Skip to main content

moot court proposition- cryptocurrency ban in the union of Lebonoff

 FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

 May it please this honorable court, I am counsel (code) appearing on behalf

of the petitioner in the case of Bruno V. Union of Lebanoff.


 Would your lordships like a synopsis of the fact of the case ?

Bruno (petitioner) is a citizen of Union of Lebanoff who is aggrieved by the

legislation of the government of Lebonoff that no person shall mine,

generate, hold, sell, deal in, issue, transfer, dispose of or use of crypto-

currency in the territory of Lebonoff unless otherwise expressly permitted by

any provision of law. In case of violation stringent penalities shall be

imposed on the offender.


 If your lordship permit, may I briefly enlist my contentions?

My contentions structured in a manner that I 1 st present my case that how the

Union of Lebonoff legislation for banning the crypto-curencies is a

violation of Fundamental rights. Then I proceed to few honorable Court

Judgments in order to justify my contentions. Than I proceed to conclusion

and solution that is necessary to solve the issue and protect the fundamental

rights of the citizen of Lebonoff.


 Your lordship may I proceed to my contentions?

Contentions:

It is humbly submitted that plaintiff is aggrieved by the legislation of the

Lebonoff government that impose absolute ban on the crypto-currency

trading. In my opinion the action of the government is arbitrary as the

decision taken by the government with the assumption that crypto currency

is a threat to the nation security and banning crypto-currency is necessary to

achieve the objective of protecting the security of the nation. The Lebonoff


FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

government also stated that the ban on crypto-currency is a reasonable

measure to eliminate the threat of endangering nation security.

The ban that imposed on crypto-currencies in the Lebonoff is based on the

mere assumption that crypto-currency is a “threat to the national security”

and the government is failed to look into the matter in a wider perspective.

The outright ban of the crypto-currencies is a cause of concern because it

will lead to the great losses suffered by the citizen of the country. Those who

are invested in the crypto-currencies before the legislation comes into effect.

The government also failed to look into the matter that the outright ban is

not a hard and fast rule to eliminate threats.


 If your lordships are satisfied with this contention, may I move on to the

next contention ?

The outright ban imposed on crypto-currency is a violation of right to trade

under article 19(1)(g) of the Lebanoff constitution. The constitution allow to

impose reasonable restriction on the rights of citizen. The constitution does

not allow to impose absolute restriction without taking reasonable measures

which mitigate the effects of the problem at first place.


 May I refer your lordships to the judgement of the Honorable courts of my

complitation ?

Recently, Karnataka High Court in the case of All India Gaming Federation

V. State of Karnataka struck down Karnataka Police (Amendment) act, 2021

on the ground of violating right to trade & commerce under article 19 (1)(g)

of the constitution as well as right to privacy under article 21 & freedom of

speech & expression under article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution. Karnataka

Police (Amendment) act, 2021 impose outright ban on online gaming on the

grounds that it will lead to gambling, terror funding & involve risking

money on an uncertain event.


FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

The Karnataka High Court in its judgement stated that the amendment is

arbitrary & irrational as it did not distinguish between 2 categories of game,

i.e. games of skill & games of chance. The game of skill based mainly on

mental & physical level of expertise of a player rather than a chance. Games

based on skills are allowed in the country but games based on mere chance

to determine success are prohibited under law.

The Karnataka High Court is not the only High Court that struck down the

orders of banning online games. Similar law were introduced by the Tamil

Nadu government with the aim to ban online gaming in the state. The law

was struck down by the Madras High Court in August 2021. Similarly

Kerala High Court had quashed NOTIFICATION issued by the state

government specifically banning the online games of skills.

In an alternative, it is humbly submitted that, Telangana, which was the 1 st

state to ban online games in the state in 2017 has seen a spurt of illegal or

underground online gaming apps that are originated from foreign countries

without any regulation in the country where people are playing such games

and spending their money. This might be one of the response of the outright

ban on crypto by the Lebonoff government and this will lead to intensify the

situation which is hard to mitigate.

The reason why I mention this case law in my contention that there is a

similar situation in the case of Bruno V. Union of Lebonoff. The

government unreasonably ban crypto currency trading in the nation without

considering other factors that are beneficial for the national interest.

The Crypto run on block-chain system on a peer-to-peer network that help to

keep in check on corruption by tracking the flow of funds & transaction. The

Crypto is a time effective & save money as it conducted entirely on the

internet that involve very less transaction fees and is almost instantaneous. It

provides easy transfer of money between individual without involving 3 rd

party like credit/debit cards or bank. Crypto charge minimal processing fees

that makes it cheaper than online transaction. .


FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

The Court ultimately held that it is true that despite the fact that virtual

currencies are not recognised as legal tender, they are very much capable of

performing some of the functions of actual and real currency. The

government should also try to figure out how to make virtual currencies a

legal tender in the country as the country acquainted with the potential of the

virtual currencies in the world and regulate it under the ambit of law.

“The judgment is a positive step towards the freedom of trade in India and

also highlights the approach of Indian Courts which is positively tailored

to making India’s software industry in sync with countries like the United

States, United Kingdom, Singapore and Japan, where the trade in virtual-

currency is regulated.”

In the case of Chintamanrao V. State of Madhya Pradesh, an act of Madhya

Pradesh Government empowered the deputy Commissioner to prohibit the

manufacturing of tobacco cigarette during agricultural season. The Supreme

Court of India held that such a provision is void as it violates article 19(1)(g)

since a total prohibition of manufacture imposes as unreasonable &

excessive restriction.

In toto, the constitution has granted fundamental right to trade under article

19(1)(g) for the prosperity & well being of everyone in the society. the state

ensure that no individual residing within the territorial boundaries of the

country is deprived of this right and provide appropriate remedy in case of

such violations of fundamental rights and ensure that justice is delivered to

the aggrieved.

Every Citizen should utilize right to trade under article 19(1)(g) to the best

of his capacities in a rational manner and state shall not compelled to

exercise force & unreasonable intervention with citizens business activities.

 Conclusion:

Instead of banning Crypto Currencies government could look at licensing &

regulating the crypto trading. Government work upon diligent KYC & anti-


FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

money laundering processes. Place weekly & monthly limit on the money

that is used for trading.


Much obliged for the kind & patient hearing your lordships.

Thank you your lordship…

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more