Live | 1st ILNU International Arbitration Competition, 2021

The Institute of Law, Nirma University, take another step towards achieving its goal of providing a conducive environment towards imparting legal education and creating all-round legal practitioners. Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution, ILNU take pride in introducing the 1st edition of ILNU International Arbitration Competition in association with ICC International Court of Arbitration and ICC India. This competition will help the students to explore the contemporary areas of Arbitration as well as general principles of contract law.

This event is an attempt to create a platform for encouraging original thinking, critical reasoning, and discussion on critical areas of Arbitration.

 

8th May 2021 

Day 1 

 

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS – 1 

 

10:00 The Preliminary rounds have begun! The teams are very excited for the same. 

 

VC – 2: IL-02 v. IL-11 

 

10:44: The Judge asks the speaker to go slow with her submissions. 

10:46: Speaker-1 makes her submissions confidently and patiently answers the questions posed to her by the Judges.  

10:52: Speaker -1 runs out of time and is granted one extra minute to conclude her submissions. 

 

VC – 5: IL-05 v. IL-14 

 

10:58: Speaker -1 (Respondents) answers the Judge’s questions confidently. However, the Speaker runs out of time. 

10:59: The Judge asks Speaker -1 (Respondents) to move to the third issue. The Speaker informs that the Speaker – 2 (Respondents) will make submissions for the third issue. 

11:01: Speaker -2 (Respondents) commences her submissions and seems nervous. 

11:07: The Judge has no questions yet for Speaker -2 (Respondents). 

11:10: The Judge asks for a clarification regarding the acceptance of a proposal, however, is interrupted by the Speaker-2 (Respondents). 

11:11: The Judge does not seem satisfied with the Speaker’s argument. 

 

VC – 6: IL-15 v. IL-06

 

11:16: The Judge bombards the Speaker-1 (Respondents)  with questions and the Speaker tries to patiently persuade the Judge to her interpretation of  the term “force majeure”. 

11:18: The Judge points out a contradiction between the Speaker’s arguments. 

11:22: The Judges do not seem convinced with the Speaker’s submissions. 

11:23: The Speaker – 1 (Respondents) seeks permission to address the next limb of the argument. The Speaker has run out of time and the Judges grant 1 minute extra to conclude the submissions. 

11:25: The Speaker -2 (Respondents) confidently begins with his submissions. The Judges are patiently hearing the submissions. 

11:29:  The Judge seeks clarification regarding the facts of the case record. 

11:30:  The Speaker -2 (Respondents) submits that negotiation would have been a better way out and the Judge does not seem convinced with the argument. 

 

VC – 3: IL-12 v. IL-03

 

11:34: Speaker -1 (Claimants) begins with his submissions.

11:42: The Judge asks for clarification on facts, however, the Speaker is not able to direct the Judge to the relevant paragraph from the case record. 

11:46: The Speaker pleads ignorance on the question regarding the source of power of the Emergency Arbitrator. 

11:47: The Speaker – 1 (Claimants) concluded his submissions and the Speaker -2 (Claimants) begins with his submissions. 

11:48: The Judge asks for the authority the Speaker is relying on. However, the Speaker does not understand the Judge’s query. 

11:49: The Speaker -2 (Claimants) reads out the wrong provision from the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. The Judges inquire about the applicability of the provision. The Speaker is unable to answer the query. 

11:52: The Speaker -1 (Claimants) seeks to answer the question on behalf of the Speaker – 2 (Claimants), however, the request is denied in accordance with rules of the competition. 

12:16: The Speaker -2 (Respondents) presents her arguments confidently. The Judges are listening to her submissions patiently. 

12:17: The Judge poses a query and the Speaker attempts to resolve the same.

12:23: The Judges do not seem to be convinced with the Speaker’s answers. 

 

VC – 4: IL-13 v. IL-04

 

11:58: Speaker -1 (Claimants) runs out of time and is granted an additional minute by the Judges. 

12:00: The Judge inquires about the enforcing court of emergency order. The Speaker answers the question calmly. 

12:01: The Judge states that she is losing track of the Speaker’s arguments and seeks clarifications. The Speaker patiently answers her queries. 

12:07: The Judges bombard the Speaker -1 (Claimants) with questions. 

12:10: The Speaker-1 (Claimants) pleads ignorance regarding the facts of a case that was relied upon in submissions. 

12:11: The Speaker-1 (Claimants) runs out of time and Speaker -2 (Claimants) begins with her submissions. 

12:14: The Judges bombard the Speaker -2 (Claimants) with questions. The Speaker tries her best to answer them succinctly. 

12:25: Speaker -2 (Claimants) runs out of time and is granted an additional minute by the Judges. 

12:30: The Speaker -1 (Respondents) begins with his submissions. 

12:35: The Judge asks for clarification regarding the proposal and the the Judge points out a contradiction in the Speaker’s answers. 

12:49: The Speaker -1 (Respondents) is granted an additional minute to conclude his submissions.

12:52: The Judge inquires about an authoritative judgment to support the Speaker’s claims, however, the Speaker pleads that he does not have one at his ready reference. 

 

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS – 2 

 

3:00 PM The Preliminary rounds 2 have begun! The teams are very excited for the same.

 

VC 01: IL- 08 v. IL R18

3:06 PM The Speaker 1 starts with the arguments and submits it very confidently. 

3:08 PM One of the judges questions the Speaker 1 and the Speaker 1 patently answers the question  posted to her by one of the Judges. The Judges does not seem satisfied with the answer

3:10 PM One of the judges counter-questions the Speaker. She seems confident and answers every question diligently. One of the Judge counters the argument of the Speaker on the basis of the provisions of the Act.

3:13 PM The Speaker 1 asks the Judges if she can start with the second argument after answering the question of another judge very patiently. The Speaker 1 begins with the second argument. She is 

3:18 PM The time is up for the speaker 1. She is given extra minutes for her submissions.

3:20 PM The Judge ask the question on the basis of facts on the second argument. 

3:25 PM The Judge asks the Speaker 1 to continue with no further questions.

3:27 PM The Speaker 1 took approximately 8 minutes extra. The Court Marshall asks the second speaker to begin with the arguments

3:28 PM The Speaker 2 (Claimant) briefly talks about the fact and begins with the arguments. The Speaker is patient and submitting the arguments confidently. 

 

VC 02: IL- 09 V IL- 10

 

3:31 PM The Judges question the Speaker 1 (Claimant) on the basis of facts. 

3:33 PM The Speaker seems a bit nervous while answering the question of the Judge. The time is up for the Speaker. 

3:34 PM The judge questions to clarity the presence of the intention.

3:35 PM The Judge seems satisfied with the answer of the Speaker and asks to proceed with the next argument. 

3:37 PM The Judge asks the Speaker 2 (Claimant 2) to begin with the arguments. The Claimants begins with the facts and merits of the present case.

3:40 PM The Speaker 1 refers the memorial while submitting the contentions. The Judges are patiently hearing the submissions.

3:41 PM The Speaker asks if there is any concern. One of the Judges question the Speaker on the, asks for suggestion on the literal and strict interpretation of the terms of the contract. 

3:43 PM The Speaker answers the question very confidently and the Judges seeks clarification on the facts of the case with a follow-up question. The Speaker refers to the memorial for answering the same. 

 

VC 09: IL-16 V IL-17 

 

3:46 PM The Speaker 1 (Respondent) submits the argument confidently. 

3:47 PM The Judge questions the Speaker 1 (Respondent). The Speaker 1 seemed a bit nervous. The Judge counter-questions the Speaker 1 (Respondent). 

3:50 PM The Speaker 1 (Respondent) seems a bit nervous as the Judges bombard him with question on intern relief.

3:52 PM The Speaker 1 (Respondent) refers the ICC Rules, section 9 of the Arbitration Act with precedents for giving clarity to the judges. The Judge asks the Court Marshall to add extra 2 minutes for the submissions of the Speaker 1. 

3:54 PM The Judge questions the Speaker 1 on the precedent referred by the counsel with respect to its binding nature. 

3:57 PM The Speaker 1 answers the question very confidently and continues to submit the arguments while referring to the precedents. The Judges are listening patiently to the submissions made.

3:58 PM The Speaker asks for extension of the time after the time is up. The Judges ask the Speaker to keep the submission briefly. The Speaker tries to complete the argument on jurisdiction as fast as he can. 

4:00 PM The Judges question the application of the Indian Law on the contract. The Speaker submits his understanding confidently. The Judges does not seem satisfied with the answers. 

4:02 PM The Judge continue to question the Speaker 1.

 

VC 03: IL- 01 v. IL- 02

4:04 PM The Judge questions the Speaker 1 (Claimant) on the basis of facts. The Speaker seems a bit nervous and concludes by submitting the procedural aspect of the dispute. 

4:05 PM The Speaker 2 (Claimant) begins with the submission on the merits of the case. 

4:11 PM Referring to the precedents, the Speaker 2 (Claimant) submits the argument confident. 

4:12 PM The Judge poses a question to which the Speaker provides a clarification. 

4:15 PM The Speaker asks if there is any further follow up questions and then continues with the next argument. 

4:19 PM The Judges poses a query on the performance of the client. The Judge does not seems satisfied with the answer of the Speaker 2 (Claimant) and poses a counter-question. 

4:20 PM The Judges seems dissatisfied. 

4:22 PM The Speaker 2 (Claimant) submits the prayer. 

4:24 PM The Speaker 2 (Respondent) seeks permission for beginning with the submission. The Speaker seems confident. 

 

VC 05: IL- 03 v. IL- 13 

4:25 PM The Judge while questioning the Speaker 2 (Claimant) to refer the exhibit and asks her to read it out aloud and start the submissions with the particular exhibit. The Speaker 2 (Claimant) seems a bit nervous.

4:28 PM The Judges bombard the Speaker 2 (Claimant) with question and seeks clarification on the arguments. 

4:31 PM The Judges keeps on bombarding the Speaker with questions. The Speaker looks a bit nervous while answering the question of Force Majure clause. 

4:33 PM The Judges seems dissatisfied with the answers provided by the Speaker 2 and keeps on counter-questioning her. 

4:37 PM The Speaker continues to provide clarification but the Judges are not satisfied with the contentions. 

4:38 PM The Speaker 2 (Claimant) continues with the contentions. 

4:40 PM The Speaker 2 begins with the prayer. 

4:41 PM The Judges question with respect to relief with respect to private parties. The Speakers seems a bit nervous by the questions of the Judge.

4:43 PM The Judges do not seem to be convinced with the Speaker’s prayer. The Judge questions on the declaratory relief and liquidated damages. 

4:46 PM The Judge bombards the Speaker on the Force Majure Clause and the prayer presented. The Speaker is unable to provide a satisfactory answer to the Judges. 

4:49 PM The Speaker 2 (Claimant) concludes by trying to provide clarification. The Judges are not satisfied with the answers provided. 

 

 

QUARTER FINAL ROUNDS

VC – 04: IL-17 v. IL-01

 

8:15 PM: The Speaker -1 (Claimants) is patiently answering the bench’s queries. 

8:17 PM: The judges have no further questions. Speaker 1 concludes his submissions. 

8:19 PM: The Speaker -2 (Claimants) begins with his submissions. 

8:20 PM: The judge inquires about a specific UNIDROIT Principle and the Speaker was able to answer the question. However, the Speaker was unable to answer another follow up question posed by the Judge. 

8:27 PM: The bench has concerns regarding the Speaker’s submissions and they explain the same. 

8:28 PM: The Judge denied applicability of the Indian Contract Act and urged the Speaker to stick to UNIDROIT Principles. 

8:29 PM: The Speaker maintains his calm as the Judges are not satisfied with his submissions. However, the Speaker’s confidence seems to be dwindling as the Judges dissatisfaction grows.

8:32 PM: The Judges bombard the Speaker with questions. The Speaker is unable to substantially answer the questions due to the lack of legal authority. 

9:03 PM: Speaker -1 (Respondents) is answering the questions posed by the bench. The Judges seek many clarifications and follow up questions. 

9:05 PM: The Speaker answers the question, however, states that he is unable to recall the provision for the same. 

 

VC – 01: IL-07 v. IL-15

 

8:35 PM: The Speaker -2 (Claimants) confidently resolves the Judge’s query. The Judges seem to be satisfied with the Speaker’s answer. 

8:38 PM: The Judges pose a follow up question regarding the interpretation of an agreement clause. The Speaker begs to differ from the Judge’s interpretation and elaborates on the same. 

8:41 PM: The Speaker concludes her submissions and moves to prayer. 

8:42 PM: The Speaker -2 (Respondents) begins with her submissions. The Judges are patiently listening to her arguments. 

8:48 PM: The Judges express their concerns regarding the Speaker’s arguments. The Speaker confidently guides the Judges to her interpretation. 

8:52 PM: The Judges do not seem to be convinced by the Speaker’s arguments. 

8:53 PM: The Speaker requests for a moment’s time to go through the letters referred to by the Judge in his query. 

8:55 PM: The Speaker answers the question and the Judge appreciates her efforts. However, the Judge expresses his disapproval of the argument based on an assumption. 

VC 02: IL 04 v. IL 14

The round began at 7:40 PM. The teams seemed enthusiastic to present their claims in front of the Judges. The Speaker 1 (Claimant) took 14 minutes to submit the arguments with an additional 2 minutes. 

8:14 PM The Speaker 2 (Claimant) is giving her submission. The Judge questioned on the invocation of the Indian Contract Act but the Speaker 2 (Claimant). The Speaker seemed confused and is not able to justify the answer for the question asked.

8:15 PM The Judge asked the Speaker 2 (Claimant) regarding the substantive law. The Speaker seemed unclear and asked the Judges to clarity it in the last of her submissions. 

8:17 PM The Speaker 2 asked for the extension of 2 minutes. The Judge grants extension of extra one minute. The Speaker seemed a bit nervous while presenting the arguments. 

8:19 PM The Judge question on the facts. The Speaker 2 provides a clarification for the same. Another follow-up question is asked by the Judge regarding the relevant provisions under the Indian Contract Act. 

8:20 PM The Judge asked the Speaker 2 to conclude. The Speaker exceeds the time limit of extra one minute provided.

8:21 PM The Speaker 2 begins with the Prayer. The Judge asks the Respondent to begin with their contentions. 

8:23 PM The Speaker 1 (Respondent) begins with the contentions first issue. The Judge questions the Speaker 1 with respects to the claims of the Claimant and the argument submitted by the Respondent. 

8:25 PM The Speaker seemed confident while providing the answer. The Judge seems satisfied with the answer submitted by the Speaker 1. The Speaker 1 continue with his submissions. 

8:27 PM The Judge asks the question with respect to section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Speaker seeks clarification on the question asked. He is able to answer the questions confidently. 

8:29 PM The Judges seemed dissatisfied with the submission on the first issue. 

8:33 PM The Speaker requests to proceed with the second issue. The Judge ask to clarify on how the Amazon v. Future Retail case will affect their case. The Speaker is confident in providing the answer confidently. The Judge is not satisfied by the answer and asks a counter question. 

8:35 PM An additional 2 minutes are provided to the Speaker 2 (Respondent) to provide his submissions. 

VC 03: IL 13 v. IL 06

The round began at 7:40 PM.

8:36 PM The Speaker 1 (Respondent) is submitting her arguments confidently. The Speaker proceeds with the first argument. 

8:38 PM The Judge questions on the emergency arbitration. The Speaker submits the answer. The Judge seems dissatisfied with the answers. 

8:39 PM The Judge refers the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and ICC rules for questioning the Speaker 1 (Respondent). 

8:42 PM The Judge question on the enforcement of the interim relief. After submitting the answer to the question, the Judge does not seem satisfied with the submissions for the question. 

8:43 PM A follow- up question is asked by another judge. The Speaker submits the contention by referring to the Amazon v. Future Retail. 

8:45 PM The Judge questions on the facts and the precedent referred by the Speaker 1 (Respondent). The Speaker 1 tries to justify her answer but is unable to do so. 

8:47 PM The Speaker 1 continues her contention confidently and starts another contention.

8:50 PM The Judge asks on the facts. The Speaker is well versed with the fact and the Judge seems satisfied with the answer. A follow-up question is asked by the Judge on the facts only. 

8:53 PM The Judge questions on the fact. The Speaker 1 provides clarification for the same confidently. 

8:56 PM The Speaker seeks permission for extension of the time. The Judges grants an extension of additional 2 minutes. 

8:58 PM The Judge seeks clarification with respect to liquidated damages. 

8:59 PM The Speaker 2 (Respondent) begins with the second issue. 

9:01 PM The Judges question on the jurisdiction. The Speaker answers and the Judge seems satisfied with the answer. 

9:02 PM Another follow-up question is asked by another Judge. The Speaker diligently and patiently listens to the question and provides clarification for the same. 

9:04 PM The Judge questions on the facts regarding the invocation of the arbitration clause. The Speaker 2 seems a bit nervous while answering the question. 

9:07 PM The Judges counter-question on the same issue. The Speaker 2 tries to answer the question but the Judges does not seem satisfied with the answer of the Speaker 2. 

9:08 PM The Speaker seems confused with the questions bombarded on him by the Judges. 

9:12 PM The Judge clears the question asked before for further clarification on the fact of dispute.

9:13 PM The Speaker answer and begins with the next argument. 

 

9th May 2021 

Day 2 

SEMI FINAL ROUNDS

The Semi-Finals Round began at 10 AM with enthusiastic Semi Finalists. The teams are excited and confident to present themselves in front of esteemed panel of Judges. 

VC – 1: IL-01 v. IL-07

 

There are 3 Judges in the Semi-Finals Round – Ms. Sonali Mathur (Presiding Arbitrator), Mr. Pranav Mago (Arbitrator), and Mr. Elan Krishna (Arbitrator).

Ms. Sonali Mathur is a Partner based out of Mumbai and joined AZB & Partners in 2009. he has a BLS/LL.B. Degree from Government Law College, Mumbai (2007).  She graduated with her LL.M. from Columbia University School of Law, New York in 2009.  She is also a member of the YSIAC Committee and International Council for International Arbitration.

Mr. Pranav Mago is presently partner of ELF Partners. He has previously worked with the International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution team at UK Magic Circle Firm, Clifford Chance, Singapore as foreign legal consultant before heading the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) South Asia till December 2018. He has worked on a variety of comlex issues in the Arbitration and Dispute Resolution industry.

Mr. Elan Krishna is a Partner in Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice of Cavenagh Law LLP (Clifford Chance Asia). He has worked in a wide variety of high value and complex arbitration matters, with a particular focus on arbitrations involving allegations of fraud, corruption or illegality.

11:45 AM: The Speaker -2 (Respondents) requests for an extension of 2 minutes to answer the questions posed by the Judges. 

11:48 AM: The Judges do not seem to be satisfied with the Speakers answers. 

11:49 AM: The Judge notes that the Speaker has run out of time and asks her to summarise her arguments. 

11:50 AM: The Speaker movies to Prayer and concludes her submissions. 

11:51 AM: The Speaker – 2 (Claimants) has begun with rebuttals. 

11:54 AM: The Speaker -2 (Respondents) has begun with rebuttals. 

11:58 AM: The Speaker -2 (Respondents) concludes the rebuttals.

 

VC 02: IL 06 v. IL 04

 

There are 3 Judges in the Semi-Finals Round- Mr. Steven Finizio (Presiding Arbitrator), Mr. Ashish Kabra (Arbitrator), and Mr. Manavendra Mishra (Arbitrator).

Mr. Steven Finizio is a Partner at Willmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, United Kingdom. He is an expert practitioner of international arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, general commercial litigation, and internal investigations. 

Mr. Ashish Kabra, Head of Singapore, International Dispute Resolution & Investigations Practice at Nishith Desai Associates.

Mr. Manavendra Mishra is a Partner at Khaitan & Co. and is associated with the company since 3 years.

11:46 AM The Speaker 2 (Respondents) submits her contention enthusiastically and confidently. 

11:49 AM The President asks for the clarification on the clause in Master Agreement in the case Record. The Speaker 2 (Respondent) seems confident while answering the question.

11:50 AM While referring the Supreme Court precedent, the Speaker 2 (Respondent) justifies her argument with respect to issue 1. 

11:51 AM The Speaker 2 (Respondent) seeks permission to move to the second issue. The Judges grant the permission.

11:53 AM The Speaker 2 provides argument against the Force Majure Clause. The Judge pose a question regarding the same for further clarification. 

11:55 AM The Speaker 2 provides a clarification for the same and the Judge seems satisfied with the answer.

11:56 AM The Judge ask the Speaker 2 about her awareness with respect the the declaration justifying the Force Majure Clause. The Speaker 2 was well aware of such declaration and justifies her submissions. The Judge is satisfied with the answer.

11:58 AM The Speaker 2 guides the Judge to the Force Majure clause provided in the case record for reference and further clarification.

12:03 PM The Speaker 2 has only 1 limit left and the Judge stops her and provides an additional 1 minute for completing her submissions

12:04 PM The Judge questions on the contention of not accepting COVID 19 as Force Majure and provides a suggestion for the same. 

12:05 PM The Speaker 2 seeks permission for providing justification to the question asked and then completing the remaining argument. 

12:06 PM The Speaker 2 asks for additional 30 seconds for completing her submissions. She is confident and calm while submitting her arguments.

12:09 PM The Judges Rebuttals began. The Speaker 1 (Claimant) provides her submission confidently.

12:10 PM After the submission of the Speaker 1 (Claimant), the Judge asks the Respondents to provide the submissions for the Rebuttal. 

12:12 PM The Judge asks regarding the certainty of offer and acceptance of the contract. The Speaker tries to provide clarification for the same. 

12:13 PM The Semi-Finals ended with the final submission in the Rebuttal by both the parties. The Judges seem satisfied and happy with the submissions.

FINAL ROUNDS

 

IL 07 v. IL 04 (SASTRA Deemed University v. Rajiv Gandhi National Law University)

 

The Final Round participants came with full preparation and confidence. They are excited to present themselves in front of an esteemed panel of Judges. The Final Rounds panel consisted Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna (Presiding Arbitrator), Mr. Mark Demitry (Arbitrator) and Mr. Steven Lim (Arbitrator). 

Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna is an Indian jurist and a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. He has served as the chairman of the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission.

Mr. Mark Demitry, Deputy Counsel of ICC International Court of Arbitration, has served 5 years of his excellence.

Mr. Steven Lim is an Independent Arbitrator and Barrister at 39 Essex Chambers. He has more than 25 years of experience in the International Dispute Resolution.

2:38 PM The Presiding Arbitrator asks the Speaker about the conditional and unconditional guarantee. The Speaker 1 (Claimant), is answering the questions calmly. 

2:40 PM The Speaker 1 (Claimant) referred a precedent while answering the question. The Judge clarifies regarding the injunction of bank guarantee. 

2:42 PM The Speaker 1 (Claimant) tries to answer the question but the Presiding Arbitrator does not seems satisfied with the answer provided. 

2:43 PM The Presiding Arbitrator is trying to clarify the question and the Speaker refers the ICC rules and the Master Agreement in the case record. 

2:44 PM The Presiding Arbitrator questions on the basic meaning of Lex Morcatoia to further clarify the question and rules referred by the arbitrator. The Speaker is unable to answer clearly.

2:46 PM The time for the Speaker 1 (Claimant) is up. The Speaker is a bit nervous but handling all the questions calmly. 

2:47 PM The Speaker 1 (Claimant) begins with the second issues with the permission of Judges. 

2:48 PM The Presiding Arbitrator seeks clarification on the facts. The Speaker is able to clarify the some confidently.

2:49 PM The Speaker 1 concludes the second issue on jurisdiction. 

2:51 PM The Arbitrator questions on the facts of the case record. The Speaker 1 (Claimant) is able to provide clarification for the same. The Arbitrator seems satisfied with the answers provided. 

2:53 PM The Presiding Arbitrator ask to begin with the next issue. 

2:55 PM The Speaker 2 (Claimant) submits the contention based on merits. The Presiding Arbitrator ask the Speaker 2 (Claimant) on the interpretation of the contract. 

2:56 PM The Speaker moves the focus of the Judges on the facts of the case record. 

2:57 PM The Presiding Arbitrator seeks clarification with the answer provided. 

3:00 PM After clarification, the Presiding Arbitrator is impressed by the submissions made by the Speaker 2 (Claimant). The Speaker is very confident while submitting her contentions. 

3:02 PM The Speaker 2 (claimant) has exceeded the time limit of 45 minutes. 

3:03 PM The Presiding Arbitrator is impressed by the submissions made by the Claimant. 

3:05 PM The Speaker begins with the prayer. There are no questions for Speaker 2 (Claimant) by the Presiding Arbitrator and Arbitrators. 

3:06 PM The Speaker 1 (Respondent) begins with his submissions. 

3:07 PM The Presiding Arbitrator seeks clarification on the representation of the Respondents. The Speaker 1 (Respondents) clarify the same. 

3:09 PM The Presiding Arbitrator questions on the appointment of Tribunal and applicable law. 

3:12 PM The Presiding Arbitrator ask the question on the non-enactment of any ordinance by the legislature. 

3:13 PM The Speaker 1 (respondent) clarifies the same referring the case record and the bare provisions. The Judge seems satisfied with the answer provided.

3:14 PM The Arbitrator asks the difference between award and order.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

3:19 PM The Arbitrator seems satisfied with the Answer.

3:26 PM The Presiding Arbitrator questions the Speaker 1 (Respondent) and informs him about his time limit. The Speaker 2 (Claimant) tries to clarify the same. 

3:27 PM The Presiding Arbitrator counter questions the Speaker 1. The time is up for the Speaker and he concludes his contentions. 

3:29 PM The Speaker 2 (Respondent) seeks permission to begin. She is seems confident while submitting the contention. She refers the Exhibit in the case record while submitting her arguments. 

3:34 PM The Presiding arbitrator questions on the facts of the case record and the basic principle. The Speaker 2 (Respondent) by referring the case record. 

3:36 PM The Presiding arbitrator seems satisfied and counter questions the Speaker 2 (Respondent). 

3:38 PM The Speaker 2 (Respondent) deals specifically with the question asked and clarifies the same confidently. She referred a precedent for further justification. The Arbitrators seems satisfied with the argument.

3:39 PM The Arbitrator asks for clarification on the agreement clause for understanding the ambit of the clause. 

3:47 PM The Speaker provides clarification on the applicable law as asked by the Presiding Arbitrator. The Speaker 2 (Respondent) seeks permission for the presenting the second issue. 

3:50 PM The time limit for the Speaker 2 (Respondent) is up. 

3:51 PM The Arbitrator seeks clarification on the clause 7 of the Master Agreement. The Speaker clarifies the same referring to the case record. 

3:53 PM The Arbitrator seems satisfied with the answer and counter questions the Speaker 2 (Respondent) referring to Article 7. 

3:55 PM The Presiding Arbitrator questions on the performance of the contract. The Speaker answer’s the question with full confidence. 

3:56 PM The Presiding Arbitrator is satisfies with the submissions made. The Arbitrator puts forward a follow-up question to the Speaker 2 (Respondent). 

3:59 PM The Speaker 2 is unable to provide a proper answer for the same. The Arbitrator does not seem to be satisfied with the answer provided to him. 

4:00 PM The Speaker provides a clarification for the same. 

4:03 PM The Rebuttals started with the Speaker 1 (Claimant). 

4:06 PM The Speaker 1 (Respondent) seeks permission to the answer the doubts raised by the Speaker 1 (Claimant). 

4:07 PM The Speaker 1 (Respondent) refers to the case record for presenting the argument. 

4:09 PM The Speaker 2 (Claimant) begins with the rebuttal on merits. 

4:10 PM The Speaker 2 (Respondent) seeks permission for answering the Speaker 2 (Claimant). The Presiding Arbitrator asks to conclude the arguments. 

 

RESULTS

 

We are extremely thrilled to announce the results of final rounds of the 1st Edition of ILNU International Arbitration Competition in association with ICC International Court of Arbitration and ICC India.

The team representing Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala has been declared as the Winners while SATRA Deemed University has been adjudged as the Runners Up of the Competition.

Additionally, Tarun Katariya, National Law School, Jodhpur has been declared as the Best Oralist.

We extend our heartiest congratulations to the teams!

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

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