excusable as per Section 51 of the Marine
Insurance Act, 1958.46 There is nothing in the factual matrix of the present case, which
effortlessly shows that the deviation was made under any of the situations laid down in
Section 51. One of the crewmembers fell sick just after the beginning of the voyage 47, but
there is nothing to show that the deviation took place for the purpose of obtaining medical aid
for the infirm crewman.

It is therefore prayed that such a deviation had changed the nature of the risk assumed by the
respondent and discharges it of any liability to indemnify insurers on such account.

A case for Constructive Total Loss cannot be made out

It is relevant to point out that the doctrine of Constructive Total Loss is a special feature of
marine insurance law and is not found outside marine insurance. The essential learning of

44
Section 48(2) of the Marine Insurance Act, 1958
45
Green v. Young, (1702) 2 Salk. 444 also cited in Arnould, 17th Edition, 2008 at para 14-24.
46
Section 51(f) of the Marine Insurance Act, 1958
47
Paragraph 3, Moot Problem
Page | 22
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 Constructive Total Loss is that an insured does not have to prove an Actual Total Loss if he is
able to show that the cost of recovering ship or cargo, or of repairing a damaged ship, would
exceed its value when recovered or repaired, or, where he is deprived of possession of ship or
cargo, if he can show that recovery is “unlikely”. Although the Act is in general a
codification of prior common law, the common law test in the case of Constructive Total
Loss dispossession had been where recovery was “uncertain”, not “unlikely”.48

There is not any principle which authorizes abandonment, unless where the loss has
been actually total, or in the highest degree probable, at the time of abandonment. 49 It
is submitted that at the time when the respondent was served notice the loss of the
cargo was not in any degree probable. This can be asserted by the following facts:

1. Piratical captures are only for the purpose of payment of ransom and it was only a
matter of time before the negotiations would have yielded results.

2. The loss of cargo therefore, was not “unlikely”, as payment of ransom would have led
to retrieval.

3. Payment of ransom is not unlawful and therefore cannot be disregarded as one of the
possibilities of procuring the cargo.

There appears to be little doubt that where a payment which is not illegal under any
relevant law is made to secure the release of property, this can be recovered even
though the persons demanding the payment are not acting lawfully in so doing. Thus,
for example, payment to recover property from pirates or hijackers must, it is
submitted, in general be recoverable.50 It also needs to be observed that there is no
legislation against the payment of ransoms.

It is therefore prayed to this honorable court that no claim of Constructive Total Loss
arises from the factual matrix of the present case.

A case for Actual Total Loss cannot be made out

Actual Total Loss is defined as a situation where the subject-matter insured is
destroyed, or so damaged as to cease to be a thing of the kind insured, or where the
assured is

48
Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Member Ltd, 2011 EWCA Civ 24 : (2011), para. 15, 16.

Page | 23
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
49
Anderson v. Wallis, (1813) 2 M & S 240, also cited in Arnould, 17th Edition, at 1359.
50
Arnould, 17th edition, 2008, at 25-21.

Page | 24
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
irretrievably deprived thereof.51 In actual total loss a total destruction of the subject-matter
insured must be proved as a fact. Its conversion into a completely different thing is also a
pure question of fact. And every irretrievable deprivation of the subject-matter on the same
footing. And here there is no scope for applying any subjective test.52

The great principle, therefore, on which all the cases of actual total loss depend
appears to be this: the impossibility, owing to the perils insured against, of ever
procuring the arrival of the thing insured. If, by reason of those perils, the assured is
permanently and irretrievably deprived not only of all present possession and control
over it, but of all hope or possibility of ever ultimately recovering possession of, or
further prosecuting the adventure upon it, that is a case of actual total loss,
independently of the election of the assured to treat it as such. Notice of abandonment
would in such case be a mere idle formality because nothing remains to be
abandoned.53

It is submitted that the Appellants in the present case were not irretrievably deprived
of the subject-matter insured. This can be asserted by following facts:

1. The goods were in the custody of the pirates, and negotiations for the release on
payment of ransom were going on at all times between the Shipping company and the
pirates.

2. There is no evidence to show that the pirates intended to exercise dominion over the
ship or the cargo thereof.

3. The cargo of the ship was not destroyed or annihilated in such custody.

In Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v. Wright,54 it was held by Mocatta

J, that it might be true that the confiscation divested the plaintiffs of possession. But
the test of irretrievable deprivation is clearly far more severe than the test of
unlikelihood of recovery of possession. It is therefore, submitted that despite the good
or bad prospect of retrieving the ship it is difficult to conclude that the respondents
were irretrievably deprived of the cargo on 17 October 2012.

51
Section 57, Marine Insurance Act, 1963.
52
Akooji Jadwat Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1972 Cal. 228 citing
Dr. Arnould in para 88.
53
Ibid. at para 87.
54
Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v. Wright, [1970] 2 Lloyd's Rep 365
Page | 25
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 In the case of Masefield AG v. Amlin,55 it was held that, there is no rule of law that
capture or seizure is an Actual Total Loss. The subject-matter is not amenable to a
rule of law at all: it is all ultimately a question of fact. The typical case of capture, by
a nation's warship, subject to condemnation as a prize, is also not an Actual Total
Loss, although it may mature into one. Piratical seizure, in the absence of a policy of
ransom, may amount to an ATL, where the pirates escape with their prize for their
own use and there is no prospect whatever of finding or recovering vessel or cargo:
but where a chance of recapture remains even such a seizure will not give rise to an
immediate Actual Total Loss. It is prayed that in the instant case, there is nothing to
show that the pirates intended to escape with the cargo for their own use. And a
chance of retrieval always existed. Such circumstances will not give rise to an Actual
Total Loss.

In Masefield AG v. Amlin56 (Queen’s Bench Division), the modus operandi of the

Somalian pirates was identified and was held that, those pirates demand a ransom and
release the vessel, cargo and crew upon payment. It was therefore, also likely that the
ransom would be paid and that the vessel, cargo and crew would be released. This
was also taken note of in the Court of Appeal judgment.57 Similarly, in the appeal
judgment it was also held that in such cases of piratical capture it is more a situation
of “wait and see” than of an Actual Total Loss58 as was held in the Kuwait Airways
Corp. v Kuwait Insurance Co.59

It is therefore, prayed to this honorable court that the Appellants did not have a good
claim of Actual Total Loss when the Notice of Abandonment was served on the
respondents by them.

55
Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Member Ltd, 2011 EWCA Civ 24 : (2011), para. 56.
56
Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Member Ltd, [2010] EWHC 280 (Comm)

Page | 26
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
57
Supra, note 5 at para. 10, 11.
58
Supra note 5
59
Kuwait Airways Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co, [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 664

Page | 27
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Find that:

1. There is no expediency to invoke the jurisdiction of this court in the instant case;

2. The Appellants did not have a good claim at the time of serving the Notice of
Abandonment to the Respondent and

3. Insurance Contract between the Appellants and the Respondents was never amended.

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good
conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

Place: S/d

Date: (Counsel on behalf of the Respondents)

Page | 28
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-