The Eighth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition has been inaugurated in the presence of Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.N. Mathur and Professor Poonam Saxena, Respected Vice Chancellor. Now, the exchange of memorials between the teams has commenced, while the Researchers are rallying forward with the Researcher’s Test!
For more updates, follow us on Facebook.
And the grind continues!
Post the Inaugural Ceremony and a great lunch, the participants have geared up for the Competition. The Preliminary Rounds are in full swing now! Twenty teams arguing before the best minds in the field of Competition Law, it couldn’t get any more interesting!
Stay tuned to see who breaks through to the Quarters tomorrow!
Day One comes to a close.
What an exciting day indeed! It started at 4, and within a span of 4 hours, all teams have argued from both sides. The Judges seem quite impressed with the participants’ ingenuity and hard work. It’ll be all the more interesting to see the Reverse Preliminary Rounds tomorrow and gauge how much the teams have actually learnt from their experience today.
Stay tuned for further updates!
Day Two
Day Two began with great fervor, with participants going all guns blazing into the Reverse Preliminary Rounds. The day is just starting and it’s about to get more intense with the Quarters and Semi-Finals all in one day. The Judges also seem all the more interested to find new arguments and gauge the participants’ legal acumen.
Meanwhile, we are now preparing for the Panel Discussion about intriguing upcoming issues in Competition law relating to emerging e-commerce markets amidst the allegations of predatory pricing. The theme for the Panel Discussion is “Market Disruptors in Technology and Telecommunications and Competition Law”.
We cannot wait to get back with further updates on today’s events!
For more updates, follow us on Facebook.
The Panel Discussion is underway!
The participants are now done with all their Preliminary Rounds and the clock is ticking for the results. Meanwhile, we have the Second NLU Antitrust Law Panel Discussion already underway, discussing the contemporary issues of market disruptors in relation to abuse of dominant position and predatory pricing. With the number of participants asking questions and interacting with our Panelists, this truly bears witness to the soul of this Competition- people’s penchant for the nuances of Competition Law!
We are now awaiting the results of the Preliminary Rounds with bated breath…
Break to the Quarters:
The results are out and the teams that are in the Quarter-Finals are:
Damodaran Sanjivayya National Law University
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Institute of Law, Nirma University
NALSAR University of Law
Law Center- I, University of Delhi
ILS Law College, Pune
National Law University of Delhi
All the best guys!
Break to the Semi-Finals:
And we have the results of the Quarters.
Damodaran Sanjivayya National Law University
ILS Law College, Pune
Law Centre-I
NALSAR University of Law
It was one gruelling set of rounds, but the participants have to endure yet another round of arguments, questions and rebuttals. We wish them all the very best for the Semi-Finals! The Semi-Finals start in half an hour.
We’re done for the day!
We have had 12 hours of non-stop, intriguing arguments and counter-arguments. The Judges and participants alike seemed to have enjoyed the rounds, despite the stress of the entire day. And we finally have the results of the Semi-Finals. And the teams battling it out in the Finals tomorrow are… drumroll…
ILS Law College, Pune
NALSAR University of Law
We wish them all the very best for tomorrow!
Stay tuned for further updates!
Finals day!
It’s NALSAR v. ILS in the Finals.
10:10 A.M.
The stage is set and the Judges and participants are all ready for the last lap!
10:15 A.M.
The first speaker for the Appellant’s first speaker starts with delineating the relevant market for packaged milk. He explains how packaging is merely the technological advancement of a product, not delineating packaged milk into a separate market since the end goals of loose and packaged milk are same. The Judges are listening intently. Justice Mittal seems to be noting down what the speaker pointed out about the relevant market. And it looks like Justice Mittal has found an inconsistency in the Counsel’s arguments. The first question posed to our participant is followed by another by Justice Bhat, pointing out another logical fallacy. The Counsel tries to manoeuvre his way around the question by highlighting the facts of the Proposition. He seems to be handling the questions quite patiently however, not all the Judges seem as satisfied.
Justice Mittal smiles a bit and that seems to throw of our Counsel, however he proceeds with his next submission. Our Judges are reading and re-reading the proposition to assure themselves of the arguments’ coherence with the facts.
The Counsel now moves on to an alternative argument to prove there has been no of abuse of dominance. Another question by Justice Mittal, he wants the Counsel to clarify his argument but the counsel seems a bit fidgety. He however answers the question and the Judges seem satisfied. But wait, Justice Bhat doesn’t agree, he says that the Counsel is mixing up two issues. He does not seem to agree with the Counsel’s interpretation of facts. The counsel however sticks to his interpretation and proceeds to yet another alternative argument regarding levy of penalty.
Justice Mittal again has a question on a missing link in the law cited by the Counsel. Meanwhile the other team seems to have found a loophole in the Appellants’ arguments and is noting down their possible rebuttals. Uh oh, the time for this speaker is already up but Justice Bhat has now raised two new questions. The Counsel very skillfully deals with the two questions and the bench seems satisfied.
The next speaker for the Appellants begins with her submissions. She anticipates the Respondents’ arguments and draws a clear differentiation based on the facts of the hypothetical. She sets a threshold for the applicable law, with which the Judges seem to readily agree. The Counsel beautifully establishes that there is no competitive relationship that can be created in the present case. She buttress her arguments with case laws and the Judges seem quite engaged. She moves on to establish cartelization. She draws an inference on facts, which seems a bit like stretching the facts too far. And here we have the first question from Mr Handoll. Justice Mittal follows this up with another question on her inference.
Here comes another question by Justice Bhat, he suggests a possibility of a different inference being drawn from the facts. The Counsel does not have an answer to the flaws in the inference drawn, however she has two additional arguments to support her weak argument. The Counsel manages to give a good answer and Justice Bhat nods, he seems to agree to her submissions. She then proceeds to her next issue and the judges allow it. Justice Mittal poses another question on the law, the Counsel seems to have drawn an inference again. The Counsel answers his question with three facts and Justice Bhat again gives an approving nod. The Counsel reaches the end of her arguments and presents her prayer before the judges. With that, we are done with the arguments by the Appellants.
10:45 A.M.
The Respondent’s first Counsel begins with pointing out a scientific study. She further refers to case laws to distinguish between the relevant markets. Justice Mittal agrees. but he does have a clarificatory question, based on the specific facts of the Proposition. Justice Bhat again points out a problem with the Counsel assuming that the geographical conditions of EU or India are the same as the hypothetical country. The Counsel then proceeds to her second issue. She elaborates on the facts of the Proposition and presents a relatable real world example. The Judges are thoroughly reading the Proposition and ensuring that the facts stated are correct. And we finally have a question. Justice Mittal has read each fact and seems to have found a loophole in the Counsel’s arguments. She then attempts to answer it with setting a favorable threshold of law. However. Justice Bhat is not satisfied. He questions her on why she isn’t taking the alternative recourse to law implementation,which would be much easier and more appropriate.
The Counsel then proceeds with creating a distinction on facts and applies case laws to the same. The Judges seem quite satisfied and Justice Bhat gives his signature nod. She proceeds to her next issue addressing the Appellant’s arguments. However, with this Justice Mittal raises a very pertinent question about the relevancy of the law used by the Counsel. Justice Bhat shoots another question but uh-ho, her time is over. Time seems to be the bane of every first speaker! She again answers the questions and quite well buttressed by relevant case laws. The Judges seem satisfied. but they ask her to conclude to allow sufficient time to the next speaker.
The second speaker begins with establishing ‘control’. She establishes de jure control quite easily and moves on to de facto control. She seems to be proceeding quite smoothly with her arguments and till now, there are no questions. She now gets a question from Mr Bhat. He seems to have found inconsistencies in both case law and facts. The Counsel attempts to explain her arguments by highlighting how the Proposition cannot be used to make assumptions against the Respondents. She then supports her answer with an analogy to another case.
Mr Handoll shoots a question about the Counsel attempting to evade the circumstantial evidence against them. She skilfully handles the questions by carefully highlighting the relevant facts. But Justice Bhat seems to disagree. Meanwhile, the Appellants seem to have found a flaw in the arguments of the Respondent and are highlighting it for the rebuttals. Mr Handoll still does not seem to be satisfied with her answer on circumstantial evidence and Justice Bhat agrees that in this specific case of cartelization, circumstantial evidence is even more necessary to be admitted than others because there’s rarely ever any direct evidence of cartelization. She attempts to move on to the third argument but Mr Handoll stops her, seeking an answer again on the circumstantial evidence proving collusion. He does not seem satisfied with her answer but allows her to move on the the next issue. Her time is up but she seeks an extension and proceeds with the last argument. With that, we proceed to the Rebuttals.
Speaker 2 from the Appellants starts. She very smartly uses the Respondent’s own arguments against them. She also seems to have an answer for each and every case law used by the Respondents, differentiating them with the facts of the present case. She also rebuts the circumstantial evidence point quite well using the facts from the Proposition.
The sur-rebuttals by Speaker 1 from the Respondents have now begun. She clarifies her arguments and then explains how the Appellants ignored the second argument of the Respondents and proceeds to reiterate on how circumstantial evidence is inadmissible. With that, the Final Rouds have come to an end. We now await the Valedictory Ceremony. Stay tuned to see more exciting updates on the Finals!
12:09 P.M.
The Valedictory Ceremony commences with a vote of thanks to our esteemed Judges, Faculty and the administration. The Advisor of the Moot Court Committee, Mr Shivesh Aggarwal begins with the valedictory ceremony. He proceeds with elaborating on the aims of the Moot Court Committee and how we have always tried to inculcate a thriving mooting culture. He then summarizes the events of the last three days and we proceed with the a short speech by Justice Bhat. He appears to be quite impressed with the quality of the Competition and the participants’ interests in the subject-matter. Justice Mittal, Mr John Handoll, Dr Massey and Mrs Nidhi Gupta again appreciated greatly the patience exhibited by the participants and how the aim of the Moot is to ultimately give rise to policy-makers, thinkers and contributors to the country’s economy, not just competition law practitioners.
We now proceed with the announcement of results!
Announcement of Results
Best Researcher: Shreya, RGNUL
Second Best Student Advocate: Alefiyah Shipchandler, ILS Pune
Best Student Advocate: Vishal Aggarwal, Amity Law School, Delhi
Best Student Advocate of the Finals: Yalini Ravi, ILS Pune
Best Memorial: ILS, Pune
And the Winners are, drumroll…
Winners: ILS, Pune
Runners-up: NALSAR University of Law
Stay with us for more updates and pictures!
We proceed with a vote of thanks to everyone involved in organization of the Competition. We hope to see you all back next year for an even better and bigger edition of the NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition. It was a good run, folks! Meanwhile, stay tuned for updated pictures of the Valedictory Ceremony and the last three days.
For more details, please log onto our Facebook page.
Thank you so much for the sharing news with us . All contents were expressed in a clear n simplified manner n it was meaningful too. You are a marvelous writer. Good work!!!!!