Law School NewsLive Blogging

DAY 2:

PRELIM ROUNDS

Live Proceedings:

Court Room 1 (115C v. 104R):

12:03 PM: The Rounds Begin. We can see the nervousness and confidence on the faces of all the participants. Judges asking the claimant and respondents to discuss among themselves first about the procedures. Judges asked the participants as to who wants to go and present their arguments first along with their time slot. Claimant are saying that they should first go with the jurisdiction aspect and respondents agree on that. Claimant just started with arguments but judges asked them about the important facts of the case. Claimant are asking judges to refer to different pages to prove their case.

12:16 PM: The judges start with their grilling questions. Judges are asking if we have the alternative jurisdiction, why aren’t the parties approaching that forum. Claimant have put all the blame on respondent as that they are not understanding their issues. On that note judges asked the claimant to refer to mail send by respondents. Claimant states that the stringent attitude of respondents didn’t bring them to an amicable solution.

12:25PM: Time is over but the judges are still grilling the speaker 1 with their tricky questions. Claimant said if arbitration won’t work here, they will go to the court to get their rights. Claimant’ first speaker asked for one more minute to summarise her issues. Judges asked the time keeper to deduct the rebuttal time as speaker one exceeded the time by 4 minutes.

12:30PM: Speaker 2 started with her impressive arguments by cutting her time so that they speak for rebuttals. Judges asked the claimant whether they gone through the minute points or judgement which they are submitting or not. Respondents are discussing among themselves about the flawed points raised by claimant.

12:42PM: Judges give 1 minute to the claimant for them to summarise their arguments. Judges asked the respondent about the judgement raised by claimant whether it is overruled and if claimant are misleading the court. Claimant closing their arguments said that they are not liable to pay their damages. Judges gave 2 min to respondent to start.

12:48PM: Here the respondents started throwing their arguments to save themselves. The judges started grilling them about on the procedures. Respondent looking tensed on the questions asking by the judges. But she regain her confidence and answering judges with their arguments. Respondents ask to let them move to their second submission to prove the 1st argument. She is stuck in the question asked by judges with the definition of freight.

13:03PM: Judges throwing questions on respondents and now respondents are in fits. Counsel seeks permission for extension of 2 min to prove their points against claimant. Now the speaker 2 of respondents started to solve 3 issues. Judges asked the speaker 2 to refer to problem to get them stuck them in their own argument. Judges confirming the procedure and law quoted by claimant to respondents. Judges asked whether you know the procedure, answer YES or NO. They say YES it’s given in the manual. Judges asked to show the manual but sadly they don’t have that.

13:23- Judges said that they are not agreeing to the point states by respondent . And the rebuttals started with points from claimant side in one mint they have to rebutt the points quoted by respondents. Due to shortage of time and a lot to speak, Claimant speaker is running like Rajdhani express. And here the respondent superfast express also started for one minute to clear their way to win the prelims.

13:29- And TIME OVER

13:42- Feedback session begins.

COURT ROOM 2: (107C v. 112R)

12:10- The court room 2 started with the first session of the day.
As soon as the Claimant’s first speaker started, she was soon interrupted. Not by the judges, but by the noises of the fan. Quite funny.
She had a calm and very peculiar way of speaking. As if she’s explaining a 3 year old. And the speaker seems to be very well acquainted with her issues, she had all the time to explain her arguments. Judges just inquired a bit so as to check the knowledge and grip of the speaker. She tackled every question calmly. Judges appeared to be satisfied.

12:25: Contrary to speaker one, speaker two is very bold in the manner of putting her arguments. All her arguments revolve around the matter related to loading. The bench interrupted with a few factual questions, which the speaker has already anticipated. Yet, it can be observed that facts aren’t in their side, hence they had problems in convincing the judges.
But the 2nd judge asked practical and analytical questions. “indeed Mr. President, but Mr. President”, that’s how the speaker two of the claimant side gives clarifications.

12:50- Speaker-1 of the respondent’s side started with a question apparently. Speaker didn’t have a great start, he seems to stumble with his arguments, the bench didn’t leave the chance to exploit this. He has to be careful, because his loudness is bothering the judges, beware! Don’t get too friendly with the judges, the bench made this very clear by repetitive questioning. It takes a turn into a debate, his partners are worried. Judge 3 gives a warning! “you should be clear in your submissions”.

1:15- 2nd speaker started with her issues. She speaks with an authority. The bench has started to ask a lot of questions, hardly giving time to the respondents to put forth her arguments. It can be noticed that the issues which respondents take up, seem to get attention of the judges as if they are incorrect or objectionable, hence a lot of interruptions from them. Respondents and judges share a lot of smiles while the session continued. The respondent side is very adamant on what they are saying, neglecting what judge questions. It took hardly any time for the judge’s to figure this out.

1:30- Claimant started with the rebuttals, with paucity of time, she hurried through her arguments. Document submission added to her misery. Judges were satisfied as they smiled towards respondents. Grilling wasn’t helping them at all.

1:40- The respondent mentioned the claimant memo as soon as they started the rebuttal. “master should not be a man of ordinary prudence”, mentioned the respondent.

COURT ROOM 3: (109C v. 110R)

12:33-Proceeding has started in CR3 Claimant are given the chance to present their side first although they seems to have prepared but speaker one seems little nervous but is trying to answer arbitrator in all possible ways.

12:35- Speaker two of claimant side has started arguing and its interesting to see that she is very confident with what she speaks

12:39- Speaker one of respondent has started arguing. But speaker is not able to answer exact answers of arbitrator but have answers for all possible questions the issue arbitrator is sticking on is whether the moot problem is English law or Indian law.

12:55- Speaker two of respondent has started arguing but when arbitrator questions about section 28 of Indian contract act the respondent was not able to answer. But one thing is clear that researcher of respondent is well aware with problem and throughout helping speaker when judges knocks with any question.

13:05- Speaker one of Claimant has started arguing in rebuttal.

13:08- There was one moment when arbitrator asked from respondent side for copy of an document and respondent denied by sarcastically speaking of financial issues and everyone started laughing. It was so needed to change the atmosphere of moot hall.

13:10- Rounds one in CR3 finishes.

COURT ROOM 4: (124C v. 123R)

12:11 PM: 124(C) speaker 1 starts and seems quite calm, confident and well versed. The Judge tries to confuse the speaker and the speaker successfully manages to stick to what she said before. The judge points out the speaker’s failure to understand the crux of the matter she is presenting. The speaker admits and moves on to the next point. The Judge says that the party hasn’t satisfied Article 49(1) which has to be satisfied before going to Article 49(2) due to which they can’t hear them on merit.

12:24 PM: The judges point out the paucity of time that is just 2 minutes and therefore ask the party to mention their arguments on merits. The judge questions the speaker on the point of reasonable care. The judges don’t seem to be fully satisfied with her answer.

12:38 PM: The Second speaker, that is, the Co-Counsel finally gets her chance to start after extended time of Speaker 1. The judge claims that the party hasn’t submitted the documents relating to the Pumping logs, i.e., the most important law. He again explains it by giving an example that “If you go to the Visa Office and submit every document other than the most important. So you can’t claim it by arguing that you have submitted 10 other documents.”

12:46 PM: The Judge being hilarious says, “Fine we are ready to accept your persuasive argument, but at least persuade us.” Later, the judge points out that the speaker deliberately isn’t disclosing a fact because it is against the party to which the speaker hesitantly agrees.

12:55- The Complainants conclude their arguments with the Prayer.

12:55- Team 123(R), the speaker 1 starts but in a low voice. He seems stressed out due to the grilling which the Complainants faced. The Grilling continues. The speaker battling hard to maintain his composure.

COURT ROOM 5: (119C v. 103R)

12:13 PM: The speaker from the claimant is a bit shaky, he was stopped by the judge as soon as he started He is being constantly questioned. The judges were satisfied with the answer which the speaker gave after looking out in his memo. The speaker is constantly referring to memo and reading out from it. The speaker has gathered composure and is fluently arguing on third issue. Judge posed a question but now the evermore confident speaker was able to answer it without looking for the same in his notes.

12:26 PM: Persistent questioning by all three judges has pushed the speaker on back foot, he is taking his time. The speaker was asked to move on to the next issue for he was not able to answer the last few questions. The questions continued from the very beginning of the new issue. The speaker was able to hold on and answered answered most of them .a judge approved his efforts by exclaiming “good job”.

12:43 PM: Speaker two was helped by the first speaker in between, last question posed remained unanswered by both the speakers, so the judges moved on to the respondents. Speaker from the respondent side looks well versed, he was asked a question related to authority of a case, and his response left all three judges chuckling.

12:51 PM: Oopsie! The speaker from respondent side gave a self-contradictory argument. Judges spotted it. He still is beautifully arguing. Must seem impressive to the judges. He is answering the questions with utmost confidence and a smile on his face. Judges seem interested.

13:17- Smooth round of question and answer going on between arbitrators and the second speaker.

The Round Ends.

COURT ROOM 6: (108C v. 127R)

12:10: And the round starts! The speaker from side claimant seems to be nervous. One of the judges abruptly asks the speaker to move on the issues.

12:14: The judges have begun to grill the speaker with just 3 minutes into the round. The speaker is becoming easily flustered.

12:18: Side respondents are listening quite intently to the arguments of the other side and are frantically taking notes. On the side, the speaker is almost done with her first issue.

12:19: With only 5 minutes to go, the first speaker from side claimant has moved on to the second issue. The judges are asking questions to test the fundamentals of the speaker.

12:22: Two minutes to go! The speaker still remains nervous and her confidence is being tested by the judges.

12:24: Time’s up!!! The speaker tries to make a quick exit, but the judges aren’t quite ready to let her go.

12:28: The first speaker after some questioning from the judges has concluded her case. The second speaker has from side respondents has begun and seems to be more confident than her co-counsel.

12:30: The second speaker is well versed with the facts of the case. However, in the face of increasingly complex questions, she is becoming flustered and confused.

12:33: With ten minutes to go, the judges are still questioning the speaker on her knowledge of the technical aspects of the case.

12:36: Oops! Here’s a bouncer of a question from the judges! The speaker has requested the judges to give her some time to answer the question.

12:40: With two minutes to go, the speaker seems to have answered the questions posed by the judges satisfactorily.

12:41: The speaker has requested the judges to grant an extension of thirty seconds, which the judges have agreed to. She has moved on to her second issue.

12:44: The judges have been repeatedly interrupting the speaker and she seems to be unprepared to answer the questions. Her co-counsel is frantically passing her chits.

12:50: Side claimant have begun with their arguments, and their speaker, in contrast to side respondents seems to be very, very confident with her facts and the law associated. She keeps pointing out to the facts and the relevant sections.

12:53: With five minutes to go, the speaker from side respondent is moving confidently with her arguments. However, in the face of incessant questioning from the judges, she is beginning to lose her cool and is getting perturbed.

12:59: Time’s up! However, both the speaker and the judges have ignored it.

1:01: The timekeeper keeps waving her placard, which is ignored again. Funnily, more than the speakers, it is the timekeeper who seems to be frustrated!

1:03: Finally! The second speaker has begun with her arguments. She definitely needs to work more on her mannerisms and demeanor.

1:08: Ten minutes to go! The judges seem to have found a serious contradiction in the arguments of the speaker and are grilling her heavily on it.

1:12: As expected, the speaker pleads ignorance to the questions and directs the judges to the compendium. She seems to be disappointed at herself.

1:11: The judges are on fire! They are questioning the speaker on the applicability of laws and it looks as if the speaker is ready to give up.

1:13: Due to the paucity of time, the speaker requests an extension to put rest of her points forth.

1:19: The speaker requests for an extension of six minutes, and the judges look amused at this. They grant an extension of three minutes.

1:18: The atmosphere in the courtroom is tense as both the judges and the speaker are getting heated up. This clearly reflects in the demeanor of the speaker, and the judges are not pleased by this.

1:23: One of the most repeated words in this round has been ‘extension’. Since its time for lunch, the timekeepers trying to get the judges to complete the round.

1:27: The speaker has requested an extension of six minutes. The timekeeper, realizing that there is nothing much she can do, smiles sadly at this hungry courtroom reporter as well, who returns the smile.

1:29: In the face of difficult questioning, the speaker pleads ignorance and tries to make a quick exit.

1:37: This round, which was supposed to have ended over fifteen minutes ago, has finally moved on the rebuttals. The claimant have three rebuttals, and the respondents seem to be prepared for it .

COURT ROOM 7: (126C v. 125R)

12:12- Team 126 as the claimant in CR 7 has started strong on law, though they seemed to fumble a bit with the facts. However, they regained the footing soon.

12:45- TEAM 125 (R) – While the judges started grilling the claimant at a later stage, they opened fire on the respondent from the very beginning.

COURT ROOM 8: (120C v. 101R)

12:13 PM: The counsel for the petitioner begins with briefing judges on the facts of the case. The judge questions the counsel on the difference between a seat and venue of arbitration, and the counsel answers with little success in convincing the judges. The counsel is perplexed as to what is the applicability of Indian and English law in the instant case. The question of venue and seat of arbitration the judge has brought in seems to have fazed as the counsel. The judge grills the counsel on the same and also with respect to the applicability of the English and Indian law. He is caught in one argument and the judges are again grilling him on the same.

12:27 PM: The second counsel has started with her arguments. And the judges have brought her back to the facts of the case. The counsel is left perplexed by a question asked by the judges. She asks for the permission to answer the question in the end. However, she’s denied of it. The judge asks the counsel a question that she seems to have predicted, and answers the judges confidently. She’s further questioned on facts, and she’s left perplexed. She takes time to collect her thoughts.

12:39 PM: The time for the petitioners is up.

12:40 PM: The counsel for the respondents begins with his arguments, and is showered with questions with respect to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The Counsel is asked the same question with respect to the difference between the seat and venue and arbitration, and applicability of English and Indian law in the instant case which the counsel answers to much satisfaction of the judges. The judges grill the counsel on the facts of the case with respect to the reply of emails.

13:04 PM: The co-counsel for the respondents begins with his arguments. The judges ask the counsel certain questions that leave him baffled. He takes a few moments and collects his calm to answer the questions put forth. The counsel is questioned in respect with the applicability of a particular case law in the instant case which fails to answer convincingly.  The counsel concludes with the arguments following which the counsel for the petitioners starts with her rebuttals.

13:40: The co-counsel for the petitioner makes an argument, which the judges find extremely contentious, which they say is contentious to the power of infinity. The co-counsel is grilled further on the argument he makes.

The Round ends.

COURT ROOM 9 (118C v. 106R)

12:04- The speaker asked the Judge to proceed with their opening statement. After speaker made the opening speech the Judge asked the the speaker to state the facts in 5 pin points. The Judge is concerned about the rebuttals and sur rebuttals and explained it to the parties.

12:07- The Speaker 1 of the Claimant put down the argument that the arbitral tribunal has no Jurisdiction. The judge seems to be curious to listen this argument. The Judge asked the difference between may and shall . However, the Judges seems not satisfied with the answer of the Claimant.

12:13- The Claimant put forward the argument for jurisdiction. For this again the judge feels not so satisfied with the arguments and asked for the case laws for which speaker submitted the Cable and wire case. The Judges grilled the Speaker 1 on the applicable law before the bench. The Speaker submitted that the substantive Law will be dealt with English Law and the procedural part will be dealt with the Indian Law.

12:18- The Judges were not at all impressed by the speaker 1 as she interrupts the judge while they ask questions. Also, she is heavily relying on the Black law’s dictionary which the Judge finds to be not appropriate.

12:19- Due to paucity of time the Judges asked the speaker to come to her second issue. The Claimant submits that the master is incompetent. It seems that judge are here to ask a lot of question as they again started to ask the question as to how the master is incompetent. Here, the speaker manager to keep her calm and satisfies the judges by her answer.

12:21 The judges asked to summarise the point as the speaker is running out of time.

12:23 To the surprising, The judges asked the Respondent to address the issue of Jurisdiction as has been submitted by the Claimant also. Before that the judges also ask to state the facts of the case in 5 pin points.

12:24 The speaker started with the issue of Jurisdiction and the judges seem to be interested in the argument. The judges ask the party to explain the applicable laws in this case.

12:26 The speaker cited a case of 1992 where the Judge question that the arbitration law is of 1996 then why we accept the case of 1992. The Speaker has no answer to this.

12:33 The Judges said that we don’t have Jurisdiction as you first have to go to a amicable settlement before coming to this tribunal. For which the speaker for Respondent submitted that the Claimant were not ready for that.

12:37 Time’s up for the speaker 1 Respondent.

12:38 The Speaker 2 of the Respondent made the opening statement by stating the structure of the arguments to be submitted before the Court.

12:42 The Judge asked the speaker 2 to explain the Standard Industry Practice. The speaker answered the question was calmly and the judges also feel satisfied with their research. The speaker also cited a case for this.

12:54: The speaker started with the second issue and it seems that the judge is ready to grill the Respondent on this issue. However, the speaker 2 being very composed and confident about his issues and facts of the case answered every question very politely.

12:59 The speaker 2 of the Claimant started with the opening statement. Speaker 2 explained the structure to the judges and proceeded with the 4th Argument.

1:02 The Judge put down many question to the speaker 2 of the claimant and the judges were very impressed by the advocacy skills of the speaker 2.

1:12 The judge asked the speaker 2 to address the cost issue before the bench. The speaker submitted before the court and judge seems satisfied with the arguments made by speaker 2.

1:20 God save the teams! This was really a hot bench and the judges were so inquisitive. From the under confident 1st speaker of the claimant to the great 2nd speaker of the claimant. From the panicked 1st speaker of the Responded to the highly confident 2nd speaker of the Respondent the round ended here.

Round Ends.



ROUND 2

COURT ROOM 1 (128C v. 105R)

14:53 PM: Claimant started with its arguments after taking permission from the judges. Claimant started with its arguments after taking permission from the judges. And here the judges started with their grilling questions which the claimant are answering confidently. Claimant pleads ignorance on the question asked by judges. Not answering the question, counsel asked to move to other time due to paucity of time.  Claimant request the judges to refer page of fact sheet to prove their case

15:02 PM: Claimants cited a case without reading the whole case which bring th judges in fits. Judge asked the claimants to refer to factsheet to clarify their position

Claimants talking among themselves on every questions judges are asking and judges are taking note of that. Judges asked what is contract. Reply to it: IT IS CONTRACT.

15:17 PM Judges asked the speaker 1 to clarify the point of speaker 2

And here the grilling starts.

15:19: Respondents starts. Judges asked another question for grilling asking to clarify the first answer. Respondent states the case which judges asked the facts. The respondent quoted that facts are not ok but the law is relevant. Respondents asked the counsel to refer to memo to win their situation. Respondents stuck in the papers to search for the answer on the question asked by judges. Judges gave one more minute to sum up their arguments.

15:26 PM: Judges said that they were supposed to follow the procedure to claim the damages. Judges gave one solution to the problem but respondent refuse to take that solution. Now the judges asked the same solution. From claimant which claimant agree. Judges gave one more minute to respondent. Respondents asked for few seconds to get the facts. Second grilling with speaker 2 of respondent starts

Claimants are listening very carefully to the arguments of respondent and ready to rebut. Claimants asked for rebut. But respondents refused for sur-rebuttals for exceeding the time.

COURT ROOM 2 (102C v. 114R)

3:05 PM- Claimant’s speaker started slowly with the facts, judges soon asked the speaker to go on with the arguments. Speaker started calm and steady. The speaker cited a struck down case to back his argument which the judges pointed out. The speaker, even when unable to give passable arguments, has not lost her calm. As and when the claimant brought the notice of the arbitrators to the things incorporated in the memo, probably considering the fact that they may help her justify her stance, things actually got worse, as judges started grilling. Now her every argument was being questioned by the bench as the speaker failed to give a satisfactory answer. Judges, asked the claimant to move further with her points. But to her dismay, she seem to have lost the confidence and was stuttering a lot, while the judges kept on questioning.

3:20 PM- Speaker 2 gave a broad structure of his speech, of how he would be proceeding with his arguments. He was quite confident, even when the questioning started. He rushed with his issues so as to cover all the points her partner couldn’t complete due to continuous grilling. The judges probably thought that the speaker can surely not be questioned on his knowledge of the laws or on the facts of the case, as the manner in which he spoke showed them that he knew whatever he was possibly dealing with. Although, he was struck down by a minute long question, which he tried to answer in a systematic manner, but the argument took an unprecedented turn. Judges after getting an unsatisfactory reply, grabbed the opportunity to question the same point. But he found a way to collect himself and successfully faced the further question.

3:45 PM- Before the respondent could start, the court room was dead silent. With judges going through the submissions, respondent tries to recollect whatever he has planned.

3:50 PM- The Speaker 1 from the side of the respondent takes the stage, and begins to make his submissions in a calm and steady manner after due permissions from the judges. The speaker makes several references to the fact sheet as well as the written submissions made by them. Argumentations were quite confidently put, with ample references to case laws which help him substantiate his submissions. The speaker faced all the queries of the judges in a very calm and satisfying manner. He was prepared for such grilling, it seems.

4:10 PM- Speaker 2 respondent started off by stating the facts that correspond to the issues that he was dealing with, after which he justified as to why their stance was better and more justified in nature than that of the claimants. As the day progressed, it was observed that the judges chose not to interrupt the speaker in the beginning, they gave a few minutes to the speaker so as to let them put for the argument. He did a great job and maintained an organised and structural speech all across his allotted time, but he failed to give the authority behind his last issue, which might back lash on the scoring.

4:25 PM- Rebuttal started for the claimants. He again pointed out some scientific facts from the problem and connected it with legal intricacies.

4:27 PM- Before rebuttals for respondent, judge asked a question which they failed to provide a satisfactory answer to.

4:29 PM- It started with a heated argument with speaker looking at the claimants. He pointed out the opposition’s citations and argued about the jurisdiction of the courts.

Round 2 ends.

COURT ROOM 3 (111C v. 121R)

14:58 PM: Speaker one of claimants’ side has started arguing but judges again ask the same question of whether Indian law or English law should be applied. Arbitrator asks the question of why the claimants went for the last resort of arbitration when they had the choice of resolving dispute amicably

15:02 PM: Two minutes of the allotted time is left but speaker one of claimants side is speaking

15:11 PM: Speaker 2 from claimants’ side starts arguing

15:14 PM: There is issue of maintain temperature in voyage but claimants are of the view that it was just because of the product being shipped and they always maintained the required temperature.

15:17 PM: Respondent starts.

15:26 PM: It seems that speaker one of respondent is not aware of the facts mentioned in imam preposition itself. And taking lot of the time to answer the facts.

15:45: Rebuttal for round two starts

15:50: Round two end.

COURT ROOM 4 (117C v 115R)

14:45 PM: 117(C) Speaker 1 Starts. He’s calm and is slow and deliberate in keeping his points. But the Speaker retracts from his submission.

15:01 PM: Speaker 2 from the Claimant side starts with questions being shot at him by the judges. He seems a little nervous. The judges are giving a hard time to the speaker on grounds of Jurisdiction. They stress upon a factual background of the case before entering into the arguments. The Judges ask the Speaker to prove that there was a failed negotiation before they came for arbitration.

15:17 PM: The Speaker 1 from team 115(R) starts with a flow. But the speaker fails to address first things first. The Speaker loses her flow as she confuses the facts thus giving the Judges chance to question.

15:30 PM: Speaker 2 from the Respondent side gives wonderful arguments but it somehow does not apply.

15:52 PM: Rebuttals begin. The judges make it clear that all the Rebuttals would be on the law and not on the facts. After a long argument with the Speaker 2, the judges finally agree to her after she cites authorities.

COURT ROOM 5 (104C v. 107R)

15:00 PM: Round 2 starts

Speaker 1 from claimants started on a good page but has been losing confidence with each question being posed to her. Persistent questions. Stammering, too much blinking, much less eye contact. She is trying hard but has gone shaky. Arbitrators provided a much needed relief to the speaker, just listening to her, questions are stopped.

15:10PM: Time’s up but the arbitrators are still left with one or two questions. Speaker 1 handled the last question quite well. Speaker 2 starts.

15:27 PM: The speaker is being questioned on some technicalities. Judges doesn’t seem to be much moved, but he calmly answered most of the questions. Speaker 2 mentioned a manual to prove his point. Arbitrators wanted to have a look at the same. Speaker 2 was praised a bit by the arbitrators. Now the respondents will start.

15:40 PM: Good start for the respondents, the arbitrators are patiently listening to the speaker. Not much questioning, just a few questions; that too are being comfortably answered by the speaker. Speaker 2 calmly lays out the structure for her arguments.

Debate begins between arbitrators and the speaker regarding obligations of ship owners. Reasonableness of the ship employees was also discussed. The judges are extremely lenient.

16:07 PM: The time has elapsed but the arbitrators still provide few extra minutes for letting the speaker 2 conclude. Rebuttal starts. Speaker from claimants 1 was asked to slow down a bit by the arbitrators so that she can be properly heard. The problem she pointed out was praised by the arbitrator.

16:27 PM: Judges were really impressed, both teams did quite commendable jobs. No need for feedback for teams that were this good. Just appreciation given by the judges.

COURT ROOM 6 (112C v. 109R)

2:52: Welcome to Phase II of the Preliminary Rounds of the Fourth Edition of the Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot, organized by National Law University Odisha. The speaker from side claimants has begun confidently, however, his manners and demeanor for sure leave much to be desired. He will certainly be marked down for it.

3:03: The second speaker for side claimants has begun with her arguments. Meanwhile, the judges have made it explicitly clear that they are not satisfied with the first speaker’s performance.

3:06: The judges have begun grilling the second speaker with only two minutes into her arguments. The speaker has conceded ground and this has not been taken well by the judges.

3:18: Time’s up! In the face of the incessant questioning for the past ten minutes, the speaker has conceded considerable ground. The demeanor of the speaker has suffered severely, and she will be certainly marked down by the judges for it.

3:19: The speaker from side respondents has begun, but has already pleaded ignorance to the questions posed. The judges have rejected most of his arguments, and he seems to be flustered.

3:25: The atmosphere in the courtroom has considerably heated up in spite of the air conditioning running at full blast. The speaker has cited a Swedish case law, however, the judges have rejected it on the ground that the case belonged to a common law jurisdiction. This has not been taken well by the speaker, who tries in vain to convince the judges as to the relevance of the case.

3:26: Two minutes to go, and the speaker has moved on to his second contention. He looks extremely frustrated at the questions and has lost his cool. The judges seem to be in a bad mood as well, and are not ready to accept any of the arguments.

3:35: The first speaker from respondents has completed, albeit on a bad note. The second speaker tries to begin, but is interrupted immediately by the judges. Their dissatisfaction is evident on their face, and one of the judges looks almost bored of the proceedings.

3:42: One of the points put forth by the respondents has generated considerable interest and activity on the claimants. Notes and chits are frantically passed, and they keep referring to their memorials.

3:45: The speaker is definitely frustrated and makes contradictory claims, which is immediately picked upon by the judges. Two minutes to go!

3:47: The speaker tries to begin with the counter-claim, but time’s up! The judges however, ask the speaker to continue.

3:50: The judges have asked the speaker to conclude and summarize her arguments in one minute. The speaker is unable to answer most of the questions posed by the bench, and looks confused and muddled.

3:55: The judges try to test the understanding of the speaker’s understanding by putting forth questions based on  hypothetical situations. She pleads ignorance to one of the questions, and moves on to the prayer. Even here, the prayer is ridden with contradictions, and the judges pick on it immediately.

4:03: The round has moved into the rebuttals, and the judges seem to be satisfied with the rebuts made by the claimants. The speaker from side respondents earnestly tries to begin, but is immediately interrupted and is asked to move on to another issue. Must be frustrating indeed.

4:07: Time’s up! The round has ended, and the judges have huddled into a discussion. That is it from Court Room 6, stay tuned for the next phase!

COURT ROOM 7 (110C v. 124R)

The Judges send their regards to their fans on the SCC blog.

15:00 – Amped up from their previous round, Team 110 (Claimant) started very strong and confident, both in terms of presentation and content. Even though the judges started grilling immediately, the speakers were able to keep their calm and answer without fumbling!

15:20– While the speaker was confidently answering the rapid-fire questions, she was unable to manage her time properly and ended up having to summarise an entire issue in 1 min, which she still did admirably even when the judges questioned on that issue further.

15:40 – The speakers of team 124 (Respondent) started off much more calmly and professionally than Team 110. Over the course of the speech of the first speaker of team 124, it was evident that she had the conceptual clarity to answer and satisfy the judges on most of the aspects!

16:00– the second speaker had a similar presentation style as her co-speaker, though a bit more nervous. But she was still able to satisfy the judges on most of the areas of concern. However, Team 124 exceeded their time limits by a greater margin than Team 110.

Overall, the second round was far more engaging and fruitful as both the parties as well as the judges were proactively participating in the rounds. This allowed for a much more comprehensive discussion!

COURT ROOM 8 (123C v 119R)

15:35 PM: The counsel for respondents begins with his arguments on jurisdiction, and is grilled on the same. He fails at convincing the judges with his answers, and thus, has to concede. He is felt baffled as he is asked to skip through most of his arguments, and is asked to come to the conclusion. The co-counsel begins with his arguments, and is flustered for most part of his speech, as the judges shower him with questions that he seems unprepared to answer.

15:40 PM: The counsel for the petitioners begins with his arguments, and is caught up in a plethora of questions on arbitration, but manoeuvres his way through them smoothly. He then yields the floor to his co-counsel. The co-counsel begins arguing on the weight of the cargo and other details, and struggles to answer the questions of the judges convincingly initially, but eventually succeeds in answering the questions successfully.

16:19: He is flustered as the judges grill him on the limitation and their claim in the instant case, and is further grilled on questions of law regarding arbitration and an interesting head to head is observed. He eventually concludes his arguments, and rebuttals are followed by it.

The Rounds End.



ROUND 3

COURT ROOM 1 (103C v 108R)

16:52 PM: Round 3 start directly with grilling questions

Judges asked the claimant about the clause in the fact sheet. They said they are aware about it. Judges ask the speaker 2 from where they came to know whether it is there in Singapore or not. And claimants said that they do not have it.

Claimant ask the judges to clear the questions as they didn’t understand it. And judges are elaborating it. Judges asked the claimants to read the clause loudly to bring them to the point. They asked the claimants to clearly listen to question and then answer. Claimant asked judges to please allow them a moment to clarify themselves.

17:31 PM: Judges asked them to not to give brief of the facts but proceed with arguments

Respondent starts.  Judges asked the respondent whether they want to argue that whether the 3rd arbitrator is not neutral? Judges asked the speaker 2 if they want to clarify the point of speaker 1.

17:48 PM: Judges asked the elaborate in standard industry practice and whether they complied with it or not. 2 claim ignorance 2nd time. Respondent didn’t gave the sur-rebuttals.

Round ends.

COURT ROOM 2 (127C v 126R)

5:20- Speaker 1 of the claimants began with her arguments in a quite impressive manner. She gave a thorough briefing of the facts and moved swiftly towards her issues. She seems to have structured her issues very well. It can be understood even by a person who has no interest in this particular case. Speaker has been inclusive of every possible aspect of the issue. With her thorough understanding and eloquent manner of portraying the situation, she tackled the questions of the tribunal in an effective way. Puff!! The speaker starts raising allegations against the respondents according to the facts, that too in an aggressive way. And the time’s up!

5:40- Speaker 2 takes over the duty. She will be substantiating the further arguments, just like her co-counsel, she too, has a persuasive way of speaking. But as soon as the 2nd minute started, judges started the grills. The composed manner of dealing with the questions seems to have made even the judges silent or maybe it’s just been a long day! But the judge 3 keeps on interrupting the co-counsel. Both the speakers are so well versed with the facts, provisions, issues involved, it’s commendable. Speakers got away with only a few questions to face. Although the round was extended for a minute or two, which surely might turn into there favour!

6:06- It can be seen one member from the respondent side is missing. With only 2 people, Speaker 1 from the respondent side initiates his attacks! on the contrary to their claimants, has a sangfroid demeanour. Just when he started, he was asked to give a brief on the facts of the situation, he stumbles to his first issue. First minute into the issue and he pleads counsel’s not aware. It isn’t good for them! Their opposition already have an upper hand with eloquent speakers! But he finds his feet and moves in a fluent manner. He has been quite sure of whatever he is saying, with a few queries from the tribunal, he puts forth his issues.

6:17- Speaker 2 got no time to gather himself and has to go ahead with his arguments. He aims at extending what his co-counsel had just said. The tribunal kept on intervening, it’s not looking good! It’s certainly not going according to what they might’ve planned. As the grilling continues, the claimants seem to enjoy the questioning, but subtly paying attention to what judges are pointing out. As live bloggers we can totally relate to what judges are going through! For a whole day, wearing formals and bombarding questions on the poor participants!

6:40- Claimants rebut in a very short way due to shortage of time. speaker-2 of the claimant, without wasting any second starts raising question. The thoroughness with which they have read the respondents memo, seems to have impressed the judges.

6:42- Respondents have rebutted each an every point during the course of their issues.

COURT ROOM 3 (125C v 120R)

16:35 PM: Round three starts

16:43 PM: Speaker one of claimants’ side starts arguing there are some instance where speaker is left blank and arbitrator suggest them to cope up with time. Judges have told claimant not to use the term imam preposition and to go just with preposition.

17:04 PM: Speaker two of the claimants starts and is not able to answer the tricky questions of judges.

17:12 PM: Speaker one of respondent starts with introducing themselves but judges ask him to jump to the issue.

17:24 PM: Speaker two of respondent argues.

17:33 PM:  Nothing much to say but speaker was quiet good and judges are impressed by the respondent performance

17:33 PM: Rebuttal starts.

Round three ends

COURT ROOM 4 (101C v 118R)

16:50 PM: 101(C) Speaker 1 starts. He seems to be very good speaker and takes his time while speaking.

17:08 PM: The judge mentioned that though the Argument advanced by the speaker was good, it couldn’t be held because it was not related to the context of Cargo.

17:30 PM: The Speaker 2 battling hard and trying his level best to convince the judges

17:32 PM: 118(R) Speaker 1 starts.

17:40 PM: The Speaker has a well-structured content and therefore even after being interrupted so many times by the judges, he maintains his flow and doesn’t let anxiety ruin his composure.

17:59 PM:  BAM! A confusing question! But the speaker takes a moment and answers. The judges seem satisfied.

18:15 PM: What seemed to be a never ending round finally comes to an end.

The judges were highly impressed with both the teams due to their innovative arguments. The repetitive words during the Feedback session was Brilliant! And Amazing!

The magnitude of the arguments advanced by both the teams was something that even our judges hadn’t anticipated.

COURT ROOM 5 (106C v 128R)

17:15 PM: Round 3 gets under way.

17:26 PM: Counsel hasn’t timed his argument well, first issue took most of the time, he faced a lot of questions, he was able to comfortably answer most of them, but was he able to persuade the judges, can’t say so.

17:30 PM: and time’s up, but the questioning continues, an extra minutes is given. Yet another time it is reminded that time’s up but it seems that the judges are not letting go the speaker without a satisfactory answer.

17:34 PM: Finally the co-counsel gets a chance to speak, she lays put the structure of her arguments. Speaker one is looking troubled, as if he forgot to say something that he only remembers now. He is just blankly looking around. The second speaker is confident in her approach. The speaker is laying out factual arguments.  The respondents are keenly interested in the question-answer between the speaker and arbitrators.

17:40 PM: The speaker has facts at her finger tips, questions based on facts were easily answered by her. Speaker 1 intervened to answer a few questions posed by judge. No time left. The judge is lenient regarding time and the argument continues. All three judges are bombarding questions. The speaker remains structured and calmly answers the question, but his every answer is leading to another question by the judges.

17:53 PM: The argument still goes on. Two judges pouncing upon him at the same time. I won’t say they are doing any grilling, they are just looking for satisfactory answers.

6:20 PM: Co-counsel started with an assumption, judges won’t allow that, moreover that assumption was contradictory to the argument put up by his own co-counsel. The judge asked to let go the submission, because it was not helping the respondents.

Poor speaker one, he is rubbing his eyes, shoulder all drooped down, it seems he wasn’t really ready for all this.

6:20 PM: I must say this speaker was grilled, it ended when he was asked to find something in the preposition while the co-counsel gets a chance to speak.

6:30 PM: Respondent counsel starts the argument. Even before the speaker could have said anything, he was asked a question which made him baffled, he was forced to move on to the next issue, he is not getting any chance to get back, another question, and yet another. Judges are much involved in questioning, Court room 5 hasn’t witnessed this frequently questioning since the commencement of first session. Speaker 1 seems to be fighting a lost battle, he finally gave in, asked the judges that he wants to move forward to the third issue. Somehow he still manages to keep his face frown free. It must be really hard for him to even continue.

6:41 PM: I know that maybe the respondents were not well prepared, but still he is playing bold, he is still arguing, during rebuttal time. More questions, more answers, and yet again more questions. Judges are enjoying this, time is up but they still want to hear more. It went on for one more minute.

Finally the slaughter ends.

COURT ROOM 6 (105C v 102R)

5:16: Welcome to the final phase of the preliminary rounds of the 6th Bose & Mitra International Maritime Law Moot organized by National Law University Odisha. While the judges and the claimants look rested and relaxed, the respondents do not, owing to the grueling Phase II round they went through, which lasted close to two hours.

5:16: The first speaker from side claimants goes off to a strong start, and seems to be well prepared. Her demeanor is pleasing, and answers the questions posed by the judges confidently.

5:20: The judges keep grilling the respondent speaker over Section 29 of Indian Arbitration and Negotiation Act, and its application to the facts of the case.

5:30: Time’s up, but the speaker hasn’t lost calm yet. Admirable indeed, considering the barrage of questions she has faced.

5:34: The first speaker has been asked to clarify as to side claimants’ calculations. The judges continue to grill the speaker, but her answers seem to be backed by a strong knowledge of the facts and the law.

5:41: Well, the time’s been up for ten minutes, but not the interrogation, and it does not seem to end anytime soon. The speaker hasn’t lost her calm yet, and that is a good thing for side claimants.

5:45: The speaker has been asked to move on the third issue and she proceeds confidently. Her answers are well substantiated with the facts and keeps quoting the relevant sections of the Acts.

5:50: The first speaker should have finished over twenty minutes ago, but the judges continue with their questioning. This time, it relates to the application of law, whether English or Indian.

5:52: Finally! The second speaker is allowed to begin, and like her co-counsel, she gets off to a good start.

6:00: One of the points made by the speaker from side claimants as to the expertise of the master seem to have put side respondents into a fix, and there is a slight expression of defeat on their faces.

6:09: The air conditioning is working too well, and it is freezing inside the courtroom. But there is a heated debate between the judges and the speaker, and neither side is willing to cede ground.

6:16: Finally! Speaker from side respondents has begun, and starts off with the argument that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the case, due to the use of ‘may’ over ‘shall’. The judges do not seem to be satisfied, but permit the speaker to continue.

6:21: The judges are grilling the speaker over the conflict of laws in the present case, and the speaker keeps referring them to the compendium.

6:40: This has been an exceptionally long round and does not seem to end anytime soon.

6:44: For the first time in the round, the speaker from side respondents looks dumbstruck and flustered.

6:46: The second speaker from side respondents begins with his arguments, and is immediately questioned as to whether they can ask the tribunal to decide over a cautious claim, to which the speaker claims ignorance.

6:50: The respondents claims that the crude oil in question is similar to all other crude oil. Two of the judges look almost shocked at this suggestion, and begin to grill him on this point.

6:54: The judges have begun to exploit the unsubstantiated claims made by the speaker and seem to be amused at his suggestion. The grilling has been so hard that even his co-counsel looks at him with pity.

7:00: The speaker provides an example of a person who opens the hatch of a petroleum tank, which almost everybody in the courtroom, apart from side respondents finds amusing. This provides a much wanted touch of humor, albeit unintended.

7:06: This has been a very, very long round with much grilling. Both the sides look almost relieved. Goodbye, but stay tuned for the quarter finals!

COURT ROOM 7 (114C v 111R)

5.15 PM – The first speaker of Team 114 (Claimant) started with such a flourish (emphasising on the applicable law and party autonomy) that he had sufficient time to finish one argument before the judges could fully process them and ask questions. However, the judges soon got a hang of it and could successfully stop the speaker’s flow of speech! One of the fresh arguments brought in this round by the Claimant is that since the wording of the pre-arbitral tier of amicable settlement is uncertain as to its initiation, duration and at what stage can it be exhausted, it cannot be unenforceable. However, for quite some time, the speaker was unable to grasp and answer some questions that all the three judges kept rephrasing and asking.

5.40 PM – From the beginning, the second speaker of Team 114 (Claimant) was stumped by the questions of the tribunal as the judges kept bringing him back to the terms of the charterparty. Such consternation on part of the speaker was evident by the fact that his volume of speech lowered after being referred to the charterparty. The peculiar part to be noted is that whenever the judges ask a question twice, the speaker immediately becomes apprehensive of his answer and starts consulting his papers again, to the point where he had to check when the voyage itself had started! He even said that “a simple Google search would show-” before the judges picked it up and made a few remarks.

6 PM – The first speaker of Team 110 (Respondent) started as if no storm could quicken his pace. However, with one minute in, the judges resumed their grilling. At one point, the judge asked if the Respondent is willing to try an amicable settlement – the speaker replied ‘if the tribunal so wishes’. The tribunal had to point out that amicable settlement is on the parties and the tribunal has no role it; that slowed the speaker a bit, but he soon resumed his steady pace of speaking.

With two rounds completed, the judges were easily able to zero in on the most confounding issues, like the claim of time bar, easily evident through the escalating fumbling of the speaker. Even so, the speaker had the determination to maintain his pace, which he surprisingly did most of the time.

6.20 PM – the second speaker finally started, amply spacing her statements with nervous fillers. It was almost as if she was still rehearsing to convince herself. The judges were asking a lot fewer questions, as if they had exhausted their reserves on her co-speaker previously. At the same time, they are unwilling to wait for the speaker to gather her bearing as she tries to answer. The last preliminary round is over!

COURT ROOM 8 (121C v 117R)

17:07 PM: The judges begin the rounds by asking if the parties agree on the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the case. The claimants disagree with the same, and both the parties are left baffled as the judges refuse to listen to the claimants pursuant to the same.

17:16 PM: However, the claimants later concede to the fact that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties in the instant case, after which they’re allowed to argue. The counsel begins with his arguments, and is grilled on the issue of demurrage charges.

17:07 PM: The judges begin the rounds by asking if the parties agree on the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the case. The claimants disagree with the same, and both the parties are left baffled as the judges refuse to listen to the claimants pursuant to the same. However, the claimants later concede to the fact that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties in the instant case, after which they’re allowed to argue.

17:24 PM:  The co-counsel thereafter takes over, and argues on the facts of the case. The judges continue to grill the co-counsel as well, on multiple occasions.

The respondents then begin with their arguments, and are caught up on one point of law with respect to the jurisdiction, and the judges continue to grill the first counsel on the same for most part of his speech.

17:53: The judges seem flustered as the first counsel argues further on the same issue, still standing firm on his claim and refuses to concede. The co-counsel now takes over, and maneuvers through the questions of the judges successfully, with convincing arguments. The counsel begins with his arguments, and is grilled on the issue of demurrage charges.



The quarter-final match ups are:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Law v. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
Symbiosis Law School, Pune v. National Law University, Jodhpur
Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi v. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
Government Law College, Mumbai v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

Congratulations to all the teams who made it through and we applaud the fantastic effort of every team who fought it out bravely in the prelims.



Court Room 1: Rajiv Gandhi University of Law (Claimant) v. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi (Respondent)

8:35 PM

As the teams have qualified the preliminary rounds, they have a lot of pressure which is visible outside the court rooms. They must be trying to incorporate as much as they can, after all the feedbacks might be useful in this round.

Teams enter into the room, a little chit chat with the judges, then they proceed towards their respective issues.

8:45 PM

The respondent approaches the bench in a very delicate manner, he was very careful as it was evident in the way he spoke. Being well versed with the facts and cases related with the facts, he takes no time in furthering his submissions. Judges observed the speaker very keenly, and then the questioning started, in the 3rd minute. During the course of the speech, the claimants duly noted all the points made by the respondents. He seeks permission and is very careful in the course of his arguments, he spoke with utmost respect towards the bench. The tribunal agreed while pointing out certain issues raised by the respondents. Although, maintaining a calm demeanour throughout the course is difficult, he finds that his time is up! He asked for 30 seconds more, but the bench kept on intervening to his dismay. Judge 1 seemed to be very curious about the knowledge of the respondent and asked details of a case in the last few seconds. Being well versed with the facts, respondent secured the ball in his court. The bench in a way, found it unsatisfactory that the respondent didn’t answer what they had asked and was asking more time to conclude his arguments.

9:01 PM

Speaker-1 of the claimants, started his submissions after having a little chat with the clerk. After all, the time is very crucial. The very moment he started, he was bombarded with the questions by the judges. “The quality of arbitrators is very well in India”, bench shared a light moment as the speaker moved on. The speaker is very clear in his manner of speaking. The council pleads ignorance when the judges ask where ICC is, the International Chamber of Commerce (as submitted by the speaker). The incessant questioning has seemingly unnerved the counsel and comes off as slightly confused, the same being observed by the honourable bench.  The judges continued with their queries. This heated questioning went on for about 15 minutes of while the counsel stood his ground despite the questions posed at him.

9.41 PM

Judges are questioning the claimants. Not satisfied with the argument of claimant, judges asked to move to next submission.

10.09 PM

Judges asked the claimant speaker to open the bare act to clarify their stance on law. Judges questioned them continuously on their arguments. Respondent saying that they are willing to come on an amicable settlement with claimant.

10:16 PM

Respondent asked that he wants to move on second issue but it seems like judges are not willing to give up on issue 1.

COURT ROOM 2: Symbiosis Law School Pune (Claimant) v National Law University Jodhpur (Respondent)

8:40: Welcome to the much awaited quarter finals of the 6th edition of the Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot organized by National Law University Odisha. The first speaker from the side of claimants has started off good and seems to be prepared, which is evident from her tone of speaking.

8:44: The judges have, however, started off with their questioning pretty early into the rounds. Their line of questioning has been incessant and they are not ready to accept any argument made by the side of claimants.

8:50: The counsels have been making continuous attempts at convincing the judges with respect to the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and the validity of the invocation of arbitration by the claimants in the instant case, but to no avail.

8:54: The judges have discovered a contradiction as to side claimant’s calculation as to costs, and they do not seem to be convinced with their arguments. However, they have permitted them to move ahead to the other issues and arguments.

9:02: The bench has made it explicitly clear that they are unable to accept their arguments relating to the weight of the cargo, and the liability with respect to the cause of solidification of the cargo.

9:10: The judges have maneuvered their way through the issue on the weight of the cargo, and the liability with respect to the solidification thereof, back to the jurisdiction issue, which the counsel seems to have answered much to the satisfaction of the judges.

9:12: The counsel has begun with the next issue, and is already being thrown questions at. The judges have even made it very, very clear that they do not accept the arguments posed by the side of claimants. The good thing is that the speaker has not lost her calm even in the face of this incessant grilling.

9:25: At this point, the judges have questioned the speaker as to awareness of a fact present in the moot proposition, however, the speaker pleads ignorance.

9:41: The co-counsel for the claimants has now taken over, and has begun with her contentions..

9:48: The incessant grilling has flustered the claimants as notes and chits are frantically passed. The speaker is losing her cool, and this is not a good sign. The questions relate to the nature of the crude oil, and the judges have managed to reveal their lack of research.

9:54: The judges have asked the speaker from side claimants to summarize and conclude in five minutes.

10:00: The respondents have taken over, and have now started with their arguments. They have started with the their first issue, and that is with respect to the difference between arbitration dispute and arbitrability.

10:10: The judges are continually grilling the counsel on the same issue, even after ten minutes of the initiation of the arguments by the respondents. The counsel continues to stand firm on his stance even after all this while and sticks to his argument with respect to amicable mutual discussion.

10:19: The judges are still throwing questions at the counsel in regard with same issue, and the counsel has now asked for some time to gather his thoughts. He has been trying to answer the questions, with little success at convincing the judges with his arguments.

10:35: The judges look unimpressed at the speaker’s arguments and keep interrupting him. The speaker, however seems to be unfazed.

10:42: The speaker for side respondents announces that he would like to yield the floor to his co-counsel. The judges then ask him as to who would be addressing the issue of delimitation, to which the first speaker replies that it would be handled by his co-counsel. However, the next moment, he begins with addressing the issue. This makes the judges visibly upset, who ask him to clarify again as to who would be addressing the issue. He looks shaken and yields the floor to his co-counsel.

10:50: The second speaker is facing a barrage of questions from the judges, who are going ballistic. The demeanor of the speaker is worsening by the moment, and this is not a good sign.

11:00: “What is a prudent standard? If a car is dirty, what does a reasonable man do? Does he take a cloth and clean it, or go to the paint shop and get it painted? Maybe only an expert would do that. And here, only an expert would keep it above 55 degrees!” a judge says. The speaker is now extremely nervous.

11:03: The judges asks the speaker to not to presume any facts, and stick to what has been stated in the moot proposition.

11:05: The speaker concludes the case from side respondents, and the claimants do not opt for rebuttals due to paucity of time. The rounds are over for today, but do come back tomorrow for the semi-finals. Signing off for today.

 

COURT ROOM 4: Government Law College, Mumbai (Claimant) v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (Respondent)

20:45 PM- Government Law College Speaker 1 starts. She seems to have a good command over her arguments and has a well-structured content.

20:50 PM- The most impressive quality of Speaker 1 has to be her patience. She carefully listens to all the questions the Judges have to ask instead of jumping to answers abruptly. She is articulately able to answer the questions.

21:00 PM- The Judges in the best of their knowledge are trying to halt and confuse the speaker, but little do they know that the speaker is in her best state of calmness and is absolutely confident.

21:22 PM- The Speaker 2 starts. She faces the questioning from the very beginning. She seems to be handling it well.

21:52 PM- Question- Answer… this is the prevailing process for the past few minutes. It seems to be a never ending process.

10 PM – The first speaker of the Respondent team starts off with the arguments. From the very beginning, the Respondent was forced to move to a defensive position. The speaker tried to maintain her speech style and pace, and maintained her composure as the judges sought clarifications and tried to find any loopholes in the speaker’s arguments. She however engaged with the tribunal by ensuring that they keep returning to the case study. As the judges put questions as well as provided the context for the question, time took a distant backseat as compared to the session itself. While the speaker tried to move forward, the tribunal brought her attention to the very facts she referred to initially, such as the issue of amendment of the dispute resolution clause to reflect the parties’ intention.

10.45 PM – The tribunal immediately brought her attention to the case study and were persistent in their questions. Nevertheless, the boisterous speakers were able to hold their ground as well as they could, given the questions hurled at them. The Quarterfinals are finally over.

COURT ROOM 3: Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (Claimants) v National Law School of India University, Bangalore (Respondent)

20:45: And the time starts. Although team have cracked to quarter finals the real battle begins. Speaker one of respondent has started arguing. Although he seems to be calm while arguing the judges in one way or the other are putting more complex questions.

21:07: Speaker one of claimants has started arguing. Confidence is all that matters at last and it can be seen in this speaker. Speaker one seems to be a good speaker and have answer for all questions posed to them.

21:16: Speaker two of claimants start. She has facts on her fingertips and is exuding confidence. It seems claimants have already anticipated the questions which may be asked and they are readily answering them.

21:28: Time is always a problem and it can be reflected in this case too although both the parties are provided with hefty sum of time but there are some instance when parties need to refer in some documents and that is really time consuming. Factual arguments, authorities, composure they have it all.

21:50: Claimants got six extra minutes and judges have decided to same time to respondents too. The co-council for claimants argued really well and for quite a long time. While she was very well versed with the facts, still she wasn’t able to answer a question in the end. This really got her all worried. She addressed the prayer and sunk in her chair, still worried a bit. However, she did her part as well as one can.

22:00: Speaker one of respondent side has started arguing and at the very first instance he started attacking the claims of the claimants. While the arbitrators are putting forward very twisted questions as expected in any maritime law moot, still the respondents are providing exact answers which the judges are looking for. Judges seems pleased.

22:04 In order to compensate the additional time given to the claimants, extra time is also provided to the respondents. Most of the issues are substantiated by valid arguments, only leaving a little scope of questions, still the arbitrators are consistently coming up with questions. It seems the co-council for respondent has caused a factual error, he has been asked to refer to moot preposition, and further questions are being asked regarding the facts now.

22:30 Both teams have submitted their issues. We just witnessed a comprehensive battle despite the questioning from the judges, the counsel was able to answer with utmost composure.

22:35 The Rebuttals have started. Claimants took their time to pose the questions and further strengthen their claims. Respondent was calmly able to answer them.

22:40 The judges didn’t interfere much and thus, a fiery Quarter Final comes to a close.



After the completion of the Quarter Finals we are proud to announce the 4 Semi Finalists. The qualifying teams are:
1. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
3. Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
4. Government Law College, Mumbai

We wish all the teams the very best for the Semi Finals.



Fixtures for Semi Finals scheduled for 31st March, 2019

Semi Final 1: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Semi Final 2: Law Centre 1, Faculty of Delhi, University of Delhi v Government Law College, Mumbai

That’s it for Day 2. The competition resumes tomorrow. Thank You and Good Night.



Welcome back! Day 3 of 6th NLUO IMAM 2019 is about to begin in a few minutes. We wish the teams all the best as they fight for a place in the finals.

 

The first semi-final will be between Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune  

The 1st Semi- final proceedings begin. 

  • 1:20- The Judges entered the Courtroom. The participants were very enthusiast as they will be arguing before the bench who are an authority in the Maritime arbitration itself.

CLAIMANT:

Claimant- Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
  • 11:22- The speaker 1 of the claimant is speaking in a very well mannered and organised fashion. The speaker is well versed with the subject matter of the case.
  • 11:24: Speaker 1 explained the structurisation to the judges which he is going to argue before the court.
    11:27 Speaker 1 put up the issue of amicable settlement before the court and argue that the amicable settlement will go on forever and hence is uncertain. The bench throw the questions on which the speaker very politely and calmly tries to satisfy the Judges and also cite the case laws for the same.
  • 11:29 Speaker 1 also submitted that the charter is liable to the owners and outline two sub-issues. The Judges seems to be interested in the arguments and keenly hearing the arguments of the Claimant.
  • 11:35 The Judge asks about the Notice of protest and questions on the timeline which is before 6 hour or after 6 hour. For which, the claimant reads out the provision from the factsheet and addressed the concern of the Judges.
  • 11:38 Claimant submitted before the bench relating to the owners are awaiting the charters. Speaker 1 starts with the arguments in a very polite and confident manner and by the arguments put forward it is clear that there research in the maritime arbitration is quite wide and have a pretty good knowledge about the subject area.
  • 11:42 The Bench ask the speaker 1 about the Notice of Arrival and Notice of departure and the difference between them. The speaker seems to be successful in answering the question of the Bench.
    11:44 Speaker submitted the second issue regarding the defect in Cargo. The claimant submitted that the delay is reasonable in nature. The principal relied was the principle of reasonable conduct. The Judge 1 asked from where the claimant has derived this principle for which the claimant cites the 1990 case. Claimant seems to be successful in addressing all the concern of the Bench and the bench also seems to be satisfied by the arguments made by the claimant.
  • 11:48: Speaker 1 for the claimant concludes his arguments in a very fascinating way.
  • 11:49-  The speaker 2 from the  claimant’s side takes the stage after his co- counsel and starts speaking in a calm and confident manner. She presented her submissions in the form of two well structured points.
  • 11:50 Speaker 2 submitted the issue before the bench that the charter does not provide sufficient notice.  Speaker seems to be so confident and using her compendium in the best way. She is bombarding the bench with the case laws for every question that is being asked by the Judges.
  • 11:55 Judge 2 asked the question about the adequate temperature. Speaker 2 rightfully said that the adequate temperature is 35 degree Celsius. The Judge 1 asked whether the claimant is maintaining the adequate temperature for which the claimant tried to answer the Bench through the fact-sheets.
The tribunal for the Semi Finals
  • 11:58 Claimant submitted other two limbs of her arguments before the bench. Judge 1 asked the claimant to read clause 24 of the charter party agreement. Judge 1 asked the question on that clause for which the claimant submitted that the facts are silent about the fact.
  • 12:03- The claimant addressed the bench on the issue of incessant laws.
  • 12:05 Speaker 2 concluded her arguments in an efficient way.
  • 12:06 The bench asked the claimant to interpret Article 4 Rule 2 (a) of the In-transit laws. Claimant satisfied the concern of the bench by her answer.

RESPONDENTS

Respondent- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  • 12:07 The Speaker 1 on behalf of the respondents begins by laying down her arguments with a calm and composed demeanour. The speaker 1 begins with the 1st issue regarding whether the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction or not? Respondent submitted that the present tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
  • 12:14 Respondent submitted the second issue regarding whether CACL is liable to charter party. Respondent submitted the arguments in four limbs to substantiate their case.
  • 12:16 The Bench asked the speaker 1 as to whether the free petty a requirement in Europe. The speaker answered in affirmative.
  • 12:21 Respondent submitted the third issue that the pumping logs were not provided to support the laws. Respondent backs her argument by citing the case law for the same. Speaker 1 seems to be so calm and polity while submitting the arguments and judge might also be impressed with her demeanour.
  • 12:27 Speaker 1 submitted her last issue before the court. The judges seem to be satisfied with the arguments submitted by the speaker 1 and did not question her on this issue.
  • 12:28- Speaker 1 concluded her argument in a very good gesture and give the stage now to her co counsel.
  • 12:28- The co- counsel (speaker 2) made the structurisation of her submission before the court and proceeds with her arguments. She also seems to be quite confident on her submissions and facts.
  • 12:31 Speaker 2 submitted her 1st argument before the bench that the obligations (statutory and other obligations) have not been complied by the claimants. Speaker 2, while making her submissions used a lot of the facts of the case and it was quite impressive as it was also easy for a layman to understand the case at hand.
  • 12:42 Speaker 2 is dealing with the issue of temperature. Speaker 2 addressed the concern of the bench in very confident manner and asks for if any other concern the bench has. This shows the confidence of the speaker 2 upon her in depth research.
  • 12:44 The bench asked the respondent what would happen if Bach Ho deviate from standard industry. Respondent addressed the concern of the bench through the standard industrial practice.
  • 12:49- The bench, after hearing this submission made by the Respondent, asked the respondent that their 1st argument should be related to the mitigating factors as the Bach Ho oil is sensitive in nature and has very little knowledge about the nature of the oil.
  • 12:51 Times up! Respondent ask the bench for few minutes to conclude her last issue. The bench graciously granted time to the respondent to summarise their arguments.

REBUTTALS

  • 12:54 Claimant allowed for 1 minute of rebuttals as per the discretion of the judges. The judge clarifies the party to be very specific to the points they are raising.
  • 12:57 The counsel on behalf of Respondent clarifies their position with respect to certain arguments made earlier in rebuttals by the claimants.

Semi Final 1 ends. 

 

Semi Final 2 proceedings begin

The second semi-final is between Law Centre 1, Faculty of Delhi, University of Delhi v. Government Law College, Mumbai

CLAIMANT

  • 2:03 It’s time for Semi Finals! Round 2! It is expected to be a thrilling and exhaustive show for the part of the participants and the judges alike. The Participants gear up for the last minute of preparation. The claimant in very fluent and confident way started to explain the structure of their arguments before the court. The claimant looks to be confident in their submissions and the advocacy skills they have is really impressive.
  • 2:05 The first submission made by the claimant is the seat of the tribunal. The claimant submitted that the tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.  The claimant argued that the claim of respondent for damage of cargo does not cover the provision of 49.2. Hence, the Respondent has no Jurisdiction before the court.
    2:08 Claimant being confident in their submission tried to negate the contention made by the respondent in their memorial. Claimant submitted that the provision of 49.2 must be read separately and the claimant has the jurisdiction to adjudicate only the claims of the claimant but not the respondent.
  • 2:12 This is very first time that instead of Respondent, the Claimant is negating the arguments of the Respondent through the Respondent memorial they got last night. It seems to me that they did a lot of research yesterday’s night and really in mood to defeat whoever comes in their way.

  • 2:16 The speaker 1 referred to their memorial to substantiate her arguments on arbitration proceeding and that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction. With this, the speaker 1 ends her argument that deals with the procedural part of the case and now her co- counsel will deal with the substantive part of the case.
  • The issue of time bar- our demurrage claim is prevented within the time period clause 20 of the charter party
  • 2:18: The co-counsel holds the stage and explained the structure of arguments to the bench. Speaker 2 submitted her first issue regarding Time- bar. The claimant submitted that their demurrage claim is prevented within the time period as enumerated in the clause 20 of the charter party. Claimant also submitted that the pumping logs is irrelevant to the demurrage claim. The judges seems to be interested in the arguments and they are eagerly hearing the counsel on behalf of the claimant.
  • 2:25 Claimant submitted her 2nd issue before the bench regarding laytime. Claimant contended that majority of their demurrage claim lies on this issue.
  • 2: 28 Claimant is  taking help of the fact-sheet to explain the issues to the judges and it might give a good impression as they are very well versed with the facts. The speaker 2 also seems to be so confident and trying to address each and every concern of the Bench.
  • 2:31 Claimant, now addressed the issue of Notice of readiness and submitted that all claims of demurrage should be allowed.
  • 2:33 The claimant again counters the written submission of the Respondent and submitted that the right temperature was maintained. Claimant conceded that they have the duty to maintain the right temperature and they complied with their duty.
  • 2:37: The Judge asked the claimant about the temperature of the tank. The speaker 2 very amicably answered the concern of the judge and also referred to their compendium to further substantiate her point. However, the Judges were not able to find it in the compendium and it took 2 minute to find it in the compendium.
  • 2:41 Claimant argued that the duty to maintain and inform about the temperature is upon the Respondent as they are the owners of the cargo and the Claimant has no duty as they are not the owners of the cargo.
    2:43 Times up! The speaker asked the bench very politely to grant 2 minutes to conclude her arguments. The bench very graciously allowed the Claimant 2 minute time to conclude her arguments.
  • 2:44 Claimant addressed on the point of incessant laws. As soon as she started, the judges started questioning her  on that issue. However, she maintained her calm and composure and addresses each and every concern of the Judges.
  • 2:47 Time is up! Claimant concluded the argument and now its time for the Respondent to begin.

RESPONDENT

  • 2:49 Respondent begins with her 1st submission and from her very first word it is clear that the Respondent is clear that they are here to win no matter how good the other team is. Respondent started her arguments in way of negating the arguments made by the Claimant. Respondent submitted that this tribunal has no jurisdiction. Respondent also raises the issue of amicable settlement . The Respondent argued that no such steps for amicable settlement has been made by the Claimant. The counsel on behalf of the Respondent blamed the Claimant that they blatantly lied before the court on the issue of amicable settlement.
  • 2:54 Respondent cited the case of Fiyona Trust v Privalov case to substantiate the issue raised before the court. Respondent tried to interpret the clause and argued that liberal interpretation must be inferred from it. Respondent also cited the exception to the liberal interpretation.
  • 2:59 Respondent cited various cases to made her case in front of the bench regarding the amicable settlement issue and the Speaker 1 seems to be so confident in her voice that judges are so fascinated and hearing to her arguments very silently.
  • 3:01 The claimant argued that the tribunal is empowered to direct the parties to the amicable settlement which the Respondent were denied earlier.
  • 3:04 Speaker 1 of the respondent concluded her arguments and give the floor to her co-counsel.

  • 3:05 Speaker 2 submitted that demurrage claim is time barred. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent substantiate her arguments through case laws and facts of the Moot problem.
  • 2:12 Respondent submitted her 2nd issue regarding whether the  lay-time is correctly construed. Claimant argued that whether or not the submission of “NOR” with the letter of protest is valid or not? The Respondent submitted to it that NOR is invalid. Speaker two took a second, maintained her calm and tried to address the concern of the Judge.
  • 3:17 Respondent tried to differentiate between the Notice of arrival and Notice of readiness. The speaker seems to be quite nervous in making her submissions.
    3:19 The Respondent moves to the other issue regarding the Cargo operations. The counsel submits that according to HM 40 Guidelines the minimum temperature must be maintained at 55 degree Celsius in any case. The standard industry practice also enumerate that Claimant must maintained that temperature. The Judge interrupted and clarifies that according to Standard Industry Practice it must be at port point. The judge also pointed out that why, at the very first place, the respondent did not supply the claimant regarding the information of the cargo to be maintained.
  • 3:24 The counsel cited the exception of some rule to substantiate the claims before the court. However, the judge seems to be not satisfied with this argument as the respondent failed to inform the Claimant about the temperature that must be maintained.
  • 3:28: Through the factual matrix of the case, the respondent argued that the claimant knew about the sensitivity of Bach Ho oil and the temperature that must be maintained. Respondent argued that they have exercised due diligence in knowing about the Bach Ho oils. However, they have not taken reasonable care.
  • 3:30 The counsel on behalf of the Respondent concludes her arguments. The counsel prayed before the court.

REBUTTALS

  • 3:32 Claimant started with the rebuttals. The bench made it clear to be very specific to the points while making the rebuttals and sur-rebuttals.
  • 3:34 Respondent started with their sur-rebuttals and tried to negate the points made by the claimants.

With this ends the Semi-Final Rounds. 

Now it’s time for the Finals of the 6th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition. This is the time we’ve all been waiting for, where the top two teams shall be fighting for the pinnacle – the Winner’s Trophy.

The Finals shall be between Symbiosis Law School, Pune and Government Law College, Mumbai.

The proceeding is being streamed live on the official NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition Facebook page. Follow it in real time as the battle between the teams begins!

 

The judges forming the part of the tribunal are:

 

Mr. Amitava Majumdar

 

 

 

Mr. Joy Thattil Itoop

 

 

Mr. Hari Narayan

 

The teams are here. In the finals, we have –

Symbiosis Law School, Pune 

 

and,

 

Government Law College, Mumbai

 

There is some meticulous questioning underway as the judges carefully sift through the arguments. 

 

Speaker 1 from the claimant presents her arguments

 

Speaker 2 from Claimant argues

 

After an extensive round of questioning and counter-questioning, the claimant rests their case. 

 

Now, Speaker 1 from Respondent begins

 

Speaker 2 of the Respondent presents her arguments

 

After rebuttals, the round has finally ended. It’s been a grueling final and the judges have thoroughly tested the participants on every aspect. The participants can take heart from the way they dealt with the barrage of questions, no matter the outcome.

We now begin with the valedictory ceremony of the 6th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition 2019. Among those present are the Chancellor of the University Hon’ble Justice K.S. Jhaveri, Vice Chancellor of the University Dr. Srikrishna Deva Rao, Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Joy Thattil Itoop, Mr. Hari Narayan, Registrar of the University Registrar Mr. Yogesh Singh and Hon’ble Judges from the Odisha High Court.

 


The Citation for the Best Memorial goes to:

Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University Lucknow


 

The Best Speaker Award goes to:

Priyanshu Jain, National Law School Bangalore



And the Winners of the 6th Edition of the NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition are

Symbiosis Law School, Pune

 

Hearty congratulations to the team!



 

We also congratulate the runners -up team from Government Law College, Mumbai for their valiant efforts.


We further congratulate all the teams for their efforts throughout the competition.


 

With this, we come to an end to this Edition of the NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition. We thank all the blogging volunteers who made this blog a success with their constant updates and we thank the viewers for following the blog. We hope to see you again, next year. Till then, we bid adieu!

 

Live Blogging

DAY 2 

The flagship event of our college, the journey which we embarked upon, comes to an end. The third National Moot Court Competition is officially closed. 

Throughout this journey, we got a lot to take back, a lot to remember and a lot to be proud of. It was indeed a bumpy ride but in the end, the hard work did pay off. 

Kudos to all the participants. Kudos to all the volunteers who have worked day and night for this event. Kudos to the MCA who made sure that this event functions smoothly. And finally, Kudos to Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad. 

This is the blogging team, signing off! Until next time.

Team Members– Ananya Rajaram, Vidhan Dubey, Ashwin Nambiar, Faaiz Irfan, Parth Saluja, Kevin Jayaraj, Tarun Srigiriraju, Siddartha Mitra, Pratyusha Ganesh, Sulagna Dutta, Monalisa, Dipshika and Priyanka Talwar.

 

 

 

Reads suggested by the guest of honor and the hon’ble chief guest:

 

  • Partition of India – Legend and Reality by Seervai.
  • Kashmir beyond terrorism by Salman Kushe.
  • 7 Habits of the most successful people by Stephen.
  • You can win by Shiv Khera.

 

Inspirational Quotes used by the Chief Guest and Guest of Honor to motivate students:

 

  • Unless you sharpen your mind, your mind will become rusty.
  • Genius is admired, wealthy is envied, power is feared and character is trusted.
  • Worry ends where faith begins.
  • Your attitude decides your altitude.
  • Endure difficult times- Life is not a bed of roses.
  • A quitter will never win and a winner will never quit

 

THE VERDICT IS

Winner- Sastra University

Best memo- Symbiosis Law School Noida

1 Runner up- UPES Dehradun

2nd runner up- Symbiosis Law School Noida

Best speaker- Rishab Suppal SLS Noida

                       and

                       Varsha Singh Christ University

 

6:00 pm- Ms. Ambrina Khan delivers the vote of thanks and congratulates all the teams for their enthusiastic participation.

 

5:57 pm- THE AFTERMOVIE IS RELEASED!

 

5:45 pm- Prize distribution begins. And the results are out!!!

 

5:40 pm- The Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian takes valuable time out, to elucidate on the Moot problem and in due course gives valuable advice on how to tackle future moot problems.

 

5:37 pm- “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” – Dalai Lama as quoted by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

 

5:33 pm- The Justice appreciates and applauds the Legal Drama, “The Good, The Bad and…. The Divine?” and advises the students to read the book titled, “The Hindu view of Life” by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.

 

5:28 pm- The importance of wit is clearly demonstrated by Justice V. Ramasubramanian as he continues to enlighten the audience with rib tickling anecdotes.

Pic – Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian

 

 

5:23 pm- “What is success in life today, need not be success tomorrow.” – Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

 

5:20 pm- The Chief Guest, the Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian, starts his speech by making witty comments and brings the atmosphere to a cheery mood.

 

5:18 pm- Mr. Bulusu concludes his address by wishing all the budding lawyers, Good Luck.

 

5:14 pm- Mr. Bulusu takes the example of Mahatma Gandhi, and talks of Gandhi’s evolution in oration from being a lawyer in South Africa to becoming the Father of the Nation and leading the Independence movement.

 

5:07 pm- Mr. Bulusu advises the students on learning the art of using legal language appropriately, he says this can only be achieved by making a habit of reading judgments.

 

5:04 pm- Mr. Sampath Bulusu quotes Justice ‘Abbot Parry’’s “Seven Lamps of Advocacy” – (i) Honesty (ii) Courage (iii) Industry (iv) Wit (v) Eloquence, (vi) Judgment and (vii) Fellowship.

 

5:00 pm- “When you lose, you don’t lose anything, in fact you gain in experience.” – Mr.Sampath Bulusu

 

4:58 pm- The audience listen as Mr.Bulusu recollects his days at his Alma mater.

 

4:56 pm- The Guest of Honour, Mr. Sampath Bulusu, takes the podium.

 

4:54 pm- The Guest of Honour, Mr. Supratim Chakraborty, is invited to deliver a speech.

 

4:50 pm- The Officiating Director delivers a speech and welcomes the Guests.

 

4:49 pm- The Chief Guest and the Guests of Honour are being felicitated by the Officiating Director.

 

The Valedictory Begins!

 

The Drama comes to an end with uncontrolled applause.

 

4:30 pm- The drama brings in a new definition to secularism.

 

4:28 pm- Scene 4 takes a serious turn with the protagonist impressing the audience with his monologue

 

4:24 pm- The lawyers arguments at the end of the third scene, made the crowd hungry for more.

 

4:15 pm- The attention to detail in scene three is impressive which was loved by both the faculty and the audience alike.

 

4:05 pm- Scene two’s colour scheme did the trick, which really got the crowd going.

3:59 pm- Scene 1 continues with the arrival of Narayan, the great messenger.

 

3:53 pm- The first scene’s starts on a high with the audience enjoying every minute of it.

 

3:50 pm- The play starts off with an encouraging applause from the crowd.

 

DISCLAIMER: All characters portrayed in the play are purely fictional. Any resemblance to any character whether living, dead, or mythological is purely co-incidental.

 

Alfred Hitchcock once said “What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out.”

The Mad Hatters (drama troupe) in this year’s National Moot Court Competition valedictory ceremony is set to present their awe inspiring performance in the satire, The Good, The Bad and …..The Divine?

Make yourselves comfortable because you’re in for a heavenly ride!!!

 

 

As the participants stand and gaze at the beautiful trophy, they wait in anticipation for the results. What will the verdict be? Stay tuned to find out. 

 

FINALS!

3:10 pm- WE REACH THE END OF THE FINALS!!!!

 

3:07 pm- The Judge lightens up the mood in the auditorium by making a light-hearten joke

 

3:05 pm- The rebuttals by the counsel for the respondents is in full swing.

 

3:02 pm- The Counsel for the Petitioners have ended their rebuttal round.

 

2:59 pm- The Judges request the parties to keep their rebuttals specific and concise, and not to hammer on the same point twice.

 

2:57 pm- The co-counsel of the respondents moves onto the Prayer. The Rebuttal Round begins!!!

 

2:54 pm- The co-counsel moves onto the fourth issue.

 

2:50 pm- The Judges warn the co-counsel of the respondents as she walks into murkier territory.

 

2:46 pm- The counsel from the respondent’s side flips through the pages as she tries to answer the questions raised by the Hon’ble Bench.

 

2:44 pm- The researcher for the respondent looks flustered, trying to support the co-counsel’s arguments constantly.

 

2:43 pm- The arguments of the co-counsel seem to be going in a somewhat flawless manner until now as the Judges nod in agreement.

 

2:42 pm- The co-counsel approaches the dais and addresses the third issue.

 

2:40 pm-  The Honourable Judges ask the respondents’ counsel to sum up her arguments as she falls short of time.

 

2:38 pm- The judges feel that the counsel on behalf of the respondent is beating around the bush and ask her to address the point of controversy.

 

2:36 pm- The first year students are engrossed as they witness the final proceedings of this flagship event.

 

Pic-  The Lordships 

 

2:25 pm- The MCA members are on high alert as they pay heed to not only the hearing which is going on but also to the smooth functioning of the event.

 

2:21 pm- The counsel representing the respondent, clarifies the doubts of the Hon’ble Bench by citing Puttuswamy’s case.

 

2:17 pm-  The counsel for the respondents begins her arguments by addressing the first issue.

 

2:16 pm- The co-counsel moves on to the prayer and rests her case.

 

2:14 pm- The co-counsel seeks an extension of two minutes. It is granted!

 

2:11 pm- The co-counsel rushes through her arguments, as only two minutes are remaining on the clock.

Pic- And it goes down!!!!

 

2:07 pm- The judges draw the second counsel’s attention to one of the sections that the petitioners have used in the case, by reading it out loud, which clearly shows their dissatisfaction towards the usage of the section in the present scenario.

 

2:00 pm- The judge is asking the relevancy of the co-counsel’s assertions.

 

1:56 pm- The second counsel from the petitioner’s side contends that the data protection laws in the country are insufficient.

 

1:53 pm- The second counsel from the petitioners seeks permission to approach the dais.

Pic- The first counsel for the Petitioners

 

1:51 pm- The Judge asks the first counsel for the petitioner to wrap up as soon as possible as she has run out of time.

 

1:49 pm- The judge is not satisfied with the answer. The Hon’ble judge does not feel that the counsel has answered his question.

1:46 pm- The Hon’ble Judges ask the counsel to read a specific clause from a statute and raise concerns over their conformity to it.

 

1:45 pm- The Counsel refers to the contract entered into by the parties to strengthen her argument. The Judges disagree and cite a law but the counsel claims the law itself to be unconstitutional.

 

1:44 pm- The judges allow the counsel to proceed to the next issue and she starts advancing the arguments. 

 

1:43 pm- The judges raised an interesting point regarding the procedures laid down in the Criminal Procedural Code.

 

1:41 pm- The judges just raised a concern over the last point by referring to a case law.

 

1:40 pm- The counsel for the petitioner is answering the judges’ questions satisfactorily, but the judges don’t seem to be convinced.

 

1:37 pm- The Judges seek clarification as they are not convinced and ask the counsel to elaborate more on the point of controversy.

 

1:34 pm- The Hon’ble Judge has just put forth a question regarding certain discrepancies in the memorial.

 

1:32 pm- The counsel for the petitioner moves onto to her issues with ease and makes sure that her arguments are delivered smoothly.

 

1:31 pm- The counsel seems to be well versed with the facts as she starts speaking.

 

1:30 pm- The counsel from the petitioner’s side seeks permission to approach the dais and starts her submissions.

1:29 pm- The Court room masters reads out the rules to be followed during the proceedings for one last time!

 

1:28 pm- The Judges have arrived in the grand auditorium of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad and they are being seated.

 

1:25 pm- The time has come! The stage is set for the final showdown and the competitors are ready to look the enemy in the eyes with lock, stock and two smoking barrels. Suit up! because this is going to be LEGEN..wait for it…DARY!!! 

 

The Semi-finals come to an end as two teams out of the thirty that came, qualify for the finals. The finals are scheduled in the colossal auditorium and will begin after lunch.

 

11:45 am– The intense and enjoyable argumentative semifinal round with both the parties presenting their rebuttals comes to an end in the Assembly Hall.

 

11:40 am- With the rebuttals getting over, the Semi Final round comes to an end in the Moot Court Hall!

 

11:35 am- Moot Court Hall- The petitioners have taken the respondents by surprise as they point out a major flaw in their arguments.

 

Pic- Tension builds as the rebuttals begin in both the court rooms.

 

11:24 am- Moot Court Hall- The counsel for the respondents is easily handling the questions raised by the bench. The Judges seem to be quite impressed by her answers.

 

11:20 am- Assembly Hall- The counsel finally gets to proceed and now addresses the third issue. Meanwhile, the petitioners seem to be well prepared with their rebuttals.

 

11:12 am- Assembly Hall- The remaining arguments are taken up and continued confidently by the co-counsel for the respondents.

 

11:10 am- Assembly Hall- The arguments seem to have become interesting enough to continue for half an hour straight. The teams in the semi-final round seem to be quite skilled indeed.

 

11:06 am- Moot Court Hall- The second counsel from the respondents’ side approaches the podium and advances the arguments for the remaining issues.

 

11:02 am- Assembly Hall- Time’s up! The counsel for the respondents looks at the bench and asks for time extension which is granted to him. However, he still doesn’t seem to clarify the questions raised by the bench.

 

10:59 am- Moot Court Hall- The judges lighten the mood by sharing a moment of laughter with the participants.

 

10:55 am- Moot Court Hall- The counsel for the respondents delivers the arguments in a smooth and composed manner.

 

10:54 am- Assembly Hall- The Counsel for the respondents continues his arguments smoothly. He is being questioned frequently but he easily answers them. Good research and coordination help him through it.

 

The Shawarma Corner seems to be getting good reviews, the President of the Student Council of the college personally recommends this food stall.

 

10:44 am- Assembly Hall- The 1st speaker for the respondents approach the podium as the petitioners await in bated breath for the rebuttal round to annihilate the respondents’ case.

 

10:42 am- Moot Court Hall- The Judges have engrossed themselves in looking through the nitty gritties of the respondent’s submission before they proceed to the oral arguments.

 

10:40 am- Moot Court Hall- The counsel for the respondent approaches the podium and starts with her oral submissions with the Judges carefully listening to the same.

 

10:38 am- Assembly Hall- The counsel from the respondents’ side approaches the dais now.

 

10:35 am- Moot Court Hall- The counsel from the petitioners’ side tries to argue with plain logic, to which the judges respond by asking him to stick to the legal submissions.

 

10:32 am- Moot Court Hall- The counsel for the petitioner loses his confidence, making it harder for him to deliver his arguments.

 

10:30 am- Assembly Hall- There seems to be a volley of questions asked by the judges to the counsel for the petitioners. The judges don’t seem to be giving any room to breathe, yet the petitioners are bravely and calmly fighting their way out of it.

 

10:19 am- Assembly Hall- The counsels for the petitioner seem to be confidently deliver his arguments, and their justifications seem to be on point.

 

10:17 am- Moot Court Hall- The team representing the petitioners’ side seem to have a great amount of coordination. The researchers don’t have a lot to contribute in the oral submissions but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.

 

10:12 am- Moot Court Hall – The judges ask a series of questions to the counsel for the petitioners, making it difficult for the counsel to answer.

 

10:09 am- Assembly Hall – The counsel for the petitioner in course of delivering the arguments requests the judges for a time extension.

 

10:02 am- Assembly Hall – The counsel seems to have all the correct answers as she successfully dodges the questions fired at her by the Judges. Although, she is humble and polite in her tone, she is firm in her arguments.

 

10:00 am- Assembly Hall – The Judges’s questions seem to be satisfactorily answered by the counsel for the petitioner.

 

9:54 am- Moot Court Hall – The tone of the counsel does not seem to be appealing to the judges. However, the researcher extends a helping hand by passing a note to the speaker.

 

9:50 am- Moot Court Hall – The pleadings have begun with the counsel for the petitioner confidently approaching the dais, ready to deliver the arguments.

 

9:45 am- The judges have arrived in their respective courtrooms, and the semi-finals of this year’s NMCC has officially begun.

 

9:30 am- The campus has sprung into action again and it does not feel like a Sunday at all!! The Judges have been briefed and they now proceed to the Moot Court Hall for the Semi-Final round.

 

Pic- The stage is set!

 

9:15 am – Top of the morning to you! Another day and the battle continues. We are back today with more live updates. As the second and the final day begins, and four teams remain standing as they battle it out to the top. We hope they’ve got what it takes to take home the coveted trophy. So, participants and readers, buckle up as it is going to be a bumpy ride.

 

DAY 1 

We at Symbiosis Hyderabad, bid you adieu until it be morrow. Goodnight!!!

 

It has been an eventful day, here at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, and yet the excitement and enthusiasm are abundantly felt in the atmosphere. We have witnessed budding lawyers exhibit their talent. It is very promising, to say the least.

 

With this, we reach the end of the Quarter-finals.

 

8:45 pm- Room 4- The judges start scoring and the session ends.

 

8:38 pm- Room 4- The last courtroom left to conclude its’ session, after which the Quarterfinals round officially end.

 

8:29 pm- Room 4- Time is almost up, and the counsel for the respondent wraps up her arguments.

 

8:21 pm- Room 1- The respondents wrap up. As the Judges now score the participants, the session ends in Court Room 1.

 

8:14 pm- Room 4- The co-counsel for the respondent starts by clarifying some of the grey areas left by the counsel for the respondent and then moves to her part of the pleadings.

 

8:13 pm- Room 1- With only a couple of minutes remaining on the clock, the counsel for the respondent is far from completing her arguments.

 

8:09 pm- Room 3- Rebuttal round begins, with the counsel of the Petitioner pointing out the discrepancies in the arguments of the Counsel for the Respondent.

 

8:05 pm- Room 2- Research is everything when it comes to tackling tricky questions that participants often face in Moot Court competitions. And the Counsel of the respondent seems to understand this clearly as she answers every question and brings out her arguments, the judges take note of this.

 

8:00 pm- Room 4- The counsel for the respondent fails to substantiate his arguments, this disappoints the Judges.

 

7:58 pm- Room 2- The judges question the second counsel on behalf of the respondent, his confidence shows as he handles the questions brilliantly.

 

7:51 pm- Room 1- The counsel for the respondent was able to substantiate the arguments put forward, thereby satisfying the judges.

 

7:49 pm- Room 2- The counsels for the respondents are making formidable arguments which seem to impress the judges.

 

7:46 pm- Room 4- Noticing the lack of time, the judges order the plaintiffs to rush through the remainder of their arguments.

 

7:44 pm- Room 4- The judges seem to make it very difficult for the co-counsel on behalf of the petitioner to proceed as a barrage of questions is directed at him.

 

7:40 pm- Room 2- The first Counsel for the Respondents now begins his arguments.

 

7:35 pm- Room 3- The researcher on behalf of the petitioner is playing a major role in delivering strong arguments and answering tough questions by constantly sending chits to the counsel at the dais.

 

7:30 pm- Room 2- The Petitioners have exhausted their time, and the Judges are yet to be satisfied with their arguments. On request, a time extension is granted.

 

7:25 pm- Room 4- The Petitioner is very confident and affirming with her arguments, this seems to impress the judges.

 

7:20 pm- Room 1- The judge asks a tricky question which confuses the Counsel. However, she sails through it, with just a few minutes left on the clock.

 

7:15 pm- Room 2- The Judges start asking a series of questions to the counsel on behalf of the petitioner, who answers with unparalleled confidence.

 

7:07 pm- The Petitioners begin with their respective arguments in all the courtrooms.

 

7:05 pm- The judges have arrived and the proceedings are officially underway.

 

6:50 pm- The participants are seated in their respective courtrooms and are all set to battle it out in the Quarter-finals as they wait in anticipation, going over the finer points of their arguments.

 

6:40 pm- The judges are currently being briefed, after which the Quarter Finals will commence.

 

6:30 pm- The memorials have been exchanged and the draw of lots comes to an end.

 

6:25 pm- The results are out and the draw of lots have begun.

 

6:20 pm- We are back.

 

6:05 pm-  As we wait for the results that determine the teams that move onto the Quarter-finals, the blog team takes a short interval. We will be back with fresh updates. Stay tuned.

 

5:42 pm-  The verdict says that if you are going for the Mojito then do not hesitate to spend an extra Rs.10 to get Sprite instead of plain soda.

5:32 pm- Do not miss the Cinnamon Rolls and Ice Cream from the Spitfire stall for dessert. The Fires serve to be a lip-smacking appetizer.

 

5:24 pm-  Seems like the must at the Kolkata Quick Rolls is the Spicy Chicken Roll and the Kebab Roll. For all the Herbivores out there fret not, for we have the Baby Corn Roll.

 

5:07 pm- The popular recommendation for Govind’s Dosa seems to be The Pizza Dosa. You could also satisfy your taste buds with the simple Butter Masala Dosa.

4:55 pm– We have The Kingz Landing, BBQ Spitfire, Kolkata Rolls, Govind Dosa, Whatta Waffle and Shawarma Corner on campus today.

 

Pic – The sun is finally out! As it brightly shines over our beautiful campus, the blogging team goes out to get you a first-hand review on the range of food options we have in store for you.

 

4:22 pm- As the final installment of the Prelims reaches its’ culmination, the participants move towards the “Mahabhojanalay” to refuel. Stay tuned to know what’s on the menu.

 

Pic- The game is on.

 

4:07 pm- Room 1 – The last few arguments are being put forth by the defendants before the time runs out.

 

4:01 pm- Room 1 – While initially the Respondents seemed to be in control of the courtroom, with questions repeatedly raised by the Hon’ble Bench, it seems like the tables could turn.

 

3:58 pm- Room 14 – The heat turns up as the rebuttals commence, the petitioners’ 60 seconds are up.

 

3:52 pm- Room 1 – The Judges raise some concerns for the terminology used by the petitioners’ side. This attempt to make a point backfires at them.

 

3:50 pm- Room 14 – The second speaker of the respondents seems to be much more active compared to the first speaker, answering all the judges’ questions with ease.

 

3:45 pm- Room 14 – The counsel from the respondents’ side is not getting any time to breathe. He is being completely gutted with arguments.

 

Pic- Preparing for the Rebuttals.

 

3:30 pm- Room 6 – The first speaker on behalf of the respondent speaks uninterrupted as she denies the claim of the petitioner and justifies the stand of the respondent.

 

3:26 pm- Room 14 – The researcher for the petitioner seems to be the backbone of the team, working tirelessly to ensure the delivery of strong arguments and answering of tough questions.

 

Pic- Tension in the air?

 

3: 19 pm- Room 13 – The proceedings are well underway with the judges asking a series of questions, and the counsel on behalf of the petitioners responds to them while being fiercely volatile coupled unparalleled confidence which seems to have put the respondents in a nervous breakdown of thoughts. This team has the potential to make it to the finals or walk away home with the shining trophy. Clearly, they seem to be trained by the best.

3:17 pm- Room 8 – The judges grill the first speaker but she successfully dodges them. Confidence, well preparedness and a calm mind come to her rescue.

 

3:13 pm- Room 6 – The second speaker from the petitioners’ side continues with the arguments in an assertive tone. He faces questions thrown towards him by the bench, answering them quite patiently.

 

3:10 pm- Room 6 – Uninterrupted by the bench throughout his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner calls for his Co-counsel to submit his arguments dealing with the remaining issues.

 

Pic- And so it begins… the second installment of mooting for today.

 

2:58 pm- Room 5 – The judges seem to have caught on to an argument put forth by the Petitioner, and that has opened a Pandora’s box of questions.

 

2:53 pm- Room 6 – The counsel from the petitioners’ side seeks permission to approach the dais and is granted the same. He proceeds on a confident note with the arguments as the Judges are already familiar with the statement of facts.

 

2:44 pm- Round 2 of the Prelims begin as the judges arrive and the courtroom master reads out the rules of functioning of the Court Proceedings across Court Rooms.

 

2:40 pm- The sky seems to have cleared. A bit of sun helps in brightening up the atmosphere in the courtrooms as not much time is left before Prelims Round 2 begins.

 

2:30 pm- The Participants wait in anticipation for the second round of Prelims to start.

 

Hello everyone, the blogging team is back at it with a fresh set of updates.

 

As the Judges and the Participants break for lunch, we would like to take this opportunity to thank our sponsors.

 

1:59 pm- With this the first round of the big day comes to an end with triumphant success. As we mark the end of the Prelims Round 1, we can undoubtedly say that the participants have illustrated that when someone puts a gun to your head, you can either take the gun, call their bluff or do any of the hundred and forty-six other things.

 

1:30 pm- Weather Update- Mild showers are expected this afternoon. Keep your umbrellas handy.

 

1:17 pm- Room 1 – The first counsel from the respondents’ side approaches the dais confidently. She is well mannered and gets done with the formalities flawlessly. However, her submissions face a plethora of questions. She answers questions but seems to get a little flustered.

 

PicMr Supratim Chakraborty, Partner, Khaitan & Co, speaking during the Judges’ briefing.

 

1:00 pm- Room 12 – It seems that the counsel for the petitioner is short on time, but manages to complete the arguments.

 

12:58 pm- Room 8 – The second speaker asks for permission to approach the podium and is greeted by a volley of questions as soon as she starts her submissions. The Judges don’t seem to be convinced with her answers.

 

12:50 pm- Room 1 – The Judges seem to be very impressed with the arguments of the counsel from the petitioner’s side.

 

12:45 pm- Room 12 – The first counsel from the petitioner’s side has a good command over her arguments. She seems to be in control of the situation from the start. The Judges and the respondents are completely in tune with her arguments.

 

12:35 pm- Room 11The proceedings have commenced. The first counsel representing the Petitioners starts her oral submissions. Arguments of the petitioners seem to be structured in a persuasive manner. The judges then interject with a series of questions. The counsel tries to reply to these questions confidently. The judges seem to have caught the petitioners off guard.

 

12:28 pm- The Judges have arrived in their respective courtrooms and the proceedings have begun.

 

12:26 pm- The preliminary round for the 3rd National Moot Court Competition is about to commence with 30 Teams participating in the flagship event. Participants have taken their position in their respective courtrooms, waiting for the judges to arrive.

 

Pic– Briefing of Judges.

 

11:25 am- The judges are being briefed by the Moot Court Association of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

 

10:59 am- As the ceremony comes to an end, we see the mighty trophies shine in all their glory, and the participants wait in anticipation to take them home.

 

10:56 am- The Third Annual National Moot Court Competition is now officially open with the BANG of the Gavel!

 

10:53 am- Ms Ambrina Khan addresses the gathering and conveys her regards to the honourable chief guests for their inspirational speech.

 

10:49 am- The Dignitaries are being felicitated by the Officiating Director.

 

10:44 am- He concludes his speech with an ending quote: “Every king was once a helpless baby, every mighty ocean was once a ripple, and every great structure was once a blueprint. It is not where you are today, it is where you are going that counts”

 

10:39 am- The Justice reminds the participants to maintain a good character, emphasising on the need for students to be chiselled and crafted into a statue through hardworking and perseverance.

 

10:34 am- “A quitter will never win, a winner will never quit”- Hon’ble Justice C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy. This evokes confidence in the participants.

 

10: 26 am- “What makes an accomplished lawyer is the one who has three fundamental qualities—accumulation and updating of knowledge, acquiring skills of the drafting of pleadings artistically, presentation of the case; articulation, body language, voice moderation.” – Hon’ble Justice C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy.

 

10:23 am- The Guest of Honour wishes the participants all the best and instills a sense of confidence in them.

You can also catch a live version of the speech on TV 5 on your televisions.

 

10:13 am- As he speaks on the contemporary issues of our country, the audience’s interest is piqued.

 

10:09 am- Following the speech of the Officiating Director, the Guest of Honour Prof (Dr.) S. Surya Prakash takes the podium.

 

10:03 am- The Officiating Director of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, Dr Sukhvinder Singh Dari addresses the gathering.

 

10:00 am- Meanwhile, the ceremony awaits the arrival of the rest of the Honourable dignitaries.

 

9:57 am- The audience is being indulged with the trailer for the upcoming drama titled, “The Good, The Bad and…. The Divine?”

 

9:50 am- The Guest of honour for the day is Prof (Dr.) S. Surya Prakash (VC, MNLU, Aurangabad). We are elated to be in the esteemed presence of Hon’ble Justice C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy (HC of Judicature of Hyderabad).

 

9:45 am- The inaugural ceremony is all set to commence.

 

9:30 am- As the first ray of sun hits the Symbi empire, the judges arrive and take their seats. The day officially begins!!!

 

Registration Day

5:30 pm- The final lot is picked and the air streams with steely determination as the participants march out. With this, the sun sets on the Symbi battleground. See you when the sunflowers bloom. Blogging team of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad is here at a routine overhaul to keep you posted with the latest updates as the event proceeds.

 

5:23 pm- The memorial exchange for the preliminary round 1 has ended and round 2 has commenced.

 

4:50 pm – All the participants have arrived full of apprehension and are in full ardour for the draw of lots. The tension in the air builds as the officiating director of SLSH officially commences the first lot. As the organizing team delves into the final checklist, there is a mixed expression of confidence and excitement visible in the eyes of the participants.

 

3:00 pm – Viva la Vida world! As the Supreme Court marks the end of an era in Kerala, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad embarks upon a Journey. The Journey, that is the 3rd National Moot Court Competition. With the registrations, we mark the inception of this much-awaited affair in Symbi Hyderabad. So, march on you storm troopers, “May the force be with you”.

Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

Mooting is an engaging and challenging co-curricular activity in law school. Requiring application of legal provisions and principles to hypothetical fact situation, mooting helps inculcate research, drafting and advocacy skills. With a view to broadening the perspective of budding pleaders and researchers towards mooting at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, the college brings to students a series of three workshops. Moot Court Society, Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA has organsied series of workshops as follows:

1. August 04, 2018 (Title – Introduction to Mooting – Mr. Arunadhri Iyer);

2. August 11, 2018 (Research for and Drafting of Memorials – Mr. Edupunganti Shreyas); and

3. August 18, 2018 (Pleading – Ms. Jayashree Parihar).

This endeavour is to introduce students to culture and expectations of mooting.

First Workshop will be conducted by Mr. Arunadhri Iyer, Advocate, the Supreme Court of India on August 4, 2018 from 01:30 pm – 04:30 pm. It has two sessions:

Session 1 – An introduction to Mooting –Seeks to discuss about the basics, as well as finer nuances of mooting. The workshop aims at being accessible for both beginners as well as experts. While a basic understanding of what moot courts may help before you attend it, the workshop aims at discussing all the steps, skills and discipline expected of a mooting team and

Session 2 – An Introduction to Drafting and Formatting –The workshop aims at dissecting the magic sauce that goes into a well researched, well presented (and pretty looking) memorial. It will introduce the concept of a memorial, and discuss the steps to take (and avoid) in making a memorial for a moot.

About the Resource Person: Mr. Arunadhri Iyer, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Mr. Iyer is an Advocate practicing primarily in the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of India. Formerly Mr. Iyer has worked with Khaitan & Co, Mumbai, with Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR, and was a Law Clerk in the Delhi High Court. He practices primarily in civil and commercial matters, as well as arbitrations.  Mr. Iyer is avid mooter and has successfully represented Symbiosis Law School, Pune in various national and international moot court competitions. He has a continuing relationship with mooting and Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA.

 Schedule 

Workshop on Introduction to Mooting – August 04, 2018

 Session

 Title

 Time

 1

 Introduction to Mooting

 01:30 pm – 02:30 pm

 2

An Introduction to Drafting and Formatting

 02:45 pm – 04:30 pm

 

 

 

 

 

AchievementsLaw School News

The team from Symbiosis Law School, Pune has won the Asia Pacific Regional Rounds of Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition, 2018. A total of 11 teams from India had qualified for the written memorial round to proceed to the oral rounds in Adelaide, Australia. These were: NLSIU, NLUJ, NUALS, Jindal, NLIU, SLS Pune, RMLNLU, GNLU, WBNUJS, NIRMA and CNLU.

Two Indian teams GNLU and Symbiosis Law School, Pune made it to the finals of the Oral rounds in Adelaide with Symbiosis Law School emerging as the winner of the Moot. The SLS team comprised of Shraddha Dubey, Malay Srivastava and Someny Singhal. Someny was also adjudged the 8th Best Speaker. The GNLU team bagged the runners up award. Keertana was awarded Best Speaker of the finals and prelim rounds. Sohum was awarded the 2nd Best Speaker of the prelims round. Shreya Jaipuria and Stuti Rai from NLSIU won the 4th and the 6th Best Speaker citations respectively.

The team from Symbiosis Law School, Pune will now be representing Asia Pacific Region in the World Round in October. This is the second time in a row that an Indian team has won the regional rounds as last year, the team from NLSIU had gone ahead to win the world rounds.

Law School NewsMoot Court Achievements & Reports

Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition has always witnessed spirited participation from more than 20 universities in all of its previous editions. In this edition, after scrutinising over 40 memorials in the initial memorial round, 30 teams from various reputed universities across the country have been selected to compete against each other for the coveted Justice Hidayatullah Memorial trophy, the 1st runner’s up prize, the title of the best speaker, the best memorial, and the best researcher.

Eminent academician Prof. (Dr.) M.K. Ramesh was the Chief Guest for the inaugural ceremony. Prof. Ramesh holds the professorial chair on Urban Poor and the Law, instituted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation of Government of India. He also advised the government on climate negotiations leading to the Paris Agreement, 2015. Addressing the gathering with thought provoking words and refreshing candour, Prof. Ramesh emphasized on the role of mankind as children in the cradle of the environment rather than its masters.

The Chief Guest for the closing ceremony was Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Mishra, Judge, High Court of Chhattisgarh with the Guest of Honour being Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge, High Court of Chhattisgarh.

The trophy for first place in the competition was awarded to SLS, Pune, along with a cash prize of Rs. 25,000. The runner’s up trophy was awarded to NLU, Odisha, Cuttack, along with a cash prize of Rs. 15,000. Both the teams were presented with the coveted Winners and Runners up trophies respectively. The Best Memorial award was received by the team from NUSRL, Ranchi, along with a cash prize of Rs. 7,500. The Best Researcher award, based on the researcher’s test that was conducted yesterday, was awarded to Deeksha Gupta from RMLNLU, Lucknow, along with a cash prize of Rs. 7,500. The Best Speaker award, based on aggregate scores from the two preliminary rounds was awarded to Akhilesh Talluria from SLS, Pune, along with a cash prize of Rs. 7500.

 

 

Law School NewsLive Blogging

NLUO IMAM Logo

Hello and welcome to the live blog of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM). The competition begins today with the registration and inauguration followed by exchange of memos and draw of lots. 24 teams will be battling it out in preliminary rounds, followed by quarterfinals, semifinals and the much awaited finals.
Schedule for Day 1(30/03/2018) :
15:00 – 16:00 hrs – Registration
16:45 – 17:30 hrs – Inauguration Ceremony
17:30 – 18:30 hrs – Penalty Appeals
18:30 – 19:30 hrs – Draw of Lots & Exchange of Memos
20:00 – 21:00 hrs – Dinner

Stay tuned for all the live updates and highlights for the next 3 days.

16:00 hrs

The teams are here in the seminar hall and registrations have begun, the opening ceremony will be starting at 16:45 hrs.

Registration Desk
Registration Desk IMAM 2018

16:55 hrs
The opening ceremony is under way and the Faculty Adviser of The Moot Society Dr. Ananya Chakraborty starts with the welcome note to all the participants talking about the different opportunities Maritime law has to offer and the experience participants will gain from the interactions with the highly qualified panel of judges.

17:00 hrs
The Convenor of The Moot Society, Anmol Gupta, started with briefly laying out the schedule for the 3 days and also answering the queries of the teams regarding the draw of lots. She also explained the system of Penalty Appeals to the participants which further increases the transparency quotient. The Convenor ended by declaring the competition open.

17:30 hrs
Let us know about Penalty Appeals directly from our Convenor-

As a recent participant in a moot, I remember losing my mind over a two mark deduction that potentially affected my team’s best memorial citation. There are often times that moot court competitions have been also criticized for being unfair. It is only after having had such experiences and realizing that moot court competitions in India should be more transparent that we wanted to follow this practice. Penalty appeals are nothing new but we do hope that all institutions take similar initiatives so as to improve the mooting culture in India and bring more fairness and transparency in the process.”

Penalty Appeals
Penalty Appeals

18:00 hrs
Match ups are announced and Memorials are exchanged as the teams find out who they are up against for the Preliminary rounds tomorrow.

Draw of Lots
Memorial Exchange

 

19:45

That’s it for today, we will be live with you tomorrow morning with the first session of preliminary rounds. Till then Goodbye!

 

Day 2
10:15 hrs

Courtrooms are set

A very good morning to all, we are back with all the updates from the second day of NLUO IMAM 2018. The courtrooms are set, Teams all ready and the Preliminary rounds will begin at 11:00 hrs in 8 courtrooms. Following are the 23 teams battling it out in the preliminary rounds.

  1. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)
  2. School of Law, UPES
  3. ILS Law College, Pune
  4. Government Law College, Mumbai
  5. University school of law and legal studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
  6. National Law University, Delhi
  7. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
  8. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  9. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  10. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
  11. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  12. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
  13. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
  14. Pravin Gandhi College of Law
  15. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  16.  Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  17. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  18. Lloyd law college
  19. Faculty Of Law, Delhi University
  20. Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
  21. Madhusudan Law College, Cuttack.
  22. Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
  23. Jindal Global Law School

11:30 hrs

The first session is underway as the teams battle it out in the first round with the humid climate of Cuttack and the barrage of questions from the judges, they surely have their work cut out.

Courtroom-2
The Applicants contend on the of jurisdiction of the Honorable Tribunal and put up a compelling case in front of the judges and finish their submissions on a high. The Respondents contend that the claimants were aware of the zero tolerance policy of plastics and waste. Both the teams end up with a satisfying look on their face.

13:00 hrs

The first session of Preliminary rounds culminate, Judges take a 10 minutes break before the second session is underway.

 

13:30 hrs

The second session of preliminary rounds are now in progress.

Session 2 underway

14:30 hrs
The teams now concluding their arguments for the second session of preliminary rounds.

Session 2

 

16:30 hrs
The teams and judges have taken their seats for the third and final session of the preliminary rounds.

Session 3 in progress

 

18:15 hrs
We are now done with the Preliminary Rounds and will be announcing the Top 8 in a few minutes.

 

19:15 hrs
The results for the Preliminary Rounds are out, Following are the top 8 teams.

  1. ILS Law College, Pune
  2. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  3. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  4. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
  5. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)
  6. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  7. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  8. National Law University, Delhi

19:45 hrs

The Quarter Final rounds have now started with the teams vying for a top 4 spot.

Quarter Finals


Court Room 7

20:06 hrs

The judges are extensively grilling the Claimant on jurisdictional clauses, the counsel tries to deal with the questions through case laws and contends that the claimant’s silence does not amount to acceptance. The judges proceed to the next issue where the claimant is dealing with conceptual differences between indemnity and guarantee vis a vis damages but she fails to convince the bench with her submissions.

20:22 hrs

The bench questions about the fraud with respect to the letter of indemnity which means that the claimant’s haven’t come to the court with clean hands. The bench is not convinced with the submissions and asks the claimants to not beat around the bush and concede to the wrong in good faith.

 

Court Room 6

20:10 hrs

The Claimant started with Citing a case from US Jurisdiction which the bench was hesitant to accept, the Counsel tried to justify his claim by stating that the international arbitration depends upon the intention of the parties.

20:17 hrs

Second speaker discusses about the 3 contaminants and tries to justify the word contaminant as opposed to substances, he also tries to justify the scope of warranty.

 

 

Court Room 5

20:18 hrs

The claimant start their submissions by pointing out to the letter which is the core of the issue, the judges ask about the letter being a letter of indemnity or letter of warranty as contended by the respondents.

20:30 hrs

The respondent started their submissions asserting that the letter is a letter of warranty. He argues that the addendum to the contract was signed without prejudice, hence cannot be used as evidence.

 

21:15 hrs

With this the Quarterfinals are done. The teams and the judges head for dinner. Results of the Quarterfinals to be announced post dinner.

22:00 hrs

The top 4 teams in no particular order are

  1. ILS Law College, Pune
  2. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  3. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  4. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

With this we come to the end of proceedings on day 2. See you tomorrow for the Semi Finals and Finals. Goodbye!

Day 3

10:30 hrs

Hello and welcome all to the final day of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM). We will bring to you live updates from the Semi Finals and the Finals.

Semi Final 1 (RMLNLU vs RGNUL)

Arbitration Panel (left to right) Ms. J D Rajan ,Ms. Natasha Sailopal, Mr. Sameer Shah
RMLNLU vs RGNUL


10:35 hrs

The Respondent start with challenging the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and for the same justify it by stating that the disputes relate to the letter and not the charter party.

11:00 hrs

The Respondents are now being asked to take the tribunal through a timeline of the events so as to further facilitate the submissions, further the question of Contaminants is being posed by the tribunals which is dealt by the counsel by furthering the factual circumstances at the time of loading. The tribunal asks the counsel to move to his next submission.

11:10 hrs

The Counsel now moves forward to the submission regarding the charter party and how the addendum in the contract was without prejudice.

11:25 hrs

The Claimants now start with stating that the arbitration clause is broad enough to establish the claims. They claim further that their was no indication if they were previous remnants of the cargo. The tribunal questions the amount of due diligence necessary and was it carried out to ascertain no previous remnants of cargo were present.

11:35 hrs

The Tribunal further asks who the master is answerable to and questions the survey report and asks for the origin of 3 foreign objects in the cargo. The Tribunal cracks upon the claimants submissions so as to having too many presumptions. They further ask the Counsel to sum up his arguments.

11:45 hrs

The Second speaker starts with the issue of Counter Claim being time barred, The tribunal grills the unawareness of the authority cited and relied upon, regarding set off by the speaker. Tribunal questions the claimants on damages arising due to the presence of lumps of Tar in the cargo, the speaker contends that the respondents are responsible for any damages and liabilities arising out of loading which is the issue was in this case. The tribunal states that according to the charter party, it is the responsibility of the owner to check the ship before unloading.

11:55 hrs

The Counsel is questioned about the difference between demurrage and detention and further what was imposed in the present case. The Claimants are asked to wind up the arguments in a minute.

12:00 hrs

The respondents now proceed with rebuttals and lead with situation where the claimants have mislead the tribunal. They point out the wide disparity between the damages claimed.

12:10 hrs

This brings us to the end of the first Semi Final.

Semi Final 2 NLIU vs ILS

Semi Final 2

12:50 hrs

The claimant starts with stating about the letter of indemnity responding to the question of the bench on the nature of the Letter in question. Further the question is regarding the subject matter of the warranty.

13:01 hrs

The claimant goes on to submit about the letter of warranty and what the implied warranty was as the shipowner. The tribunal asks about what the warranty actually was and where does the scope of compensation come from. The Counsel goes on defining warranty but is unable to convince the bench for the same.

13:16 hrs

The Bench though not satisfied asks the Counsel to move onto his next submission. Counsel now moves on to ascertain the liability of the respondent during loading but the bench further questions the duty of the master which was appointed by the claimant and hence asks about the duty of the Claimants.

13:24 hrs

Claimant now takes help of judicial decisions to prove their submission regarding the addendum to be signed without any prejudice. He concludes with stating about the demurrage clause and are asked about the deviation clause of the charter party.

13:38 hrs

The Respondent’s Counsel begins with the lack of Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and for the same the bench questions about the nature of the letter in question. The counsel contends that the charter party provides for jurisdiction in England and not Navigonia. Further the contents and intention of the Letter is further questioned by the bench.

13:47 hrs

The counsel now moves to the report by quarantine officers and how they have stated about the remnants of the previous cargo. He further moves to conclude his arguments by stating the responsibility of the owner to provide the crane-man and wench-man.

14:02 hrs

The Second speaker for the Respondents starts with the issue of the Port being prospectively safe. Further she talks about embargo being the source of prospective unsafe port, which is not an inherent reason of the port being unsafe. She moves on further to the issue of renomination of the port.

14:09 hrs

The bench asks the counsel to define what a voyage exactly means and further about the date of NOR being granted. The exchange further goes on with the team being grilled on the owners of the cargo. Further submitting that the delay was caused by unforeseen circumstances.

14:14 hrs

Counsel is asked to summarize all the issue and finish the arguments in a minute. Counsel ends with the issue of payment made which was unreasonable as it was done without the agreement of the respondents.

14:19 hrs

Claimants start with Rebuttals laying down point-wise issues to which the Respondents conclude with the Sur-Rebuttals stating the answers to all the points raised by the Claimants.

14:21 hrs

This brings us to the end of Second Semi-Final. The judges and participants now break for lunch.

15:15 hrs

The results are out the finalists are NLIU & RGNUL

16:00 hrs Final (RGNUL vs NLIU)

Finals (left to right) Mr. Sameer Shah, Retd. Justice VVS Rao, Justice Dr. B R Sarangi, Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Ajay Thomas
NLIU
RGNUL

 

The Finals of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM) are underway. The claimants start their submissions with stating the jurisdiction clause. They further state the LMAA terms 2017 and move ahead with sating the facts of the case.

16:03 hrs

The claimant speaker contending that the Letter in question was a letter of indemnity and the respondent conceded to the fact before the actual obligation to indemnify arose.

16:09 hrs

The speaker moves onto the claims due to the presence of lumps of solidified tar. Further the Bench allows the Counsel to proceed with the issues and to be questioned later.

16:17 hrs

The speaker moves onto the issue of availability of safe port, and how it was the duty of the respondents to make availability of a safe port during the period of embargo.

16:23 hrs

The bench asks the claimants to clearly state the breaches that they are claiming against the Respondents.

16:27 hrs

The Claimants proceed with their prayer to conclude their submissions.

16:32 hrs

The Tribunal questions the claimant on their reliance over American case laws in an English Tribunal. Further they pose questions on the wordings of the LOI.

16:40 hrs

The claimants enter a detailed argument on art 5 of the Hague Visby Rules.  With this argument the claimants have rested their case.

16:48 hrs

The Tribunal is now hearing the respondents first submission wherein they seek to oust the Jurisdiction of the tribunal.

16:55 hrs

The respondent cleverly addresses the arbitrators concern briefly before deferring the question to his co-council. The respondents also seem to have worked on the feedback provided by the judges in the semis of working on their time management as they seem to be making a conscious effort to lead the tribunal to their next submission.

17:00 hrs

The Respondent speaker moves to his second issue and discusses about the clause 18 of the charter party. The bench asserts the reason for rejection was not only NWG based on the phrase ‘Inter alia’.

17:08 hrs

The Second Counsel for the respondent starts her submissions by stating that the embargo imposed is an exception to the addendum, she carries on by defining a safe port and also specifically dealing with abnormalities. Further she defines how the embargo was within the ambit of such ambiguities. She submits that the embargo enforced was not the inherent characteristics of the port and the vessel was prospectively safe.

17:16 hrs

Counsel further moves ahead and submits that the delay was caused beyond the control of the Charterers, as the entry of NWG was not prohibited and the embargo came as a jolt. She submits that the respondents were not under obligation to renominate the port as it might have been an infringement to the third party rights.

17:23 hrs

The bench asks the Respondents to clear what their counter claim is to which the counsel is unable to satisfy the bench with the submissions regarding the same.

 17:33 hrs

The bench now proceeds with questioning the claimants on their submissions. The Counsels facing a barrage of queries from the bench and are having a tough time answering them.

17:45 hrs

With this we come to the conclusion of the Finale. The winner to be announced in a few minutes.

18:30 hrs

The Valedictory ceremony is under way with the Vice Chancellor of National Law University Odisha delivering the opening address and also highlighting the importance of mooting and how the occasion in itself is an opportunity for young mooters.

The guest of honor Justice B R Sarangi relives his college days and how the mooting culture has changed from time and how more competitive it has become. He congratulated all the teams participating in the competition and wished them luck for future.

19:00 hrs

 

Winners

The Results are out

The award for Best Oralist goes to Romit Kohli from NLUD.
The award for Best Memorial goes to RMLNLU
The Runners Up are RGNUL
The Winners of 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM) are NLIU.

Dr. Ananya Chakrabarty delivered the vote of thanks and formally concluded the Competition.

This brings us to the end of The 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM).
It was a pleasure bringing you the live blog, we will be back next year, until then Goodbye!

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) announces the 3rd Annual Jindal Technology, Law & Policy Moot, 2018, to be held from 22nd to 25th March 2018.
Mooting has formed an integral part of legal education at Jindal Global Law School, and students have been encouraged to take up mooting as an important exercise which helps hone skills essential to the practice of law. Mooting experience inevitably holds students in good stead when entering the legal profession and provides them with an upper-edge. The JGLS Moot Court Society is a student led initiative, which works hand-in-hand with the administration for planning, training and executing its activities at JGLS. With laurels at prestigious International Competitions such as Vis Vienna Moot Court Competition, the Price Media Law Moot Court (University of Oxford), the Frankfurt International Investment Moot, as well as consistent good performance at domestic moots, the MCS hopes to create a strong tradition of successful mooting for years to come.
The Annual Jindal Technology Law & Policy Moot Court Competition (Jindal Moot) is the next step in advancing this excellent culture of mooting at JGLS. First organised in the year 2016, the Jindal Moot exposes participants from across the country and beyond to cutting-edge, contemporary and complex issues on Intellectual Property Law as well as other allied fields of law. The previous two editions of the Moot have dealt with issues relating to international investment, anti-competitive conduct in relation to standard essential patents and anti-competitive effects of injunctive relief. They have also raised compelling questions like whether the statutory rights under the Patents Act may be waived via a contract, or how should the rates of royalty be computed? This year’s edition carries forward this tradition of raising topical and unsettled questions, and revolves around the interface of Intellectual Property Law and International Trade Law.

For more imformation, click HERE

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1: Underway- The Ninth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition

The Ninth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition has been inaugurated in the presence of Dean I.P. Massey.  The registrations and exchange of memorials between the teams was concluded while the Researchers were rallying forward with the Researcher’s Test!

The competition is now truly underway as post the Inaugural Ceremony and a great lunch the preliminary rounds are scheduled to start at 4:30 PM. This year’s Antitrust Moot is truly unique and stands out amongst all other Moots in the country with the introduction of the Octa-Final and the Reverse Octa-Final Rounds!

Inaugural ceremony

About the new Octa-Final Rounds

The top sixteen teams from the Preliminary Rounds will proceed to the Octa Final rounds and the Reverse Octa Final Rounds. These will be carried out on the basis of power matchups. We’ll leave it to our team head, Amrita, to explain how this makes the competition even better!

“Ever been to a moot where you lost in the prelims by a close margin to the winning team? Thought your prelims with the team should have gone on to be the finals? Felt that you lost because luck did not favour you? We understand that is quite disheartening after months of hard work.

Fear not. Luck is going to have a minimal role this year at Antitrust. We bring to you the octa-final and the reverse-octa final rounds where matches are made on merit and not luck. Bring only your hard-work and determination to win the trophy.

You don’t need those odds in your favour, you have got the rules in your favour!”

– Amrita Shivaprasad, Tabulation Team Head, Antitrust, 2018

18:45 PM: Preliminary rounds wrapped up.

The preliminary rounds have concluded. The reverse preliminary rounds will now begin shortly. The results of the preliminary and reverse-preliminary rounds are scheduled to be announced after dinner at 9:30 PM. The teams who are progressing to the Octa-Final rounds will then have an exchange of memorials with their matchups.

 

Day 2: Octa Final rounds and 3rd Antitrust Panel Discussion

9:30 AM: Octa Final Rounds

The participants progressing to the Octa Finals underwent their rounds at 9:30. In the 2nd set of rounds, i.e., the Reverse Octa Finals, the participants will face another set of power matches. The reverse Octa Finals shall begin shortly after the 3rd Antitrust Panel Discussion.

 

Participants in the Octa Finals Rounds
Judges grilling the participants

11:30 AM: Third NLU Jodhpur Panel Discussion on Antitrust Law

With the first set of Octa Final rounds over, preparations are in full swing for the reverse Octa Final Rounds. Meanwhile, participants attended the 3rd Antitrust Panel Discussion, 2018.

Participants attending the 3rd Antitrust Panel Discussion
The Panel

The topic for this year’s Discussion,   was ” Competition and Innovation: Is it time for a new approach?“. The changing facets of antitrust regulation, in light of the digital economy, were discussed. The panel consisted of the following persons.

Anand Kumar Singh

Anand Kumar Singh completed his LLM in corporate laws from the National Law University Jodhpur. He is currently an Assistant Professor at NLUJ, where he has such as Corporate Governance, and Constitutional Governance.

Anandh Venkataramani

Anandh Venkataramani is a 2011 graduate of Symbiosis Law School, Pune. Upon graduating, he worked in the litigation team of Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan for two years. He then pursued his masters from New York University School of Law, focusing on antitrust and litigation. He passed the New York Bar and worked with judges at the New York Supreme Court and the California Court of Appeal. He subsequently joined the Competition Team at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, where he worked on contentious cases in the agriculture and biotech; real estate; social media; mobile app-based communication and transport, and automotive industries. He is currently practicing in the courts in Delhi.

Indrajeet Sircar

Indrajeet Sircar, an Antitrust and International Trade lawyer, graduated from West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata in 2013. Thereafter, he worked for two years as an Associate in the competition law practice at AZB & Partners where he regularly advice clients on a variety of contentious and non-contentious antitrust issues. He is currently a Consultant with the Disputes, Regulatory, Advocacy and Policy (DRAP) group at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

Prateek Bhattacharya

Prateek Bhattacharya graduated from NLU Jodhpur in 2012 with a specialization in International Trade and Investment. He was thereafter awarded the Dr. Angela Merkel – Jawaharlal Nehru scholarship to pursue his LL.M. in Germany, and graduated from the Europa Institut, Saarland University . He then joined erstwhile Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co, and is currently a Senior Associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi.

1:30 PM: The Reverse-Octa Final rounds are now slated to begin. The matchups with the university names shall be disclosed shortly thereafter.

6 PM: Results of Octa Final Rounds

The results of the Octa Final rounds are in! The teams progressing to the Quarter Final Rounds are as follows:

  1. DSNLU, Vishakhapatnam
  2. School of Law, Sastra University
  3. NLSIU, Bangalore
  4. RMLNLU, Lucknow
  5. Government Law College, Mumbai
  6. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law Delhi University
  7. HNLU, Raipur
  8. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Best of luck to all the teams!

From the above 8 Teams, The following teams progressed to the Semi Final Rounds:

  1. School of Law, Sastra University
  2. NLSIU, Bangalore
  3. RMLNLU, Lucknow
  4. Government Law College, Mumbai

After a grueling Semi-Final Rounds, NLSIU and Sastra University were chosen to battle it out in the Final Rounds.

 

Day 3: Final Rounds and Valedictory Ceremony

Final Rounds

NLSIU Bangalore emerged victorious in the Final Round of the competition and took the crown of the winner of the 9th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition.

Final Rounds

Valedictory Ceremony

The award winners of the 9th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition were as follows:

Best researcher: Ms. Alfiya Vora, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Best Memorial: Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University

Best Student Advocate: Mr. Vikas Muralidharan, School of Law, SASTRA University

Second Best Student Advocate: Mr. Surya Teja SS Nalla, School of Law, SASTRA University

Winners: National Law School of India University, Bengaluru

Runner-Up: School of Law, SASTRA University

Best Student Advocate of Finals: Mr. Apurv Jain, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru

Valedictory Ceremony

With that, the competition has come to a conclusion. We hope this was an enriching experience for all the participants! A heartfelt congratulations to all the award winners from all of us here at NLU Jodhpur.

Law School NewsLive Blogging

The 1st P.A.Inamdar International Moot Court Competition organized by CNLU, Patna in collaboration with MCE Society’s A.K.K.New Law Academy, Pune, witnessed the enthusiastic participation from 33 esteemed law universities across the nation. These teams would be competing in the 3-day long event, starting from the 1st of April till the 3rd of April, which looks to be extremely promising and competitive from the enthusiasm displayed by all the participants and organizers at the inaugural ceremony. This inaugural ceremony was attended by all the students, teaching and non-teaching staff of CNLU, and the participating teams. The draw of lots, determining which team would go up against which teams in the rounds of oral arguments from 10 a.m. on 2nd of April, 2016, followed the inaugural ceremony.

The inaugural ceremony was graced by the august presence of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi, High Court of Judicature of Patna at Patna and Shri P.K.Shahi, Advocate General and former Education Minister of the Govt. of Bihar. The ceremony started with the floral welcome to Shri P.K.Shahi by Ms. Shaista Peerzada, member of MCE Society, and to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi by Mr. Kumar Gaurav, faculty of CNLU. Prof A. Lakshminath, Hon’ble V.C. of CNLU, delivered the welcome address, which was filled with much encouragement for participants and organizers alike. He highlighted the importance of mooting in the path of excelling in the profession of law. Aarush and Mallika, excelled in their task of being the anchors of the ceremony with the much required grace and poise. Ms Nandita S.Jha, the moot co-ordinator who has been extremely instrumental in the organization of the competition, welcomed the teams and shed light on significance of mooting.

We are proud to host the following Teams-

1. Alliance School of Law, Alliance University
2. Amity Law School, Amity University, Lucknow (AUUP)
3. Amity Law School, Noida
4. Army Institute of Law
5. Central University of South Bihar, Gaya
6. Delhi Metropolitan education (GGSIU)
7. DSNLU, Vishakhapatnam
8. Faculty of Law, Allahabad University
9. Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University
10. Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University
11. Faculty of Law, Law Centre , Delhi university
12. Faculty of Law, Lucknow University
13. GNLU, Gandhinagar
14. Government Law College, Mumbai
15. ICFAI Dehradun
16. IMS Unison School of Law, Dehradun
17. Indian Institute of Legal Studies Siliguri
18. JEMTEC Schhol of Law, Noida
19. KLE Societies’s Law College, Bangalore
20. M.S. Rammaiyah Law College, Banagalore
21. NEW Law College, BhartiyaVidyapeeth, Pune
22. NLIU Bhopal
23. NUSRL Ranchi
24. R.L.LAW COLLEGE BELGAVI
25. Raffles University, Neemrana (Rajasthan)
26. RGNUL Patiala
27. RMLNLU, Lucknow
28. School of Excellence in Law, Tamil Nadu
29. School of Law KIIT University, Bhubaneswar
30. Seedling School of Law, Jaipur
31. Unity Degree College
32. University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh
33. UPES , Dehradun

We are live now! The teams are battling it out in the Preliminary Rounds.

  • In Court Room No. 4, UILS, Chandigarh met with a rough start where the  judges grilled the first speaker from the petitioners side  on greetings only ,in court room no. 3 during the 1st preliminary round the petitioner’s cited the yogyakarta convention to which Malp is only a signatory and thus the judges refused to hear any further arguments based on the convention, the respondent equated Palshtia with Islam and the judge questioned the knowledge of the counsel about the various religions around the world.The counsel cited a judgement of the Odissa High Court and was arguing on the  facts only which did not go well down with the judges. In court rooom no. 1 during prelium round 1 the second speaker of side petitioner was not aware of doctrine of nexus.
  • In court room no. 1 the rebuttals from one of the sides were based on a arguments which were never raised in the oral submissions the judges looked baffled and the same was pointed out to the team later.
  • According to the blogging team room no. 6 was the most interesting bench of judges who shook the confidence of the counsel pleading before them.They made the counsel on the side petitioner to quote Constitution of India and then grilled them on how in the territory of Malp was the Indian Constitution applicable.initially when the side petitioner brought up the maintainability of the writ , they were asked to prove where the side respondent had challenged the maintainability and if not then why was it being raised .The respondent side in the same room were ignorant about the terms class legislature and intelligible differentia.
  • In court room no 5 the judges came down heavily on the respondent on the deficiency of the MEB and was on the verge of outrightly rejecting the further submissions of the council  calling it an outright violation of minority rights .
  • By the second preliminary round the judges gained momentum which proved to be deadly for the teams .Be it jurisdiction ,LGBT rights or the Naaz foundation case  the teams were grilled and roasted on questions of law and facts.The first speaker from NLIU Bhopal from side respondent could not satisfy the judge’s queries within the prescribed time limit.

BLOGGING TEAM IS HUNGRYYY!!! WE’LL BE BACK AT 3 SHARP (HOPEFULLY) WITH THE BREAKS.

STAY TUNED.

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU!

 HERE IT IS GUYS

HE IS NO LAWYER WHO CANNOT TAKE TWO SIDES!

 HERE ARE THE  TEAMS  QUALIFIED FOR THE QUARTERFINALS:

  1. SCHOOL OF LAW, KIIT UNIVERSITY
  2. IILS ,SILIGURI
  3. RAFFLES UNIVERSITY
  4. UILS , CHANDIGARH
  5. ARMY INSTITUTE  OF LAW , MOHALI
  6. NLIU , BHOPAL
  7. UPES , DEHRADUN
  8. GLC, MUMBAI

HEY GUYS,

TILL THE TEAMS ARE GETTING READY FOR THE QUARTERS WE WOULD LOVE TO ANNOUNCE THE PRIZES:

WINNERS:Rs 15000

RUNNERS UP :Rs 10000

BEST MEMORIAL: Rs 7500

2nd BEST MEMORIAL: Rs 5000

BEST SPEAKER : Rs 7500

2nd BEST SPEAKER : Rs 5000

4.08 pm: In court room no. 4 ground for challenging the circular was being questioned to shake the confidence of the counsel. Counsel made a blunder calling legislature as legislation and thus dug a pit for itself.judges smiling for counsel’s ignorance.

4.12 pm: Judges yet to arrive in the court room 5 LETHARGY PREVAILS!

4.15 pm:In court room no 3, heat rising, judges push the counsel to the backfoot asking them why supreme court and not the high court .counsel trying to plead ignorance,judges not accepting the same. PIL under question .

4.18 pm: In court room no. 6, the judges asking the counsel why it should accept foreign cases.the judge asserts that 3rd gender will only be transgender.

4.18 pm: In court room no. 3 hearing of second counsel  begins.court roo no. 5 stiil waiting for the judge.

4.20 pm: Constitutional morality being questioned by the judges .the answer is satisfactory.

4.22 pm: In court room no. 6 the judge asks how is sexual orientation analogous to the word sex.

4.23 pm: In court room no. 4  to be or not to be is the question.

4.27 pm: Relief for court room no. 5 Finally the judges arrive,browsing through the memos of the counsel.in court room no6. the judges confuse the counsel between ICCPR and ICSCR seems like a turning point in the argument.

4.28 pm: In court room no 6. counsel a little nervous as judges say it is the work of legislature and not judiciary to include sexual orientation into sex.

4.30 pm: Judges comment enough compassion shown by the institution as Mrs x is allowed to continue as a student in court room no. 6

4.31 pm: In court room 4, the judges comment that nothing which is submitted by the counsel is either persuasive or binding.

4.32 pm: In court room no. 5 the judges love their sandwiches grilled, not allowing the counsel to proceed with further issues

4.34 pm: In court room no 6 the judge is questioning the locus standi of the PIL .Principle of natural justice forms one part of the argument by the counsel.

4.35 pm: In court room no. 6 the judges ask how this religion is compared to islam.the judges demand in court room no. 5 if the counsel is aware of the facts .

4.36 pm: Court room no. 3, misleading might be injurious to your case.

4.39 pm: in court room no. 3 the counsel is unaware of the facts of the case.

4.40 pm: In court room no. 5 judges ask the counsel if legal righ is being violated by denying her hostel rights.the judges dont seem to adhere with the idea of justice. BICHARE BACCHE!!

4.44 pm: 1st speaker from NLIU takes the dias to present his arguments.

4.46 pm: In court rooom no. 5, our sponsor is under question- P. A.  Inamdar vs State of Maharashta.judge asks the counsel to present the copy of the judgement.minority colleges have a qualified right to protect their belief judges say.

4.48 pm: In room no. 5 the judges ask the counsel to be Buddha and enlighten the counsel with their immense knowledge.meanwhile who wants grilled counsels ,OH ! i meant sandwiches!!!

4.50 pm: In court room no. 4 , it took time because the person coordinating was lovestruck.

4.59 pm: Judges ask will the people be asked to sit naked later in the examination .

5.00 pm: In court room no. 5 the judges call for FIR and the copy of judgement s of 2008 4 SCC. counsel quoting Jeremey Bentham.

5.01 pm: In court room no 4 the principle of Audi Alterem Partem is violated.

5.04 pm: Counsel fails to distinguish between beef ban and hijab ban thereby inviting wrath of the judges.in court room no. 4 the judges warn the counsel of not to be elective and selective of facts.

5.05 pm: In court room no. 5,the judges seem to not accept the arguments. the counsel may just cry. koi paani pilao use.

5.10 pm: The counsel is ready  to strip down people if it is to curb cheating.SAVE YOURSELF PEOPLE!!!

5.11 pm: Shia Sunni  concept being involved in   room no. 6.

5.15 pm: Counsel exhausted ,asks for water.Judges doubly charged

5.20 pm: AND ITS TIME TO PRAY GUYS!!!

5.21 pm: Our convenor is charged now!

5.29 pm: Our fallen comrade is back in action in room no. 5.

5.30 pm: The timer clearly does not want the moot to continue ,shows the time up placard. This moot is turning to be a daily soap.

5.32 pm: Its been a long time in the mot and the counsel is still proving the maintainability and the locus standi. Counsel confused between the high court and supreme court. GOD SAVE THE JUDGES FROM COUNSEL OR WAIT……VICE VERSA

5.44 pm: The counsel raises the point of nexus. Wanted to hear it from so long.

5.45 pm: The round finally comes to an end!!!

So, after a long scintillating grilling rounds the names of the four ready to eat grilled cheese smoked sandwiches are below

 HERE ARE THE  TEAMS  QUALIFIED FOR THE SEMIFINALS:

  1. SCHOOL OF LAW, KIIT UNIVERSITY
  2. UILS , CHANDIGARH
  3. ARMY INSTITUTE  OF LAW , MOHALI
  4. NLIU , BHOPAL

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!

We are back! With all the preparations for the semis and final rounds going on, with all the anticipation on the faces of the participants, this day surely is going to be the most competitive one!

We would begin with the live updates as soon as the rounds begin! Stay tuned in to support your teams!

So the proceedings have begun!

11.20 a.m.:In Court Room No. 4, counsel starts by trying to dodge the questions of the judges on Art 25 and presenting a considerable number of commentaries to prove her point on Art 32.

11.21 a.m.:The judges seem to be happy this morning! Thety are patiently listening to the counsel but the counsel’s confidence is a bit shaken when it came to the application of intelligible differentia.

11.22 a.m.: A good day for the petititoners in Court Room 3! The judges are quite satisfied with the arguments! Let’s see how well the counsel manages to tackle the questions of law and facts that are being thrown at by the judges!

11.25 a.m.: Not that a happy day for the counsel in Court Room No. 5 because the judges are posing to be extremely orthodox and making things not-so-easy for the counsel!

Court Room No. 4: TERROR RULES!

11.29 a.m.: Judges is court room no 3 are real patient listeners and have finished listening to the counsel! We hop the co-counsel is also shown equal compassion!

11.35: A real good day for petitioners in Court Room no.3! The co-counsel is also presenting her arguments beautifully without any interruption from the judges.

11.43: An unusual happening in Court Room No. 4! The co-counsel who looked pretty confident while approaching the dais is stating the jurisdiction and facts of the case!

The judges for the semi finals are senior advocates of the Patna High Court, Additional Solicitor General of Patna High Court and District judges of Patna and Vaishali.

11. 53 a.m.: Judges in Court Room No. 4 are very energetic! The counsel is being bombarded with questions from the bench!

12.03 P.M.: Real trouble for petitioners in Court room no. 4! The definition of lesbians given by them did not go very well with the judges! The move which was intended to be smart has actually backfired!

12.05 P.M. Lethargy in the court Room No. 4 has forced us to send our veteran on to it. No grilling , pretty boring.

12.13 P.M. Finally some energy in court room-4. Second counsel hilariously starts pleading.

12.14 P.M. Petitioners summed up their pleading with the prayer but soon it is interrupted; judges just can’t keep it to themselves.

12.19 P.M. Judges put questions over Intelligible diffrentia.  It seems that judges are back in action.

12.21 P.M. The smiles that judges just passed is unnerving cause people are unaware if they went like Okay! you are screwed or Okay! You are taken !!!

12.23 P.M. In court room 3.  Validity of order by the university is put to question.

12.25 P.M. In court room 3 judges ask if there was furtherance of her lesbian character.

12.30 P.M. Counsel brings up matter of personal vendetta! (Okay!! a bit exaggerated!!) Judges reject.

12.31 P.M. In court room 3 judges ask to “enlighten” them on the idea of discrimination.

12.32 P.M. Court room 4 the respondent’s counsel is shocked as the judges out rightly reject the argument. Do you need a doctor for the attack ?!!

12.34 P.M. Court room 3 judges asked why is the counsel advocating only one party as the minority.

12.35 P.M. Judges try  to roast sometimes…..enough grilling has been done!

12.36 P.M. Sur rebuttals going on !

12.37 P.M. These smart phones wont allow our comrades to stay put! Court room 3 a fall back!

12.44P.M. Judges ask the respondents to forget about the petitioner and advocate the minority as a whole!

12.50 P.M. Judges are steaming the counsel for their lapses and forcing them to plead ignorance.

12. 51 P.M. Judges proved that a lawyer with a brief case can rob more than armed robbers.

12. 58  P.M Judges : Its not the counsel’s job to deal with law and order rather counsel should focus on public order which falls under its domain.

1.45 p.m Goodness gracious me! That was some real intense argumentation that took place in Court room No.4!  The proceedings have come to an end now. The judges even refused to patiently listen to teams during rebuttals. However, the teams have successfully managed to keep their calm and finish what they started;But I am being asked to praise the teams as they pleaded long enough to loose cool on us and we do fear beatings.

UNDERSTAND THIS WE ARE VERY DEDICATED LOT BUT WE GO HUNGARY(NOT THE COUNTRY) SOMETIMES NEED OUR BREAK SO WILL SEE U PEOPLE AFTER LUNCH WITH RESULTS.

THE RESULTS ARE HERE, PEOPLE!

The finals would see UILS CHANDIGARH and NLIU BHOPAL battle it out!

STAY TUNED FOR MORE!

3.43 pm

The judges have arrived . the first counsel proceeds with the facts and the arguments and it seems that the temperature is rising.

3.47pm

The judges seem engrossed in the arguments advanced . the judges are grilling them on the cases cited , but the counsel easily escapes . article 13 is being used to defend the argument.

3.49pm

The judges are going through the constitution and the rights of the minorities and clarification of this is being argued.the counsel takes a stand on the test of arbritrariness

3.52pm

Para 18  of the statement of facts clearly states that state of malp acccepts LGBT cited by the counsel.

3.53pm

Misuse of article 31 is being raised and the right to maladministration is being argued upon by the counsel

3.55pm

A case is being cited by the counsel which does not relate to the arguments raised,meanwhile the judges are discussing among  them.now judges look in a mood to grill them bombarding them with questions like how do you compare human dignity with lesbianism.

3.57pm

The counsel pleads the Nalsa judgement but it seems that they are helpless because the judges are unwilling to accept it.

4.00pm

Everybody seems so engrossed in the arguments ,meanwhile the judges ask the counsel to wind up.

4.05pm

The second counsel approaches the dias  .it seems that judges are not pleaased in being addressed as you lordship and hence they have requested the counsel to address the bench with your honour.Laughter prevails in the room.

4.06pm

The concept of burqha is being questioned by the judges.judges seem inquisitive that whether the client will wear the burqha before the doctor.The essential religious practice is in question.At this point the counsel seems to satisfy the inquisitiveness of the judge.

4.13pm

the judges seem to discuss among themselves .

4.15pm

the contention put forth by the counsel relates to the rights of the individual and the society.

Here we are with the results but first something else

The last day of the 1st P.A. Inamdar International Moot Court Competition 2016,  based on rights of minorities as well as rights of LGBT community, started with the semi-final rounds wherein UILS Chandigarh were up against KIIT University parallel to the  AIL, Mohali vs. NLIU Bhopal. The semi-finals were adjudicated by Mr.S.D. Sanjay, Additional General of Patna High Court. Mr. B.N. Pandey, Registrar, vigilance, Patna High Court, Mr. A.K. Upadhayay, Standing Counsel, Patna High Court, Sri Om Prakash, member, Bihar State legal services Authority, Mr. Birendra Kumar, District judge of Patna and Mr. A.K. Jain, District Judge of Vaishali. After a round of intense argumentation, UILS Chandigarh and NLIU Bhopal qualified for the final. The final Round was adjudicated by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mr. Hemant Gupta, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh, Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ahsanuddin Ammanullah, the Hon’ble judges of Patna High Court. Hon’ble Justice Mr. A K Trivedi and  Hon’ble Justice Mr. R. K. Mishra were also sitting in the audience.

The three daylong event came to an end with the valedictory ceremony which was presided by acting CJ of Patna High Court Hon’ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari. The valedictory ceremony started with the presentation of bouquet by miss Juhi Tiwari student of CNLU, and to Dr. Rashid Sheikh by Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Faculty CNLU. Prof. A. Lakshminath, Hon’ble V.C. CNLU, delivered the welcome address and appreciated the efforts of the organizers and healthy competitive spirits of the participants. The anchors of the ceremony, Harshit and Anubhuti gave a briefing of the competition and about Mr. P.A. Inamdar, President of M.C.E. society Pune. The chief guest address was given by Justice Ansari where he stressed upon the need of competitions like this and explained why mooting is an integral part of acquiring legal acumen. The Hon’ble Justice also emphasised on how mooting helps an aspiring advocate to develop his lawyering skills from a very young stage of his career. The much awaited results of the winners were announced by Ms. Nandita S. Jha who had played a pivotal role in organising the event. Registrar of the University Dr. S.P.Singh, proposed the vote of thanks.

Enough already now the cake the winners and not so much a winner (we meant the second and all):

  1. Winners: NLIU Bhopal
  2. Runner up: UILS Chandigarh
  3. Best Memorial: School of Law,KIIT
  4. Second best memorial:NLIU,Bhopal
  5. Best Mooter: Aarushi Pandey,UPES Dehradun
  6. Second Best Mooter: Shrishti Thakral , DSNLU Dehradun.

Like all good things this must end

.

.

.

we have more we’ll be back with video for the finals though not very good as u know photography in court rooms not allowed so its a sneak peek

just for the record it is not a issue that this fun is over new friends you made will be gone because

ONLY TIME GOODBYE IS PAINFUL WHEN YOU KNOW HELLO IS NEVER COMING AGAIN

NOT A CASE WE TELL YOU LOT TO IT IS YET TO COME

WILL SEE YOU AGAIN

AS FOR OUR VERY OWN MAYURESH SHRIVASTAVA GOOD BYE AND MAY YOU HAVE A EXCELLENT LIFE AHEAD.

WITH THIS THE BLOGGING TEAM SIGNS OFF

(Oyeshee Gupta

Shirish Chandra

Swetank Sharma

Vaibhav Shukla

Himanshu Aggarwal

Aman Naqvi

Rishikesh Kumar

Rishika Sharma

and how can we forget Pratyush Kaushik sir)