10th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition, 2021 in association with Competition Commission of India

Inauguration Ceremony

The Moot Court (Organizing) Committee, ILNU is hosting annual flagship event, the 10th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition 2021 in association with Competition Commission of India from April 16-18, 2021. With the aim to foster quality research and debate on anti-trust matters, ILNU in collaboration with CCI is organizing this Competition 

 

10:10 The Inauguration ceremony of the 10th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition 2021 in association with Competition Commission of India has begun and it is being addressed by Prof. Dr. Purvi Pokhariyal, Dean & Director , ILNU, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advisor, Competition Commission of India and Mr. Anand Vikas Mishra, Joint Director, Competition Commission of India. 

10:15 The ceremony has commenced with the introduction of the Chief Guests by Mr. Naman Sharma.

10:17 The ceremony begins by the Introduction by Ms. Kareena Bakhtyapuri, Student Convenor, IL-NMCC 2021.

10:17 Prof. Dr. Purvi Pokhariyal gave the welcome address praising the Competition Commission of India. Ma’am talked about virtual platform been the future and getting ready for the greater change. ‘Life is all about experiences and learning.’ Ma’am welcomed all the guests and teams. 

10:20 The participating teams have a glimpse of the Institute by taking a Virtual Tour of ILNU. 

10:30 Mr. Rakesh Kumar welcomed all the participants and addressed the virtual gathering. Sir highlights the importance of extra-curricular activities like Moot Court Competitions for all round development of the Students. 

10:35 Mr. Anand Vikas Mishra gave the inaugural speech highlighting the idea to protect the pillars of competition and encouraged students to participate in activities like moot court competitions and appreciated the Moot Court Committee for organizing the event.

10:40 The ceremony is being addressed by Mr. Jatin Khushalani, Co-Convenor, IL-NMCC 2021. 

10:42 The inaugural ceremony concludes by a vote of thanks by Ms. Anubhuti Dungdung, Asst. Prof. ILNU. 

10:45 The inaugural ceremony hereby ends and it will be soon followed by a training session by SCC Online.

 

SCC Online Training Session

 

14:00 The SCC Online Training Session has begun and is hosted by Ms. Akshita Totla. She is explaining everything about the use of Keywords, boolean search and other features available at SCC Online that make Legal Research easier. Participants are also getting their doubts cleared to get better results while researching at SCC Online.

15:00 The training session hereby ends and it would be followed by the Researcher’s Test.

 

Researcher’s Test:

 

15:28: Mr. Naman Sharma is giving instructions to all the researchers for the researcher’s test. The test is soon going to begin.

15:30: The researcher’s test for 10th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition 2021 has started. All the researchers are actively engaging themselves in healthy competition. 

16:25: The researcher’s test has ended and all the teams are looking forward to the results.

 

16th April 2021

Day-1

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS- 1

18:00: The preliminary rounds have begun and the teams are very enthusiastic about the same. 

 

VC- 6: IL-28 v. IL-07

VC-6 updates begin!

18:17: The Speaker-1 looks confident. She tried to answer the queries of the judges. The Speaker exceeds the time however, the Judges were considerate enough to let her rap up with the submissions.

18:20: Speaker-2 has begun with her submissions. The Judges are patiently listening to the arguments made and are questioning the speaker with respect to the arguments made.

 

VC-8: IL-30 v. IL-11

VC-8 updates begin!

18:30: The voice of Speaker-1 is not clear as there seems to be some network issue. Speaker-1 exceeds the time and therefore he is not given the chance to summarise his arguments.

18:37: The Speaker-2 looks confident enough. She is patiently answering the questions put by the judges and is referring to the compendium.

18:45: The Judges do not seem to be satisfied with the arguments made by Speaker-2.

 

VC-14: IL17 v. IL36

VC- 14 updates begin!

18:20: In the first session of 10th ILNU Moot Court Competition, it seems like judges are bombarding speaker 1 with the question on law.

18:23: The Judge asked speaker 1 whether they are clear on law and facts or they are just bluffing. She seems perplexed by this question and it is clear that he did not expect this. She tries to answer, but she seems to just dodge the question.

18:28: The speaker calmly apologized and requested to get back to judges after discussing with the researcher. It’s the time for speaker 2 now and she is advancing her arguments boldly.

 

VC-10: IL-32 v. IL-13

VC-10 updates begin!

18:49: The Judges are grilling the Speaker-2 (petitioner) on the court they are approaching. The speaker is now nervous. The speaker somehow completes the prayer.

18:54: The Speaker-1 (Respondent) seeks permission to approach the court. The Judges question the speaker just on the Jurisdiction. The Speaker is now nervous but the judges make the speaker comfortable to answer the queries of the Judge and do not feel nervous about the same.

VC-1: IL-01 v. IL-22

VC-1 updates begin!

18:17: The Judge grills the speaker 1 on the point of jurisdiction of higher court rather than the lower court

18:18: The speaker calmly answers both the judges’ questions but only 1 min is left to justify the judges

18:20: The speaker comes to his issue 2 as the Judges extend him 2 minutes extra

18:22: The judges ask speaker 1 to conclude by citing certain authorities to justify his arguments where on his points they grill him on the point of what conduct are causing abuse of dominance or violating section 4.

18:26: The speaker 2 commences with his argument before judge Mr. Tiwari asks him to summarise his co-counsel arguments but he fails to do so.

18:27: The speaker 2 commences with his arguments nervously as he started with the failure to summarise his co-counsel arguments

 

VC-7: IL-29 v IL-10

VC-7 updates begin!

19:09: The speaker boldly justifies his argument but is further grilled by the Judge on the point that they have not cited the Designs Act but answering and justifying the arguments on its basis

19:10: Consequently he asks his second co-counsel to proceed with her argument regarding section 3

19:11: The Judge grills her which she calmly justifies

19:14: The Judge grills on the point of distribution network which she justifies on the basis of conditions laid down further under her following arguments

19:16: The speaker states that the co, do not occupies a dominant position where she is grilled by Judge Shivaranjini on the point of abuse of dominance precisely the barrier to an entry question.

19:19: The speaker justifies but is further grilled by the judge on the point of close circle and authorization.

 

VC-16: IL19 v. IL38

VC -16: updates begin!

18:40: The speaker 1 of IL38 tries to emphasize and reiterate his points on the infringement of trademark. Judges seems to be convinced and are asking very less questions.

18:44: It seems that speaker 1 is answering all the questions asked by the judges and confidently citing case laws. He is also pointing out the fraud practices carried out by the respondents to confuse the customers.

18:48: The speaker asks researcher to share the compendium and submits his second last submission that infringement is happening without authorization. As the time is ending for speaker 1, he asks for an extension.

 

VC-18: IL40 v. IL21

VC 18 updates begin!

18:54: The network connection is interrupting the smooth flow of rounds and it seems like teams have rejoined the meeting.

18:58: The instructions are been given to the teams by court marshal. The teams are waiting for their rounds and for the judges to join.

19:05:  The wait is finally over and judges are joining the meeting. The speaker 1 of team 1L40 starts her arguments calmly.

 

17th April 2021

Day-2

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS- 2

 

 

10:00: The preliminary rounds have begun and the teams are very enthusiastic for the Day-2 of the 10th Institute of Law, National Moot Court Competition 2021. 

 

VC-12: IL-11 v IL-29

VC 12 updates begin!

10:10: Speaker 1 (IL-11) is arguing and answering the queries put forward by the Judges with respect to the jurisdiction.

10:13: The Judges are grilling the speaker-1 on the Writ Jurisdiction of High Court.

10:15: Only 5 mins are remaining with Speaker-1. However, she is still not able to satisfy the Judges with respect to the question of Jurisdiction.

10:20: The time limit for Speaker-1 is over. However, the Judges do not seem to relieve  Speaker-1 of the questions.

 

VC-14: IL-07 v IL-27

VC 14 updates begin!

10:44: There seems to be some network issue with Speaker-1 (IL-07). All are waiting for Speaker-1 to sort out the network issue.

10:47: The Speaker-1 proceeds with the arguments. However, her voice is still breaking.

10:51: After few minutes of continuous arguing, Speaker-1 is interrupted by the Judges. Due to some network interruption, the audio of Speaker-1 is still not clear. The Judges, therefore, direct her to be louder.

10:55: The Judges are not able to understand the arguments of Speaker-1 as the voice of Speaker-1 is continuously breaking.  

10:57: The time for Speaker-1 is up. however, the Judges are still questioning Speaker-1 with respect to the validity or authority of the arguments made.   

 

VC-16: IL-26 v. IL-04

VC 16 updates begin!

10:31: The Judges are grilling Speaker-1 (IL-26). Speaker-1 is very calm and patiently listening to the questions of the Judges and trying to satisfy the queries of the Judges.

10:35: The time for Speaker-1 is up. He is asking for 2 more minutes to summarise the arguments. The Judges agree to give 30 seconds more.

10:36: Speaker-2 seeks permission to proceed with his arguments.

10:38: The speaker-2 is trying to persuade the Judges with his arguments. He seems to be very confident.

10:39: The Speaker-2 is now interrupted by one of the Judges. He tries to satisfy the queries of the Learned Judge by referring to the Memorial.

 

VC-3: IL-20 v. IL-19

VC 3 updates begin!

11:14: The Judges are questioning if the speaker-1 (IL-19) is challenging the Jurisdiction of the petitioners.

11:17: The Judge grills Speaker-1 (IL-19) on arguing on the point that goes against the speaker.

11:19: The Judges are continuously bombarding Speaker-1 with their questions.

11:22: The Judges do not seem to be satisfied with the arguments made by speaker-1 (IL-19). They tell her to argue on the point and do not beat around the bush.

 

VC-6: IL36 v. IL16

VC 6 updates begin!

10:20: In the virtual courtroom 6 of preliminary rounds 2 of the 10th ILNU Moot Court Competition, it seems like judges have joined the meeting a little late, the instructions have been given to teams by the court marshal and finally the rounds are starting.

10:25: Speaker 1 from team IL36 (petitioner) starts the arguments confidently. There is a tussle between judges and speaker 1 on jurisdiction and statement of facts.

10:29: The judges are bombarding speaker 1 with the questions on law for issue 1. It seems like there will be a healthy grilling for the speaker by judges on the jurisdiction part.

 

VC-8: IL13 v. IL12

VC 8 updates begin!

10:32: The judges are repeatedly asking speaker 2 from team IL13 to not to read the arguments but speak what they have prepared. The time for speaker 2 is ending and she is concluding her arguments.

10:37: The judges are asking the speaker to read the provisions of law and it seems like they are confusing the speaker on the jurisdiction part.

10:40: The speaker is continuously being dodged with the issue of jurisdiction and she is confidently making her submissions.

 

 

VC-10: IL15 v. IL33

VC 10 updates begin!

10:45: Speaker 1 from team IL15 is boldly answering the questions asked by the judges and is constantly citing case laws. It seems like judges are accepting her arguments.

10:49: The judges are trying to distract the speaker on the doctrine of international exhaustion but the speaker answers the question smartly. The speaker continues with the submissions.

10:53: The rounds are going to end soon but the judges are interested in the opinions of the speaker on the issue. It seems that the speaker has tried to convince the judges to a certain extent.

 

VC-4 IL-38 v. IL-18

VC 4 updates begin!

10:19 The speaker proceeds with his arguments in a clear and just way

10:20 The judge grills him on the point of material impairment and bar code

10:23 The speaker requests the judges to refer to the fact sheet to clear their ambiguities

10:24 The speaker requests for a minute extension to conclude his arguments which is thereby granted by the Judges

10:25 The Judge Ms. Koradia asks the speaker to clear her last ambiguity on the point of luxury product impairment.

10:28 The Judge Mr. Prasanna asks his final doubt regarding irreparable damage but the speaker humbly begs to differ and justifies his reasoning behind it.

10: 30 The Judge further grills him over the point of citing foreign authorities and the speaker justifies that by referring the judges to the clarifications of the competition.

10:32 The speaker lastly justifies the intermediary point with the help of citing certain authorities and is further grilled by the Judge on the point of the interim order.

 

VC-13 IL-10 v Il-28

VC 13 updates begin!

10:36 The speaker proceeds with her argument that competitor is not the sole barrier where she is being grilled by Judge Mr. Rai

10:40 The speaker is grilled by Ms. Rejitha Nair as being not in sync with the facts.

10:41 The Judge Mr. Rai extends the speaker’s time to clear his last ambiguity regarding dominance and market power.

10:42 The Judge refuses to grant the speaker 2 more time to conclude but asks the respondent to present the case.

10:43 The respondent speaker 1 proceeds with her arguments but firstly asks the court Marshall to present the time tab

10:44 The speaker proceeds on the point of information being manifestly impaired.

10;46 The speaker cites many authorities to link her arguments with the present case.

10:51 The Judge being patient for a long time questions the speaker on the point of the jurisdiction of the High Court.

 

VC-17 IL-25 v. IL-03

VC 17 updates begin!

10:55 The speaker for the respondent proceeds with the argument on the point that whether the High court has the jurisdiction in the present matter.

10:57 The Judge asks the speaker on the point of Jurisdiction.

10:59 The speaker requests the Judges to proceed with her arguments which is further granted by the Judges.

11:01 The Judge grills the speaker on her failure to clarify the Court of the Judgement she is citing.

11:04 There is a sudden glitch in the network and the speaker is not in the meeting anymore and because of which the time tap has been stopped.

11:05 The speaker enters the meeting again but the Judges asks Speaker 2 to proceed with the arguments.

 

RESULTS FOR THE PRELIMINARY ROUNDS

The following teams have qualified for the quarter-finals (in no particular order):

IL- 07

IL- 12

IL- 14

IL- 16

IL- 20

IL- 28

IL- 30

IL- 38

 

17th April 2021

Day-2

QUARTER FINALS

 

VC- 1: IL-14 VS IL- 07

 

VC 1 updates begin!

18:12: Speaker-1 seeks permission to proceed with the arguments.

18:15: The Judge asks if it is a suit or a Writ Petition. Speaker-1 is able to answer and is asked to proceed further.

18:20: The Speaker-1 is confidently replying to the queries put by the Judges by referring to the memorial.

18:21: The Judge asks if there is any timeline for the completion of the inquiry. The Speaker-1 is now stuck at this point. After taking some time, he replied in negative.

18:23: The counsel seeks permission to move with Issue-2. The Judges allow him to proceed further.

18:26: The Judges interrupt Speaker-1 before he proceeds to the next issue. Speaker-1 tries to satisfy the query of the Judge by mentioning, how there is an entry barrier in the present case.

 

VC- 2: IL-38 VS IL- 16

VC 2 updates begin!

17:43 The rounds are going to start.

17:44 The Speaker 1 of appellants proceed with its arguments and summarise his part of the case where the judges firstly request him to proceed with the statement of facts

17:47 The Judge firstly grills the speaker on the point of jurisdiction, who calmly justifies it and proceeds with his second argument.

17:49 The Judge grills the speaker on its own point of powers given by the statutory provisions

17:52 The Judges further grills the speaker but the speaker calmly justifies his reasoning by citing authority and requesting the judges to refer to the moot proposition

17:55 The speaker is grilled on the point of whether addressing the bench completely as your lordships or ladyships.

17:56 The speaker proceeds with his argument of reasonability but is grilled on the point that the competition commission judgement will be applicable to all the judges or not

17:57 The Judges then request the speaker to let them know his prayer.

17:59 The Speakers says that there is not issue regarding the interlocutory order.

 

VC- 3: IL-12 VS IL- 38

VC 3 updates begin!

17:40: The Court Marshal has provided the instructions to the teams.

17:42: The rounds have now begun.

17:47: After patiently listening to Speaker-1, the Judge are now bombarding the Speaker-1 (IL-12).

17:50: The Judges are grilling the Speaker-1 on the jurisdiction of the Court.

17:55: The Speaker-1 is left with only 5 mins. However, the Judges are still trying to get clarity on  the arguments made by the Speaker.

17:59: The Speaker-1 is referring to some case laws to make his arguments authoritative and patiently answering all the queries of the Hon’ble Judges.

 

VC-4: IL28 v. IL20

 

VC 4 updates begin!

17:45: The ultimate race to the quarter-finals begins! The participants are all set to give it best shot for a seat in the semi-finals. The instructions have been given to the teams and all are waiting for the judges to join.

18:00: The judges are asking questions to speaker 1 of IL 28 and it seems that she is confidently answering all the questions.

18:05: Speaker 1 apologized and stated that she can’t answer certain questions asked by the judges. She seems to be confused and being manipulated by the judges. The speaker requested to proceed with the further submissions and she will get back with the answers during the rebuttals round.

18:10: Here comes the time update from the court marshal and only 1 minute is left for finishing the arguments. The judges are bombarding speaker 1 with the flaws in her arguments and tell her that she cannot argue which is not in the question. It seems like an interesting mooting experience.

 

RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER-FINALS

IL-14

IL- 16

IL- 28

IL- 38

18th April 2021: THE SEMI-FINAL & FINAL ROUNDS

 

Hold on to your seats! The Semi-Finals for the 10th NMCC are about to begin!

The teams shall be competing as follows: IL-38 v/s IL-14 and IL-16 v/s IL-28!

 

THE SEMI-FINAL ROUNDS

VC-1: IL-38 v/s IL-14

VC-1 updates begin!

10:07 The judges have joined the conference and the first speaker of IL-38 has begun with his submissions. The esteemed judges for the round are Mr Arunava Mukherjee, Mr Samir Gandhi, Mr Bobby Jain and Mrs Unnati Agrawal.

10:10 The team has shared their comprehensive compendium to buttress their argument.

10:14 The judges have raised their concerns regarding the speaker’s argument.

10:18 The speaker has begun his argument that a trademark infringement has not occurred exhaustive inapplicability, exception availability and good faith. The speaker cites Section 30 (3) of the Trademark Act.

10:27 The first speaker is taking his leave.

10:31 The second speaker has begun his arguments.

10:32 He is being questioned by Mr Samir Gandhi and to substantiate his reply the speaker cites a case law which provides that sports apparel, shoes and equipment are considered as a single relevant product market.

10:36 The speaker has shifted to the dominant position argument. He argues that the threat of substitutes and a new entrant is extremely low and cites paragraph 11 of the problem for supporting his argument.

10:48 The speaker has been given permission to summarize his arguments.

10:50 The speaker is submitting that entry barrier and foreclosure of the barrier and that there is an appreciable adverse effect on the competition as both the intra-brand and inter-brand competition is being affected.

10:51 The speaker has been asked a question pertaining to Section 4 and Section 3.

10:53 The speaker answers a question regarding vertical effect and a counter-question has been asked to him CCI’s decision in Sonam Sharma case a.k.a the Apple case.

10:54 The discussion on Section 19(3) of the Competition Act continues.

10:55 The second speaker takes his leave and the speaker of team IL-14 begins his submissions.

10:56 The speaker has been asked by the judges to collectively call the bench your ladyship when he asked permission to address the bench collectively as your lordship.

11:00 The speaker cites cases of Matrimony.com and Amazon v. CCI in an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of CCI in a matter relating to intellectual property particularly in cases where it is being already considered for determination by another court. The speaker argues that primacy must be given to the High Court. The speaker hence cites the case wherein a restriction on CCI’s role in infringement of trademark has been opined.

11:05 The judges have insisted based on the argument of the speaker to give an example of the difference between a sectoral regulator and an authority.

11:10 The speaker was proceeding to argue that the Trademark Act is a complete Act but was hit with a question by judge Mr Mukherjee that what would be the respondent’s take if the High Court decides to proceed with the case but sends the matter to CCI as well asking for a report to be submitted by it on the matter, to which the speaker has agreed. He believes that

11:14 The speaker cites a European Commission case of KOTI Germany, the facts of which were similar to the facts of the moot problem.

11:17 Judge Mr Jain however cites a very material difference between the KOTI Germany case and the facts of the present case wherein the actions of KOTI Germany were protected because the company was actually promoting consumer welfare. The speaker’s reply to the same was that the same if allowed in the present case would be at the cost of the trademark of the respondent company.

11:20 The speaker has been granted an extension of one minute to complete his argument that there is no foreclosure of the market.

11:22 The first speaker has heeded the floor to his co-speaker.

11:23 The speaker begins by summarizing the issues she shall be dealing with and the bench raises its concerns that the team has not dealt with the Competition Law in their submissions.

11:25 The speaker begins with her arguments surrounding trademark infringement and argues that the principle of exhaustion does not apply to the present case and draws the attention of the judges to the facts with respect to the same.

11:28 The speaker has been asked to shed light upon her argument regarding material impairment and she cites the cases of Microsoft v/s Jayesh and Kapil Wadhwa.

11:32 The discussion on the two cases continues and the speaker details the facts to explain as to what amounted to material impairment in these two cases.

11:33 The speaker shifts to the issue regarding copyright infringement. The argument continues regarding infringement of copyright from the prospective owner and the speaker is asked the question as to what exactly is copyright. The speaker cites the legal provisions contained in Section 51 of the Copyright Act and Section 12 which deals with artistic work and argues that the copyright is over the sketches and not the shirt. The next question asked regarding what is the difference between copyright and design.

11:38 While the speaker post answering the question has moved on to claim ‘passing off’ under the trademark laws to have occurred in the present case, she is asked as to what exactly is the reason as to the inclusion of the ‘passing off’ criteria in the trademark along with other forms of infringement.

11:40 The speaker argues as to what is passing off and that it holds the particular characteristic of reputation being infringed. The speaker goes on to claim that in the present case damaging of goodwill and deception has occurred.

11:41 However the judge comments upon the same that if somebody is selling without a license and the picture is shabby then legal remedy is provided to the seller and asks what legal remedy is provided to the seller.

11:43 The counsel presents her response that as an original owner’s goodwill is damaged by this, so much energy, time and money is invested to maintain and develop aesthetic and this leads to lowering the reputation.

11:44 The time of the speaker is up and she answers the last question of the judges as to what are the principles that are considered for grounds for providing a permanent injunction.

11:45 The rebuttal round of 2 minutes begins. The first speaker of IL-38 presents his rebuttal on the arguments advanced by the respondent.

11:47 The ser-rebuttal followed by the same is presented by the first speaker of the team IL-14 contending regarding majorly qualitative criteria and draws an analogy to Louis Vuitton for supporting his argument regarding selective distribution.

11:55 After exchanging pleasantries, the rounds have ended and the judges have moved to a breakout session to discuss the scores.

12:00 The participants are eagerly awaiting feedback from the judges.

VC 1- IL-38 v/s IL-14

12:18 Her ladyship, judge Mrs Unnati Agrawal began with the feedback and praised the teams for their performance.

12:19 Judge Mr Bobby Jain who is the drafter of the moot problem continued with the feedback and appreciated both the teams for their commendable performance.

12:21 He further advised the teams to not rush into answering the questions rather hearing the judges out properly by taking a minute as it often happens that the answers that the judges are seeking are in the questions themselves, just in not express terms.

12:22 The judge Mr Arunava Mukherjee continued the feedback and opined upon the importance of calmness while making an argument that reflects confidence.

12:24 He further advised the participants to have the flexibility to go back and forth in a moot court problem. He appreciated the teams for putting up a great show and commented that the scoring gap between the teams is quite narrow.

12:27 The feedback by judge Mr Samir Gandhi is giving his comments regarding the qualities that were demonstrated by the teams that are significant in the real practice. He ended his feedback with congratulating the teams.

12:30 The conference ends!

VC 1- IL-38 v/s IL-14

 

 

VC-2: IL-16 v/s IL-28

VC-2 updates begin!

10:14: The rounds begin after a brief wait for all the judges to join the room.

10:16: The petitioner begins with the arguments sounding extremely confident.

10:17: The petitioner raises the issue pertaining to the jurisdiction, for the case in hand.

10:22: The judge shot open a few questions highlighting the factual intricacies of the cases cited.

10:29: The speaker 2 for the Petitioner begins with all the vigor contending the entity to be in the dominant position and the market resembling to that of oligopoly.

10:35: Judge Himangini raises series of questions, and further asks the authority for the argument raised by the speaker.

10:38: The first question being the case specific one, the speaker is ready with the answer.

10:44: Judge Anand Vikas Mishra and Judge Himangi shoot several questions and then counter questions.

10:46: Speaker confidently addresses the questions and concludes with last part of the questions to be addressed by her during rebuttals.

10:48: Speaker 2 moves ahead with the last issue given the limitation of time. Speaker 2 asks the panel of judges if they are satisfied with the first issue she dealt with, and Wow! the judges respond in affirmation.

10:53: Exceeding the time limits so prescribed, Speaker 2 requests for the extra time to address the questions raised by the judges and conclude the last issue.

10:56: Speaker 2 finally concluded her submissions.

10:58: Speaker 1 for the Respondents begins addressing the bench.

11:02: Oops! Looks like Speaker 1 is unaware of the fact that whether the caselaw cited by her is a good law or not.

11:10: Speaker 1 is finds herself in the middle of myriad of questions.  

11:18: Time limit for the Speaker 1 is over but not the questions of the judges, however they save the rest of the questions for the speaker 2 for the respondents.

11:22: Speaker 2 began with her 4 four fold argument providing the clarity the very outset.

11:37: Extension is granted only for the conclusion.

11:43: Rebuttals Begin. Speaker 1 put forth the rebuttals against the arguments by the respondents. 

11:47: After the conclusion of the rounds, judges are now given their time to discuss the performance of the teams and their respective scores in the breakout session. 

VC-2: IL-16 v/s IL-28

11:54: After a brief discussion, judges have started addressing the teams with regards to their performance.

11:56: Judge Neelambra Sandeepan is appreciating the efforts of both the teams, highlighting the complexity of the moot problem. Lastly she gives the suggestions on how to approach the moot problem pertaining to competition law.

11:58: Judge Himangini congratulates the teams for their performance and mentions how in competition law there are no right or wrong answers, there are just better convincing arguments.

11:57: Finally, Judge Anand Vikas Mishra appreciates the teams for their efforts and mentions how the moot courts are the part of the law school journey which helps one grow, and no matter if you win or lose, you always come out as a better and more knowledgeable person.

12:00: Teams are now eagerly waiting for the announcement of the results. 

VC-2: IL-16 v/s IL-28

 

 

 

The Semi-Final Rounds have officially ended! Thank you for bearing with us. We will be with you soon with the results. Stay tuned for the updates of the Finals scheduled at 3 PM.

RESULTS FOR THE SEMI-FINALS

IL-16

IL-38

We heartily congratulate the teams for making it to the Finals! The finals will begin soon and will be live-streamed on Youtube.

FINAL ROUNDS

IL-16 v/s IL 38

 

14:58 The finalists are all set to begin and the conference has now gone live on Youtube.

15:00
The judges Mr Gautam Chawla, Mr Ramesh Kumar, Mrs Aparna Mehra, Mr Avinash Amarnath and Mr MM Sharma have all joined the conference.

15:03
The faculty coordinator Ms Anubhuti Dungdung has announced the virtual court to be now in session.

15:04
The first speaker has begun with his submissions.

15:05
The speaker has present the three broad issues before the court and begins with the submission that High Court does not have the requisite jurisdiction over the present matter.

15: 06
The Google v. CCI judgement is relied upon by the speaker and he has been asked a question regarding the same by judge Mr Amarnath.

15:08
The speaker further submitted the argument regarding the harmonious construction of the Competition Act with the civil suit.

15:09
It is being contented that the High Court might not have the requisite expertise to deal with matters of Competition Law.

15:10
A question regarding the same has been asked by Mr Chawla and Mr Amarnath later regarding the violation of the principle of res sub-judice.

15:22 The speaker was further questioned as to whether the petitioners have approached the court under Section 21A.

15:14 The speaker goes not explaining and reiterating his argument and Mr Chawla repeats his question that why would the jurisdiction be ousted on the basis of Sections 26(1) of the Act.

15:16 The SC judgement of SAIL is being relied upon by the speaker to support his argument regarding the importance of the provision as observed by SC.

15:18 The Bharti Airtel case was further cited by the speaker which provides that TRAI has exclusive jurisdiction in appeals and the same cannot be extended to Courts.

15:20 The speaker is further grilled with the question as to whether the High Court does not have jurisdiction under any circumstance which respect of matters pertaining to Section 26(1).

15:22 The speaker was further questioned as to whether the petitioners have approached the court under Section 21A.

15:24 The speaker due to paucity of time is summarizing his arguments particularly emphasizing his contention regarding the importance of ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters pertaining to Competition Law and providing exclusive jurisdiction to the CCI in the present matter.

15:26 The second speaker of the teams began her submissions regarding violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. The speaker contended that the respondent company has abused its dominant position.

15:28 The speaker has been asked the reason behind referring to Section 3, if the argument is regarding the dominant position covered under Section 4. She went on to prove the relevance of Section 3 of the Act in the present case arguing that the economic power and size of the respondent company make the provision relevant as there is no significant competition in the market.

15:32 The speaker refers to a research paper to substantiate her argument and went on to argue regarding the relevance of the research paper as an authority.

15:34 She continues her argument claiming that 15% market share could still lead to an adverse effect on the competition.

15:37 There was confusion regarding the judge Mr. Kumar’s point who acceded to the contention being made by the speaker.

15:38 The speaker went on to argue that there were barriers for new entrants to enter into the market arguing that the supplier and there existed an exclusive distribution agreement.

15:39 The judge Mr Kumar question the speaker as to what evidence is there regarding her submission which was otherwise crystal gazing.

15:41 The speaker answered by referring to certain facts whereby major dealers have been acquired by the respondent company.

15:42 The judge Mr Chawla asked the speaker to shed light upon the submission as he believed the same to be the commercial freedom of the respondent company.

15:44 The grilling of the speaker regarding market share and availability of the rest of the 85% share.

15:46 The speaker referred to the KOTI case while answering the question regarding other cases relevant asked by Judge Ms Mehra.

15:47 She moved to the next argument that there has been no infringement of a trademark in the present case by the appellant company while citing the Kapil Wadhwa case.

15:48 She was further questioned regarding counterfeit products.

15:50 The questioning on the same continued by other judges on the same point as well.

15:51 The counsel responded that an inquiry will be conducted by her company but meanwhile they must not be injuncted.

15:52 The counsel ended her submissions by making the prayer.

15:53 The respondent team began with its opening statement.

15:54 The speaker summarized the issues they shall be dealing with.

15:55 The speaker began by contending that the respondent company had filed an infringement suit and argued that the High Courts are not barred to deal with competition law cases.

15:57 The counsel answered the question asked regarding the case Google Inc. v. CCI and was asked the circumstances under which the High Court has jurisdiction over competition law matters.

15:59 Judge Mr Amarnath provided the speaker with a hypothetical situation of cheque bounce where the aggrieved has two alternate remedies similar to the present case.

16:00 The speaker answered by citing provision regarding harmonious construction.

16:02 Judge Amarnath further asked a question regarding the case and also shared his screen for the speaker to contend further. meanwhile, he was questioned by Mr Ramesh Kumar regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the CCI and intervention by the High Court.

16:04 The speaker was given a minute to go through the reference judge Amarnath was giving to the Google Inc. case.

16:06 The speaker contended that the circumstance applicable to the current moot problem that allows the intervention of the court was that the suit made by the appellant was malicious and malafide in nature.

16:08 The speaker was lastly asked the question regarding Section 33 of the Competition Act.

16:11 The speaker went on to argue that the appellant company is liable for trademark infringement.

16:12 He further argued obliteration of the trademark, disrupting of the reputation and degradation in quality which all amount to material impairment.

16:14 The speaker finds himself stuck in a situation wherein Judges contend that the statement by the speaker is misleading in a way.

16:16 The speaker is finally summarizing the last contention pertaining to section 14 of the Copyright Act, and finally prays for the injunction.

16:19 The judge extending the time further asked the question pertaining to customs law, and Speaker 1 answered the same in a seemingly convincing manner.

16:23 Speaker two began with his 4-fold argument.

16:23 The Speaker relying on Copad SA v Christian Dior case explained what constitutes as luxury goods and used it to substantiate his argument pertaining to the case in hand.

16:28 Judge raise the question with regards to the evidentiary value of the magazine the article of which has been referred by the Speaker.

16:29 It seems that the speaker is not very sure of the answer and tries answering it, however, later accepts that he is not sure of the answer. 

16:31 Judge Apurva Mehra questioned the speaker on his reliance on Metro judgement, and if he is sure that the conditions in the instant case are met. Speaker very convincingly listed out the conditions as to why exactly he is relying on the judgement.

16:35 The speaker now highlights the pro and anti-competitive factors.

16:37 Judge Gautam Chawla further asked the speaker to provide the authority for the argument that the speaker was trying to make, however, the speaker could not substantiate the argument with the requisite authority.

16:40 Oops! Looks like the Speaker misquoted the statistics and was repudiated by the judges for the same.

16:42 The Speaker finally moves with the last issue of dominance in the market. Since the speaker was running out of time, an extension of 1 minute was granted. Within the extended time, the speaker provided the arguments summarily concluded his argument.

16:45 Judge Avinash Amarnath lastly raised the question as to why exactly the luxury market be considered a relevant market?. The speaker is finding it hard to recall the precise case to cite as an authority.

16:46 Speaker rests his case and the floor is now open for rebuttal.

16:47 Rebuttal Rounds began with the Speaker from Petitioner putting forth his rebuttals against the arguments of the respondents.

16:52 Judges shoot series of question over the speaker with regards to rebuttals made by him.

16:54 Speaker from Respondents proceeds with sur-rebuttals and contended that poor representation of the luxurious products harms the reputation and hence qualifies for the legitimate contention, amongst other submissions.

16:57 The rounds finally came to an end, the judges went into breakout session to discuss the performance and scores of the teams.

Valedictory Ceremony

17:35 Valedictory ceremony finally begins. Naman Sharma, the chairperson of the Moot Court Committee of ILNU, addresses the teams and the judges mentioning the perks that the winning teams will receive.

17:41 Dr Purvi Pokhariyal, Dean & Director of Institute of Law, Nirma University addressed the gathering thanking the teams and judges for their cooperation.

17:44 Mr MM Sharma, the chief guest of the event delivered his address, he highlighted the importance of inculcating the traits to deal in the new age economy for the students. He discussed the anti-trust regime and consumer welfare.

17:55 Mr Ramesh Kumar gave his address and mention that it is not the result that matters, it is the journey and therefore congratulated all the participants.

The ceremony ended with a vote of thanks given by Ms Kareena Bhaktiyarpuri, the student convenor of the 10th NMCC.

RESULTS

Winners: Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar

Runners-Up: National Law School, Bangalore

Best Memorial: Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Best Speaker: Siddharth Khurana, Jindal Global Law School

Second-Best Speaker: Adhishree Singh, Symbiosis Law School

Best Researcher: Akshat Kabra, NLS Bangalore

 

It is time to draw the curtains at the event! The entire family of ILNU thanks all the judges and the participants for making this event such a memorable one.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

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