*Curtains up from 9th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition, 2019 *


Buckle up and Brace yourself for the flagship event, you can’t afford to miss out a single update.

REGISTRATION :- The Journey Begins!!

11:30 – The 24 teams arrived and the registration has begun. The long wait for the flagship event commenced with the vibrant faces in the campus. The hours of travel, spirit and enthusiasm is flashing all around. After getting themselves registered the teams are proceeding for lunch.

13:45 – The teams have gathered in the seminar hall. The inaugural ceremony is about to begin. The teams are being shown an introductory and informational video which gives a glimpse of life at Institute of Law and its prominent mooting culture.


14:05– The inaugural ceremony has commenced with full swing. The ceremony started with the lightning of the lamp by the Honorary guests. A welcome address from Prof. (Dr.) Tarkesh Molia. This was followed by the address of the Moot Court Organizing Secretary- Mr. Ojasvi Sharma who announced the 9th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition open.

14:25- The gathering is now addressed by the chief guest Dr. Nelson Dordelly of Rosales Vesalius College, Brussels, Belgium and Dr. Fabricio Fortese, Professor at Stockholm University regarding the importance of moot as well as motivating them for the upcoming competition. He also enlightened the participants regarding aspects of Competition Law and its significance in current society.

14:45 – The Chief Guest along with the participants have proceeded for the Group photographs.

15:15 – The gathering is now being addressed by Mr. Devanshu, a representative of SCC online. He conducted an interactive workshop pertaining to things regarding research and researching practices. He also guided students on how to scrounge through the online database.

17:15 – The participants are proceeding for the Researchers’ Test. The excitement of the competition is evident in the air.


17:30- The researchers’ test has begun. The researchers are busy brainstorming over the tricky test paper!

19:15 – With the end of the researcher’s test the event now moves forward with draw of lots and the memorial exchange. This is a cardinal exercise that enables the teams to scrutinize and asses the written submissions of their opponents.

20:00 – After finding out their opponents, the teams now proceed for the dinner.

This marks the end of the exhilarating first day of the 9th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition. Stay tuned for the future updates regarding the preliminary rounds starting at 10:30.


Good Morning !!

10:10 – The second day of the 9th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition kick starts with a rather competitive vibe among different teams present in the seminar hall with their research printouts and highlighters rushing through the substantive arguments prepared. The pin drop silence present in the hall represented the seriousness with which the participants have prepared their respective cases.

10:25- Participants are being briefed about the course of events and the timings for the day followed by an extensive briefing session for the judges.

10:58 – As the briefing session ends with an intense questioning of the moot points by the judges, the court rooms are now all set to witness the real action.



IL01 Vs. IL23


11:04 – The first speaker has approached the dais and enlightened the Competition Commission about the issues the speaker would discuss in the course of his speech.

11:06 – The counsel has characterized the speech in three folds, that constitutes substantive matter of law and facts that need to be addressed in the case on trial.

11:08 – The competition commission has begun cross questioning with the counsel and is skeptical about the approach and the relevance of the facts being addressed by the counsel.

11:10 – The reply to the query comprises of the fact that the informant has brought the case because of violation of Section 4 of the Competition Commission Act, 2002 and the commonality of the issues has allowed the informant to merge the addressal of the two paradigms being discussed.

11:21- The first speaker has concluded the speech and the second speaker has approached the dais. The counsel stated that he would be dealing with the fourth issue mentioned in the memorandum.

11:24- The commission has questioned the counsel regarding the case building with respect to the validity of an assumption on which the argument of the informant stood. The counsel is replying to the commission by mentioning the legal provisions that back his case.

11:38 – The commission has questioned regarding the mandate of the Competition Commission and the power vested in it regarding an important point raised by the counsel in the course of his speech.

11:40 – The Commission has requested for two minutes before the first speaker of the opposite party presents his case in order to deliberate on the arguments presented by the informants.


11:42 – The counsel of the opposite party has approached the dais and has declared that he is well versed with the jurisdictional and substantive aspects, and can characterize on the same with clarity. The confident body language and an extremely formal presentation of arguments has added positivism to the vibe of the room.

11:45 – The Commission has started questioning the counsel and his command on the facts of the case is put to test.

11:47- The counsel has used a case law as a strong precedent in order to back his case.

11:51 – The counsel has asked the commission to refer to a particular part of the moot proposition in order to prove a point he is making in course of his legal arguments.

12:03 – After being granted two extensions of 5 and 1 minutes respectively, the first counsel concluded his arguments and the second counsel has approached the dais to conclude the arguments for the opposite party.

12:06 – The commission has asked the counsel to substantiate on an agreement that constitutes of a very relevant aspect of the case.

12:09 – The commission has raised an important question with respect to the cent percent market share of a distributer that is a relevant fact in the issue being addressed. The commission has asked the counsel to clarify on the aspect of ‘Competition’ in the argument presented and also to enlighten the Commission with a strong precedent to back the claims being made by the counsel.


12:20 – The informants have proceeded for rebuttals and are apparently deconstructing the case of the opposite party by pointing out specific arguments that were presented by them. The informants are trying to prove that most of the arguments presented by the opposition were ‘superficial’.

12:25 – The opposite party have initiated the rebuttals by drawing comparatives and concluded by proving a point that apparently gives them an edge over the case presented by the informants.

12:30 – The proceeding is concluded.


IL04 VS. IL21


11:07 The informant’s first speaker has approached the dais. The first speaker has fulfilled the required formalities and respect to be shown to the judges.

11:09 -The speaker begins her speech by introducing the initial facts and the issues that they shall address.

11:15 – Judges make several factual queries regarding the case, stunning the speaker for a minute with an imposing question regarding the reason for the informant’s claim in the presence of the bench.

11:21 The speaker is standing her ground to the heavy factual questions that the judge is sending her way. However, some questions are visibly rattling the informants.

11:26 – The speaker is concerned about the time allotted to her, however the judge is granting extensions, to seek information regarding the competitive decisions made by the competition.

11:33 – The judge begins to move on to questions regarding the law and the legal standing that the informant’s case rests upon. However the speaker seems well prepared regarding questions of law.

11:37 – The second speaker approaches the dais, and explains the issues and arguments that shall be raised.

11:41 – Market share questions have the speaker stunned, and the judge does not accept their replies and simply asks the speaker to move on to the next issue.

11:47 – The speaker raises a sub-issue within the primary issue of the case presented. Therefore inviting back questions from judges that were left unsatisfactory previously.

11:53 – Exclusivity regarding the products sold by the informants, has left the speaker literally silent. The judges refuse to leave the question unanswered. The speaker is making her best attempt to either dodge or justify the questions.

11:57 – The second speaker concludes her speech and mentions her prayer.


12:00 – The first speaker from the opposite party begins by explaining their version of events, facts and issues.

12:07 – Market share questions from the judge flag off the rapid-fire round for the opposite party.

12:17 – The judges have found the weak link in the counsel’s case and they have latched on. The counsel has received 4 chits so far, and is looking for a way to end this line of questioning.

12:23 – The counsel is visibly showing a lack of confidence while moving on to their new issue, due to the gun fire received in the previous issue.

12:30 – Judges urge the counsel to move onto the next submission, the first speaker herself has taken up the time that is allotted to the entire team. However, the judges seems motivated to question every claim made by the counsel.

12:34 – The counsel’s first speaker with a sigh of relief concludes her arguments and vacates the dais. The second speaker in order to save time makes a quick run directly into arguments, wasting no time.

12:41 – The researcher comes to the aid of the speaker, getting increasingly aggressive with chits, to the joy of the speaker at the sight of the much-needed relief.

12:49 – The speaker concludes the opposite party’s arguments end and the prayer is heard by the judges.


12:50 – The speaker addresses the rebuttals of the informants within the 1 minute granted by the judges. She manages to address the opposite party’s claims well.

12:53 – The other party’s speaker also begins the rebuttal within the 1 minute allotted.

12:55 – The moot concludes and the teams vacate the courtroom.



IL07 v. IL48


11:07 – With all the permissions granted the first counsel puts forward his argument based primarily on facts and is immediately bombarded with questions. The counsel still manages to hold his calm and answers confidently.

11:22 – With the time up for the first speaker the judges allow an extension of 2 minutes to let the speaker complete his arguments.

11:24 – The speaker is now instructed to summarize his argument under 30 seconds and he does so in an beguiling way.

11:25 – The co-counsel approaches the dais and asks for permission but before starting with her arguments she is asked a fundamental question on law, based on a confusion in their memorandum.

11:27- The co-counsel maintains her composure and tries to assuage the courtroom environment. An exchange of questions and answers resumes.

11:42 – After a grueling session the co-counsel is asked to state her prayer.

11:43 – The 1st half of the session ends.


11:43 – The first speaker commences confidently and is asked questions regarding the various legal determinants of  dominating position. The counsel found himself in trouble but the arguments go on.

11:55 – With only 2 minutes left, chits from the researcher are being continuously passed to the counsel but he still finds himself in a downward spiral of trouble and is told to move forward to his next issue.

11:57 – TIME IS UP! The judges allow an extension of time to the first speaker.

12:01 – The counsel is now directed to move to his next issue before being told to conclude his issue in 15 seconds.

12:03 – The co-counsel approaches the dais and is asked to answer the question that was asked to the first counsel. The judges don’t seem too satisfied  with the answer.

12:13 – Judges ask the counsel to summarize his argument under 30 seconds and then he moves towards the prayer on which questions were raised as well.

No rebuttals were there.

12:15 – Both the teams move outside the courtroom and the judges begin the evaluation.


IL05 v. IL18


11:07 – The first speaker on the behalf of the informant, approaches the dais. The counsel starts with the first submission.

11:10 – In the beginning, the counsel was a bit nervous but as the round moves forward the counsel handles the situation with utmost ease and confidence.

11:19 – The bench throws multiple questions towards the counsel, the counsel was a bit confused and then he was asked to proceed with the other submissions.

11:30 – The second speaker seems more confident and addresses the questions with calmness and composition.

11:38 – Because of shortage of time, the counsel was asked to wrap up the arguments and proceed with the prayer.


11:45 – The counsel for opposite party has started off and has not shown any sign of nervousness.

11:49 – The counsel was grilled on the facts of the case as well as the laws associated with it.

11:57 – The style of presenting the arguments was nicely framed and it displayed a good temperament.

12:05 – The second speaker approaches the dais. The judges are interrupting the speaker at several instances and so the speaker seems a little anxious.

12:18 – The counsel was not allowed to read the prayer and was asked to proceed with the rebuttals.



IL02 v. IL24


11:14- The Informants have approached the dice with the due permission of the Honourable judges. The counsel about the roles of all the counsels. Counsel proceeds towards stating the statement of facts.  The judges start inquiry as to what case is the counsel arguing. The counsel clarifies the same. The judges question the counsel regarding their statement of jurisdiction. The judges are curious as to the claim that the counsel makes regarding their statement of jurisdiction.

11:20- The counsel asks the Judges to refer to the memorial and fact sheet and corrects the section under which the council is approaching the Honourable court. Informants begin with their 1st contention and plead the Judges to refer to their prepared compendium. The Judges in return ask the counsel to justify the facts rather than dealing with the law first.

11:25- The Judges are curious to know about facts and stance that the informants are coming up for. Counsel refers to a case to justify their claim. Further the counsel begins with their submissions and portray the problem that exists in front of the judges. The judges further ask for the relevance of the claim that the informants come up with.

11:29- The judges ask for the relevance of all the claims mentioned by the counsel and ask them to back their arguments only by facts and not quoting only case laws.

11:34- The judges ask some bold and tough questions. The counsels hesitate and answer in a stalled manner. The judges ask the 1st counsel to sum up in 30 seconds. At last the Honourable judges ask about a relevant case law pertaining to the case, the counsel answers in denial.

The 2nd counsel approaches the dais with the due permission of the judges and begins the next issue.

11:39- The counsel cites a case and judges ask about the facts of the said case. The counsel answers in denial and moves forward with the issues. After some rapid-fire questions from the side of the judges, the counsel very well deals with the same and tries their best to convince the judges by citing some case laws and justifying the logic that the facts contain.

11:52- The counsel was questioned on the relevance of the facts that are being cited and after an attempt to do so the co-counsel draws an analogy but it appears that it has some mild effect on the judges.

11:58- The Informants are given time to summarize their whole case and the co-counsel does the same with persistence and seeks the permission to end their case.


12:00- The counsel seeks permission to approach the dais and is permitted to do the same. The counsel briefs the judges about the relevant facts pertaining to their case and plead to move forth with their issues. The fundamentals of the law involved are asked to the counsel which is tried to be dealt with.

12:07- After a lot of frivolous arguments from the side of the counsel, the judges state that they are dissatisfied with the logic that the counsel has been trying to prove and they ask clarification for the same.

12:13- With confidence the counsel attempts to defend their stance and deny the Informants’ case and puts up more arguments from their side. The judges look unconvinced and grant the permission to the counsel to end the arguments.

12:19- The co-counsel of the Opposite party is granted the permission to approach the dais and the beginning is portrayed with a lot of confidence by the co-counsel. The Judges ask the co-counsel to address the issue they stand for.

12:25- After an attempt to convince the judges the co-counsel very smartly tried to make a conglomeration of logic, facts and law. The judges still being very dissatisfied ask the counsel to state the relevance of a case law and its jurisdiction. With an explanation of the same the counsel is asked the logic and relevance of a principle over which the argument of the Opposite party is based.

12:36- The judges start questioning the co-counsel on the fact matrix as they are unconvinced with the understanding of the wordings of the fact sheet. The co-counsel tries to keep calm and answer the long questions put forth by the judges. The judges begin questioning co-counsel’s arguments and ask relevant relation of the arguments with the fact sheet.

12:45- After a lot of grueling questions by the judges, the co-counsel faces difficulty in dealing with the questions with a logical explanation, but keeping calm and peace the co-counsel tries to argue further.

12:50- The co-counsel is asked to summaries their case within 30 seconds. The Opposite party ends their case.

12:52- The rebuttal session from both sides begin with criticism of each other’s cases and providing a concrete stance to their own arguments.

12:56- Both the teams moved out of the court room and the judges began evaluation.





IL21 v. IL10


13:30 – The first speaker approaches the dice and very eloquently summarizes the fact for the facts for the bench. She is well mannered in her speech and the judges, for now, listen to her carefully mixed with a few fundamental questions regarding the case. She does not hesitate and answers them confidently.

13:45 – Time is up now up for the first speakers but the judges grant the extension of time and the questioning continues.

13:57 – The argument by the first speaker is still going on and there is no sign of them stopping anytime soon!

14:00 – Before the speaker finishes, the judges move forward with the last set of questions.

14:13 – After a great session and well presented argument by the first speaker the second speaker now approaches the dice and puts forward her argument in an expressive but sensitive market.

14:32 – After a series of questions and a ton of explanations the second speaker now moves forward to the prayer.


14:35 – The first speaker moves to the dice and is told by the judges to start with the facts.

14:42  – After putting forward some arguments, the grilling from the dissatisfied judges begins. The counsel seems confused but tries to maintain his temperament and confidence.

14:54 – Unable to put forward a compelling argument the speaker is asked to moved to the next issue. Now, even more dissatisfied the court moves forward the second speaker.

14:55 – The speaker starts with clearing out the facts and arguments regarding the 1st issue to get a hold of the whole situation. She then moves forward to the 3rd issue.The speaker is well versed and is able to maintain her stand.

15:18 – After some more factual questioning, the speaker is asked to move to the prayer.

15:20 – The judges direct the teams to present their rebuttals in a concise manner due to the paucity of time.

15:24 This marks the end of the gruesome round.



 IL13 v. IL02


13:22 – The first counsel has approached the dais to present his case and when asked on who they were representing gave a clarification to the commission for the query presented. He also clarified on why the informants have merged two significant parties to the case and presented them as informants.

13:30 – The counsel has been asked to substantiate on the ‘point of relevant market’. The commission has asked to present a case law in order to back the argument presented by the counsel with respect to competition in the case of Jio and other telecommunication companies that was mentioned in speech.

13:37 – The counsel used a case law as a strong precedent in order to address the next issue. The precedent based argument was questioned by the commission on the grounds of its subjectivity. The commission gave a follow up to the reply given by quoting a clause from the act.

13:42 – A series of questions were bombarded on the counsel by the commission wherein the counsel acknowledged the relevance of the issues raised and assured that they will be addressed in the course of his speech during the case building.

13:44 – A relevant question was raised by the commission and the reply by the counsel consisted of the guidelines of a statutory body which was followed by a discourse regarding ‘pricing’ that was a major section of the arguments presented.

13:49 – There is a slight confusion with respect to the representation of parties by the counsels and the second speaker stated that under the powers vested in the commission it had discretionary powers for the same. The commission is seen brainstorming on the issue for almost five minutes with the informants in a nail-biting state.

13:54 – The commission allowed the informants to choose a side but the memorandum would not be accepted since it was not shared with the opposite party. The informants with all due respect presented contention for the decision. Seeing the professionalism, the commission allowed the course of argumentation and case presentation that the informants had deemed valid.

14:12 – The counsel is questioned by the commission wherein they ask the counsel to justify the formation of an entity by expressed or implied agreement with respect to amalgamation of multiple ventures in the case that is being interpreted by the informants followed by the definition of the term ‘joint venture’.


14:21 – The first counsel for the opposition party has approached the dais and has initiated the arguments accordingly.

14:22 – The counsel has to face the questions by the commission in the very first minute of the speech and has been requested a clarification with regards to first statement given by her.

14:29 – The speech of the counsel saw a few inconsistencies and abrupt breaks, though the relevance of the arguments presented cannot be judged on these grounds.

14:39 – Counsel 2 approaches the dais and first mentions as to what issues he would be addressing. He stated about the violations of Section 3 Sub Sections 1 and 4 of the Competition Commission Act, 2002 in the facts of the case.

14:43 – The commission asks an exclusive question as to ‘how exactly is there a competition at the distributive level?’, this question is in context of the vertical arrangement with respect to the approach of their represented party.

14:55 – The commission feels a missing link in the speech of the counsel with respect to the facts of the case and the legal arguments being presented by the counsel.


Rebuttals to be presented only on the first 3 issues since both sides argued for the same party.

15:04 – The informants presented the rebuttals only on the first 2 issues.

15:06 –The opposition party presented their respective rebuttals and also presented the conclusion of their previous argument that they couldn’t conclude due to paucity of time in the speech of the second counsel.

IL19 v. IL06


13:30 – The Speaker has approached the dais.

13:34 – From the very beginning the counsel faces an array of questions by the bench and the counsel was a bit confused.

13:42 – The bench tries to relates the case with various current issues. The counsel addresses the fact sheet and tries to convince the bench with the same.

13:45 – The counsel is questioned by the judges on the assumptions in her arguments and counsel seems nervous in her answer.

13:48 – The counsel was asked to rest her case.

13:52 – After taking all the permission, the speaker proceeds with the submissions.

13:55 –The judges grill the counsel on a certain point of law and the counsel pleads ignorance.

14:00 – Due to time restraints, the counsel was asked to proceed with the prayer. It seems that the judges were not fully convinced with the arguments of the speaker.


14:04 –The counsel start with the first submission and was stuck in the initial stage as the bench bombarded with questions related to jurisdiction of the case and laws related to it.

14:09 – The counsel tries to convince the bench by citing the cases and on this the counsel is subjected to heavy grilling as the counsel was not well versed with the facts of the cases cited.

14:12 – The counsel is stuck in their own arguments and assumptions. The counsel seems unaware of the queries put up by the judges.

14:18 – The counsel was asked to proceed with the second submission and subsequently asked to rest her submission

14:20 – The speaker lays down the structure of her speech.

14:22 – The speaker is asked by the bench to not just merely read the written submissions but to explain the same to the bench.

14:25 – There is a lack of confidence and the counsel is unable to understand the questions raised by the bench.

14:26 – The speaker stumbles a little in the prayer pleadings and rests their case.

14:29 –  The bench denies for the rebuttals.



*Now for the most awaited moment of all! The teams patiently wait for the prelims results.*
The team qualifying for the quarter finals are


IL19 -Indore Institute Of Law, Indore

IL05 – National Law Institute University, Bhopal

IL17 – Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi

IL07 – National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kerala

IL24 – School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru 

IL04 – Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab 

IL18 – Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar 

IL21 – Symbiosis Law School, Noida 


Hearty congratulations to all the teams!



IL17 v. IL04


17:20 –The first speaker from the informant side approaches the dais and start. He starts off articulately by explaining the facts and the jurisdiction on which he is questioned on and hesitates with the answer as the judges propose that the team’s statement of jurisdiction was wrong.

17:28 – The counsel is able to answer all the questions but the judges seem to be a little dissatisfied with them.

17:40 –The time is up but the judges allow an extension.

17:43 – The counsel is asked some fundamental questions relating to competition laws and even told to read out a couple of sections from the Bare Act.

17:51 –Looking at the paucity of time the judges ask the counsel to sum up issue 3 as quickly as possible.

17:54 –The second speaker starts with Issue 4 and is verbose with her arguments. She calmly answers all the sacrosanct questions posed by the judges in an eloquent and confident manner. The judges seem to be content with her arguments.

18:05 – The argument continues with gruesome questions followed by well put together arguments.

18:08 –The time is up and the counsel is told to conclude her arguments.

18:12 –The counsel rests her case after reciting the prayer ans now its time for the opposition to state their arguments.


18:14 –The first speaker from the opposition approaches the dais and after being granted all the permissions she moves forward with the argument. She is told to refer back to her statement of jurisdiction as it might be incorrect.

18:18 – The judges ask the counsel if she is absolutely sure that she wants to continue with their jurisdiction. She insists to move forward.

18:20 – The speaker is confident in her choice and arguments and argues in the same manner and is able to tackle all the questions put forward by the judges.

18:32 2 minutes left and the counsel asks for an extension of time. The judges refuse.

18:34 – The counsel asks for 3 minutes of extra time to put forward her 3rd issue but the judges only grant 1 extra minute. The room gets tensed!

18 :35 – The second speaker now moves to the dais. She starts with the fourth issue.  She cites various cases and does not hesitate in answering any of the questions. She maintains her pace given the paucity of time.

18:47 – The counsel then moves forward with the prayer.

18:48  – The teams were not given any chance of rebuttals.


IL21 v. IL05


17:18- The counsel from the side of Informants permission to approach the dais and on being granted the same proceed and begin the case from their side. The counsel is requested to present the facts in a nutshell by the judges and the counsel follows. The counsel then proceeded towards putting forth their issues.

17:24- The counsel is asked by judges to prove the locus under which the Informants have approached this Commission. The Judges enquire if the Informants are an aggrieved party in the case. This question on jurisdiction and statute bewilders the council to answer.

17:30- Citing certain statutes to do so the counsel stands on its jurisdiction and the judges look partly convinced. The counsel then proceeds to their 1st issue. The counsel began substantiating on them. The judges then begin by questioning the condition of the present world and the facts, asking the counsel to justify their standing before this commission.

17:35- In order to prove their case and convincing the judges, the counsel is desperately trying to prove how a problem exists in the case by using the fact sheet, the judges are then curious about knowing all the technicalities of the market and economy in order to check the knowledge of the counsel.

17:42- Due to time constraints, the counsel is given a time cap under which the counsel has to prove their issues. The counsel then moved towards the 2nd issue of accessibility. The counsel then cites some statutes to prove their stance but the judges do not appear happily convinced.

17:45- The counsel is asked to summaries in a minute. Adhering to the same the counsel summaries the issues and arguments and the co-counsel approaches the dais with the due permission of the judges. The counsel offers to reiterate the facts but is asked to proceed further.

17:48- The co-counsel provides some clarity to the definitions which pertain to the said case. The judges ask the co-counsel if she is aware of a said statute to which the answer goes in denial. Then the judges start questioning on the facts pertaining to this case.

17:53- A particular case law is being questioned by the judges from the co-counsel, the co-counsel tries to draw a relation between the facts of the two cases and try to convince the judges. In return, the co-counsel is offered some additional bullet questions.

17:58- The counsel is demanded to move ahead to the last issue in brief. The judges again begin weighing the informants’ argument of consumer affect and is questioned on the same. The judges remain unsatisfied with the locus argument of the informant.

18:03- A relevant case law is again questioned to by the Judges, asking the relevance of the judgement in that case if applied in this case. The counsel pleaded apologies for unawareness of the same. A hypothetical situation is then put up by the judges to mark the co-counsel’s knowledge of statute and application of logic and facts.

18:08- With the end of arguments from side Informants, the counsel is asked to proceed to the prayer. The judges ask if the commission is authoritative enough, if it is, the co-counsel is asked to cite the act saying so. The co-counsel is unable to do so and asks if clarification in rebuttals shall be entertained but are answered in denial.


18:12- The counsel approaches the dais with permission of the judges and are immediately held up by the questions of the judges which relate to the year of the case and demand a clarification for the moot proposition which the counsel is unaware about.

18:15- The counsel proceeds to their arguments, but were interrupted by the judges when they ask for a brief summary of facts from the counsel. The judges then bind the counsel to the firing of questions wherein they demand the counsel to prove the jurisdiction that this commission has over the matter to which the counsel tries to respond but in the initial stages is unsuccessful to do so.

18:23- After a lookup in the bare act and discussion with the co-counsel and researcher, the counsel is successful to prove the jurisdiction before this commission. The counsel is asked to proceed further with the issues and arguments. In the beginning itself the judges ask the counsel to define certain relevant terms in the statute or fact matrix.

18:29- The judges try to bring out similarity in the informants’ position and there in accordance with case and they demand the counsel to bring out distinction and prove that they are viable enough to stand before the commission. The counsel tries to distinguish itself from a monopoly. The counsel is asked to justify its stance from any statute.

18:34- The judges offer the counsels a way through which they can prove their standings and are asked to proceed further. The counsel accepts and follows. The judges then start session pertaining to the facts and case asking the counsel to justify their innocence and make a concrete stance.

18:38- The counsel is given a time extension and a cap to finish within 5 minutes wherein they need to summarize their case and convince the judges. The counsel is then questioned regarding the relevance of a cited case law towards which the counsel pleaded ignorance.

18:45- Even after several arguments it looks like counsel’s all means to convince the judges is going waste as the questions about clarity are still being asked. The judges then ask for the co-counsel to approach and dais and continue the arguments from the side of the Opposition side. The counsel follows and begin the next issue.

18:48- After certain clarifications, the judges pose a hypothetical condition and ask the counsel to draw an analogy between that situation and the factual condition, to which the initial response is quick and precise but the following questions deviate the stance.

18:53- The judges again circle the co-counsel around the jurisdiction and authority issue and later ask the co-counsel to move to the last issue. The co-counsel follows.

19:00- The co-counsel is addressing the last issue and is asked certain questions wherein answer is demanded in terms of economics and logic. The co-counsel became confused and tried to address the issue put forth. The counsel is asked to defend its stance.

19:06- The judges try to establish that the oppositions’ case has some short comings and are asked to point out the same. The co-counsel is unable to do so. The co-counsel is later asked to move to the prayer and for the same the judges asked the authority of the commission to pass such prayer. The co-counsel answers without confidence and with confusion.

19:10- The Opposite party rests their case and the Informants are offered some time for rebuttal and the counsel approaches the dais with criticisms to the opposite case and concretes their arguments and justify their jurisdiction as it was missing earlier. The Opposition party is offered a chance to rebut but the same was denied.

The round ended.

IL 18 v. IL 24


17:20 The counsel appears before the Hon’ble Court and lays down the structure in which she would proceed with her arguments.

17:26 – Counsel starts to argue the first issue confidently with a swift paced speech.

17:30 – The counsel is interrupted by judge’s queries, but she tackles them effectively and proceeds with her arguments.

17:35 – The judges seems quite impressed with the arguments being put forth.

17:40 – There is a difference of opinion between the bench and the counsel but the counsel with her reasoning and knowledge tries to convince the bench with her arguments.

17:45 – The counsel firmly interprets the questions raised by the bench and tries to answer all the questions with her wisdom

17:48 – The counsel is moving on smoothly with her arguments and the bench seems convinced.

17:53 – The counsel is asked to define certain terms and principle used in the proposition.

18:00 – The counsel was given chance to revise their prayer instead of directing and merely requesting. And the counsel was asked to sum up all the arguments in a minute.

18:07 – The speaker approaches the dais and state the submissions which the counsel is going to deal with.

18:09 – It seems that there is an interesting discussion among the judges regarding the case.

18:12 – The counsel provides the bench with certain case laws and tries to convince the bench with that. Few questions on the knowledge of facts were placed before the counsel to which the counsel responds humbly and calmly.

18:21 – There were direct questions on the knowledge of laws relating to the case and the counsel humbly answers majorly all the questions raised.

18:28 – Then further the counsel moved to the prayer.


18:30 – The counsel starts by defining the jurisdiction in the present matter. After the preliminary questions on the jurisdiction, the counsel proceeds with the first issue.

18:38 – A fluent and uninterrupted start by the counsel. Few queries been put up on market competition, cartel and Standard form of contract by the bench.

18:43 – The counsel was a bit stuck with the queries of the lordship but the counsel tries to dodge the bench and moves to the next issue.

19:08 – The speaker 1 completes all her arguments and invited the co-counsel to proceed with the further submissions.

19:10 – The second speaker approaches the dais.There is some discussions among the judges. And then the round continues.

19:14 – The speaker seems confident and is able to answer the questions raised by the bench.

19:20 – The counsel explains all the terms used in the arguments with proper reasoning. The counsel is asked questions on the legal provisions of competition law. With valid reasoning and knowledge, the counsel answers all the relevant questions.

19:27 – The bench posed a series of questions before the counsel. So the counsel was bit anxious as she was stuck to judge’s tricky query. The chits were passed by researcher to help the counsel and to bring her arguments on track.

19:33 – It seems that the bench is not satisfied with the arguments of the counsel.

19:35 – The counsel is asked to proceed with the prayer and conclude the arguments.

19:38 – The bench asked to continue with the rebuttals not on similar but on uncommon issues of the parties.

The round ended.


This marks the end of the quarterfinals. The teams are pumping with excitement for the results. Stay tuned for further updates of the Grand finale and the semi-finals tomorrow.

*The result has been declared. Teams who have qualified for Semi-Finals are team*

IL21 – Symbiosis Law School, Noida
IL04 – Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
IL19 -Indore Institute Of Law, Indore
IL24 – School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru

Congratulations to all the Teams.
See you all tomorrow for the finals. Stay tuned!!!

DAY 3  

11:10 – The much-awaited semi-finals have started! The judges are briefed and the teams are pumped up to put their best foot forward.


IL 21 v. IL 04


11:15 – The first speaker on the behalf of the informant approaches the dais with the permission of the bench and lays down the structure of the arguments.

11:20 – The speaker starts confidently. As soon as the speech started the counsel was questioned by the bench over the basic laws.

11:23 – It seems that the speaker is not well versed with the given facts and hence not able to relate the laws with the facts.
Also the counsel was unable to answer the questions raised by the bench on the interpretation of the given facts.

11:28 –The bench is not fully satisfied with the arguments advanced by the speaker and asked her to conclude the same and proceed with the prayer.

11:30 – The speaker was asked whether she want to amend the prayer and further asked about the procedure of amending the prayer.

11:35 – The second counsel proceeded with the arguments and asked the permission of the bench to address 3 issues. But in a fury of moment the bench asked the counsel to describe a basic principle of the statute, which she tried to answer in best of her capability.

11:40 – Then the counsel proceeds with the sub-issue under the different legislation. With a constant questioning over the source of arguments and the nature of provision the bench asked to substantiate the arguments first and then referring to the precedents. The counsel further referred to the fact sheet in order to draw the attention of the bench as in regard to their question.

11:43 – The counsel is asked to conclude the arguments and proceed with the prayer.


11:53 – The counsel from the opposite party approaches the dais and took the relevant permissions and provides the structure of submissions which the counsel is going to deal.

11:56 –The judges seem unconvinced by the arguments put up by the counsel .  The counsel addresses the fact sheet and convinces the bench with the same.The counsel refers to legal provisions and is putting in all the efforts to convince the bench but is being regularly interrupted by the bench subject to grilling.

12:00 – The counsel argues the facts tactfully, however Judges rebut by stating the the Counsel’s arguments are based on assumptions. It seems difficult for the counsel to convince the bench.

12:07 – The counsel is subjected to heavy grilling on the legal provisions related to the facts, however counsel stands firm with all politeness and courteousness and tries to answer all the queries of the judges.

12:14 – The counsel proceeds to the second submission. The counsel tries to convince her issue by drawing a comparison between the services provided by them and services provided by Ola, Swiggy and other online service providers.

12:21 – The bench is not completely satisfied with the second submission but permitted the counsel to proceed with the next submission and subsequently to the prayer.

12:24 – The judges ask queries related to the prayer and if there is any provision to amend the prayer but the counsel was unaware with the provision.

12:28 – The speaker seems confident. Although, she speaks in haste. She starts her arguments confidently and is well mannered. The judges give her the time to complete her first argument.

12:30 – The judges throws a series of question but it seems that counsel is facing difficulty in understanding the questions raised.

12:33 – With the proper reasoning and knowledge of the facts and laws, the counsel is able to convince the bench to the fullest.

12:36 – The bench ask the counsel to provide her views on the formation of cartel by the opposite party and ask her to define the cartel and how to determine it.

12:41 – The counsel is stuck in her own arguments. She looks a bit fluttered. Series of questions continue from the side of judges, speaker unable to answer a few of them. The speaker is questioned on the reliability of the judgement cited and the bench concludes that the judgement is not relevant to the present case.

12:50 – The counsel is not able to satisfy the bench with her arguments also the counsel is not able to justify the cases cited. Also it seems that the counsel is unaware of the complete facts of the case.

12:57 – The counsel is asked to move to the prayer.

Rebuttals were extensive and fierce.


IL19 v. IL24


11:01 – The counsel seek permission to approach the Dias and asked to raised the issues.

11:12 – The counsel seemed a little nervous while arguing the issues though they were able to convey the idea across the table.

11:19 – As by the time, the counsel got comfortable while it’s concern matters and was able to put forth the statements in an easy manner.

11:25 – The bench fired upon with a lot a queries which was smoothly reverted back by the counsel. It seemed that the little hindrances couldn’t affect the counsel much.

11:35- The counsel after clearing its first issue moved to further issues contended by them.

The questions were raised by the bench on legal issues. Some of them were waived by pleading ignorance, rest were answered efficiently.

11:46 – The counsel after arguing on all the issues raised, handed over the rest to its co counsel

11:47- The bench granted permission to the counsel for approaching the Dias.

11:48 – The counsel greeted the bench and started with the further issues raised.

11:52 – The counseling was at ease in conveying it’s contentions to the bench.

11:55 – The bench tried to confuse the counsel and they are quite successful in it. The counsel pleaded ignorance for not being able to answer the queries.

12:07 – Even after so many questions,the counsel seemed confident to answer them one by one.

12:14 – The counsel pleaded the prayer and explained as to why it should be granted. Subsequently, rested its case.


12:16- As the speaker moves forward with her arguments she is asked some complex legal questions but she handles them gracefully.

12:22 –She is then told to refer to a few definitions from the act and then questioned if her current argument can be submitted or not. She does not hesitate and argues further.

12:33 – The show goes on and the speaker continues to hold her stance and is confident in her arguments and answers.

12:37 – Time is up but the speaker asks for am extension. The judges have no problem granting the extension.

12:45 –All the three judges ask the speaker a couple of factual questions and she finds herself in some trouble to answer them

12:49 – The speaker now moves to issue 2. She flows through with it gracefully and eloquently while the judges listen to her with rapt admiration.

12:58 – The case takes a turn and now the counsel is asked a few questions regarding data sharing. She answers by quoting the information technology act and intellectual property rights. The judges were impressed with the answers.

1:04  – The speaker now moves to the third issue and is again bombarded with questions from all the judges.

1:05 – The second speaker now moves to the dais. She starts with quoting how the first speaker from the informant’s side was wrong and puts her arguments forward in a polished way.

1:13 – After some discussion over the French Electronics case the speaker now moves forward to the next issue.

1:20 – The speaker states several cases to support her arguments and the judges seem to be content with her arguments.

1:25 – The is up! The counsel asks for an extension and is granted the same by the judges.

1:29 – The speaker then moves to the prayer. There were no questions regarding that.

1:30 – Time for rebuttals! Each team is granted 5 minutes each for rebuttals by the judges.

The informants now begin with the intense rebuttals. The opposition party argued back with the same confidence


After the impassioned and exhilarating semi-finals it is now time for the much awaited results of the finals!

Drum roll!

The finalists are

IL24 – School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru

IL04 – Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

A fierce final battle awaits them!

The finals are scheduled for 14:30




IL04 v. IL24


14:30 – The judges grant permission to the speaker to approach the dais. She begins with her argument by stating some facts.

14:33 – She is questioned about some confusion over facts regarding the overall marker share. She hesitates at first but then answer in a firm manner.

14:36 – There was a difference of opinion in the interpretation of the facts by the judge and the counsel so the counsel tries to convince the bench by drawing differences between the two markets i.e the golden pass and the beaut-box.

14:44 – The speaker is then asked questions regarding applications of legal provision with the given facts of the case. She maintains her stand and with sound reasoning and knowledge gives a satisfactory response.

14:46 – She is then told to refer to various sections of competition law and told to connect her arguments with the given definitions of law.

14:50 – The judges ask if the terms and principles used by the speaker are defined in the law or not

14:55 – The judges now ask her to check her locus standi. She maintains her calm and is able to explain her arguments well. The judges still remain adamant on the fact as to why the informants think the case comes under the jurisdiction of competition commission and not under consumer protection and to cite some case laws to support her arguments . She finds herself in spiraling trouble to answer back.

14:59 – With 2 minutes left the speaker asks an extension of time but is told by the judges to complete this point first and then continue with the prayer.

15:00 – She is asked to explain some points out of the relief asked by the informants and is able to answer them gracefully.

15:10 – As the second speaker approaches the dais she is asked which client she will be representing and the mutual agreement of the judges it was decided that the opposition party’s first speaker should argue first instead of the second speaker of the informant for the sake of continuity.


15:12 – Counsel takes the dais and asks the relevant permissions. As the counsel begins with her first submission, there is series of questions on the jurisdiction of the present case. She gives a satisfactory answer.

15:20 –She asked to refer to the moot problem and if she agrees with the authority of the given facts or not. She agrees with some of it and explain the reasoning behind it.

15:23 – The counsel is asked to just not read the written submissions but to follow the lines of argument and to pick up any argument and explain it in detail.

15:26 – The bench asks the counsel to rely on any precedents to support the arguments.

15:27 – She is further asked to state the crux of her arguments on why should the informants case should be dismissed and is further told to just focus on those.

15:30 – The judges seem to be a little dissatisfied with her arguments while the speaker also finds herself in trouble to maintain her points and is further grilled with several questions.

15:40 – The speaker was asked questions beyond the facts provided to test the knowledge of the counsel on various other aspects of applying the laws


15:43 – Now the second speaker from the informants side approaches the dais. She begins by stating some facts and relating them by citing a couple of cases.The speaker is then questioned on the validity of the judgements cited and whether the case is relevant to the present case.

15:48 – She moves forward by citing EU guidelines. Then counsel moves to the other submission with a swift paced speech.

15:58 – The speaker is heavily grilled as she is unable to justify her arguments and the courtroom is now more tensed than ever.

16:04 – The speaker is baffled by the questions put forward by the judges and she freezes for a moment. The judges direct the speaker to not confuse them with irrelevant facts.

16:08 – The speaker then moves forward to the prayer and is asked whether this is all what the informants want.


16:09 – The second speaker from the opposition party  now moves to the dais and puts forward her arguments confidently.

16:11 – The speaker is asked to not read out the laws verbatim but to explain it to them and is also asked about relevant definitions related to the case.

16:15 – The speaker now begins with the next issue lays out the favoring and relevant facts.

16:25 – The speaker is asked some substantive questions and is able to answer them without any hesitation.

16:32 – She now moves forward to the 5th issues and the judges seem really dissatisfied with the issue. She is asked to sum it up in under 5 minutes.

16:48 – After a grueling session of over 2 hours the competition has now come to an end and everyone seems more excited than before waiting for the final results.


All the participants and judges are gathered in the Seminar Hall for the Valedictory Ceremony,

It all boils down to this final moment. As everyone waits for the result of the competition the exhilaration and the tension is evidently present in the room.

Here are the results.

Best speaker –  Prerna Luthra : Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi 

Best Memorial – Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Best Researcher – Ananya Singh : Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab  

Goodwill Award – NMIMS, Mumbai

Runner up – Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab  

WINNER – Christ University Bangalore.

Congratulations to the Winners for excelling to heights and greetings and regards to all the participating teams. It’s been a wonderful journey. We look forward to hosting you all in the 10th Institute of Law National Moot Court Competition. Kudos to the every organizing team members of right from the convener to the volunteers. Cheers guys we made it.

This marks the end of the 9th Institute of Law National Moot Court Competition!

We’ll be back next year bigger and better..

One comment

  • Avatar

    Hey, a quick correction. In the last round IL-04 were the informants and IL-24 were the opposite party. It should not be IL-24 v IL-04, rather it should be IL-04 v IL-24.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.