The Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution & Professional Skills(CADR & PS), Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla is elated with excitement to welcome you all to our most awaited event, the Samanvay International Mediation Competition 2023, wherein teams representing the top universities participate from all around the globe are all set for an all-round showdown.
About HPNLU, Shimla
The university emphasizes a holistic approach, blending theoretical knowledge, with training in practical skills to prepare our students for the dynamic legal profession. At HPNLU, we aim to encourage the progress of education, research, and practice and instil in the pupils a special mix of theoretical knowledge with practical learning and skill development.
About CADR & PS
Established in the year 2020 with the aim of promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and enhancing professional legal skills among law students, the Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution & Professional Skills (CADR & PS), Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application in the field of ADR.
Rooted in the principles of efficiency, accessibility, and adaptability, CADR offers a comprehensive array of resources, education, and training in various alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation, arbitration, negotiation, and conciliation. By fostering a deep understanding of these methods, CADR equips law students, practitioners, and the wider community with invaluable skills to navigate complex disputes in a more collaborative and timely manner. In pursuance of its goal of conditioning law students to efficiently resolve disputes and after witnessing tremendous success in the first two editions, the Centre is keen to conduct the third edition of its flagship event.
About Samanvay International Mediation Competition 2023
After witnessing a great response and appreciation from the participants across 32 premier law colleges and assessors across the globe, in our past two flagship national mediations, the Samanvay International Mediation Competition, 2023 is yet another step taken by the Centre for ADR and Professional Skills, HPNLU, Shimla towards acting as facilitator in increasing the love for Mediation among aspiring students. In the milieu of the backlog of cases reaching its saturation, Alternative Dispute Resolution such as Mediation and Negotiation provide a practical way out.
The competition seeks to provide a prodigious experience that will amplify the interests of young minds in this niche practice of law. The competition will help students brainstorm probable solutions for realistic challenges while providing them with the comfort of choosing their roles as per their preferences. It, therefore, tries to break the monotony of theory-based learning and helps students in putting their knowledge and skills to use. This competition will also provide an opportunity for the participants to develop the requisite lawyering and communication skills through various training sessions conducted by industry professionals. The participants are expected to take a multi-dimensional approach to reach a settlement, showcasing the variety of skills that can be useful in effective mediation.
About Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA)
IICA is an autonomous institute under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, this organization is dedicated to fortifying the corporate landscape by facilitating capacity building for both public and private entities, conducting extensive research, functioning as a prominent think tank, advocating for industry interests, undertaking consultancy projects, and supporting the Independent Directors Data Bank. By acting as a nexus for the government, regulators, and corporates, it harmonizes efforts to enhance corporate ecosystems. Covering a wide array of subjects such as corporate law, governance, insolvency, finance, CSR, valuation, ESG, ADR, business and human rights, investor protection, MSMEs, competition law, procurement, market regulation, contract management, startups, and CSR project consultancy, this institute plays a pivotal role in fostering an environment conducive to corporate growth and responsibility.
About Ex Curia International
Ex Curia International is a global and dynamic forum. ECI ignites an exchange of ideas and practices in International Dispute Resolution worldwide. We do so through the medium of a blog, podcast, and journal. ECI is a global and dynamic forum. ECI ignites the exchange of ideas and practices in International Dispute Resolution, worldwide. ECI primarily uses the means of a blog, journal, and podcast to further the same. Ex Curia International is a community of international students and professionals, working together towards the fulfillment of a single goal of promoting and exploring ADR practices from all across the world. India, Greece, Canada, Singapore, France, England, America, Africa, and more; the presence of ECI is felt across borders. ECI initiates with a solid base in 5 continents, 40+ countries, and numerous ADR communities.
About MediateGuru
Mediate Guru is a social initiative led by members across the globe. The aim of the organization is to build a bridge using which more law students can be encouraged to opt for ADR methods. Mediate Guru is creating a social awareness campaign for showcasing mediation as a future of alternative dispute resolution to provide ease to the judiciary by encouraging and empowering Law Professionals to take up the mantle of Mediation. it is an initiative led by member across the world, to highlight the benefits and upscale the ADR industry in order to help the people avail their Right to Justice, in form of Speedy and affordable Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Having worked on ADR services from the scratch last year, It has been successful in bridging the gap between general public and ADR services on a global scale.
About Indian Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC)
IDRC (Indian Dispute Resolution Centre) is an initiative of ‘Indian Dispute Resolution Council’ is duly empanelled with the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India for providing Alternative Dispute Resolution services through Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation online to Government Ministries, Departments, Organisations and Public Sector Undertakings. IDRC is dedicated to provide a highly professional, efficient and state-of-the-art institutional environment for both online and offline resolution of all kinds of disputes in a time bound and cost effective manner. This initiative is backed up by our proven track record in the legal field for the provision of world-class institutional support as a neutral and independent venue for the conduct of Domestic and International Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) proceedings.
About LatestLaws
LatestLaws.com is a dynamic online platform that serves as a comprehensive hub for legal news, insights, and analysis within India and beyond. Offering an extensive array of up-to-date information on diverse legal subjects, this platform caters to legal practitioners, scholars, students, and the general public, aiming to keep them abreast of the latest developments, judgments, and trends in the legal sphere. Through a collection of articles, case analyses, interviews, and opinion pieces, LatestLaws.com endeavors to provide a comprehensive understanding of various facets of law, ranging from constitutional intricacies to corporate regulations, making legal information accessible and insightful for a wide audience.
About EBC
Established in 1942, the EBC Group stands as an intellectual juggernaut in the realm of legal publishing, boasting a sprawling presence across various Indian cities and international locations. The brainchild of the visionary duo, Late Shri C.L. Malik and Late Shri P.L. Malik, who set their sights on Lucknow in the 1940s to embark on a journey in law bookselling and publishing, EBC has burgeoned into a conglomerate of companies unified under its esteemed banner. Renowned for its extensive repertoire encompassing legal commentaries, student texts, law reports, and pioneering works in both print and electronic formats, the EBC Group has been a trailblazer in the legal publishing domain. Notable among its array of offerings are Supreme Court Cases (SCC), SC Yearly Digest and Complete Digest, SCC Online, EBC Webstore, EBC Student Books and Practitioner Commentaries, EBC Reader, SCC Online Blog, EBC Explorer, and the esteemed Practical Lawyer magazine. This comprehensive suite of products and platforms underscores EBC Group’s commitment to providing diverse and comprehensive resources catering to legal practitioners, scholars, and enthusiasts alike.
About SCC
SCC Online, an initiative brought to fruition by Eastern Book Company (EBC), stands as a testament to the unparalleled legacy and expertise of a publishing powerhouse that has shaped the legal landscape in India for over 75 years. Founded by the visionary brothers, Late Shri C.L. Malik and Late Shri P.L. Malik, who established themselves in Lucknow during the 1940s, EBC has burgeoned into a consortium of companies renowned for their global impact on legal literature. This distinguished publishing house is esteemed for its extensive repertoire, including legal commentaries, student texts, law reports, and groundbreaking works in print and electronic formats, boasting a catalog of over 550 authoritative titles. Notably, EBC’s crowning achievement, the Supreme Court Case, launched in 1969, has evolved into a pivotal and widely-circulated law report, garnering immense respect and recognition within the legal fraternity for its meticulous standards and comprehensive coverage. Spearheading technological advancements, EBC revolutionized legal information dissemination with SCC Online’s Case Finder, an electronic repository facilitating swift access to Supreme Court case-law precedents. The web-based iterations of SCC Online products, initiated in 2009 and encompassing 3.4 million documents from 20 countries, underscore EBC’s commitment to accessibility and innovation. Embodying values of authenticity, reliability, and expediency, EBC steadfastly upholds the sanctity of the rule of law, cementing its legacy as an indomitable force in legal scholarship and information dissemination.
DAY 1- INAUGURAL CEREMONY
11:07: The ceremony commenced with a welcoming address from Dr. Sarita, the Director of the Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR). She introduced CADR and the competition, inviting the esteemed Madam Vice Chancellor and other distinguished faculty members for the ceremonial lighting of the lamp. The student convenor and CADR members were also part of this auspicious start.
11:11: The University Kulgeet, a song penned by the esteemed Vice Chancellor Madam, filled the air with inspiration, setting the tone for the forthcoming competition.
11:15: Dr. Sarita provided an insightful introduction to CADR and extended a warm welcome to the extraordinary Vice Chancellor, who eloquently highlighted the importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). She not only shared historical examples of ADR but also underscored its relevance in the contemporary world. To conclude, she recited a poem of her own, thoughtfully translating it for the guests.
11:33: Unfortunately, the special invitee, Mr. Param Bhambra, couldn’t attend in person. Instead, Ms. Chloe M represented him, sharing her wisdom and best wishes with great enthusiasm. Chloe also generously offered internships to the winning team, adding to the excitement of the event.
11:37: Mr. Paul Sills, another special invitee, graced the event with his remarkable achievements. He shared his valuable insights on the importance of ADR and how the ADR Act would significantly shape the industry in India. His wisdom left a lasting impact on all attendees.
11:45: Mr. Pascal, yet another special invitee, expressed his delight in participating in the competition. He shared his words of wisdom regarding ADR and the journey of future lawyers. His illustrious career achievements served as a source of inspiration for the audience.
11:52: Ms. Ananya Agarwal, founder of Ex-Curia International, an accomplished alumna of NUJS Kolkata and a participant in numerous national and international organizations, congratulated the organizing committee for the seamless execution of the competition. She not only highlighted the global importance of ADR with real-life examples but also shared her insights on the topic with the eager audience.
11:58: Dr. Sarita concluded the ceremony with a fitting quote from Sir Winston Churchill. She then extended an invitation to the Registrar for a vote of thanks.
11:59: The Registrar graciously proposed a vote of thanks to the special invitees, guests, the Vice Chancellor, Dr. Sarita, and everyone in attendance, both in person and online. He also expressed gratitude to Ms. Chloe for her generous internship offer to the winners and thanked the competition’s valued partners.
12:03: The national anthem reverberated through the venue, signifying the official start of the inaugural ceremony.
12:04: The event’s closing moments featured a final vote of thanks.
12:06: Hon’ble Vice Chancellor Dr. Nishtha Jaswal officially announced the commencement of the competition, bringing the ceremony to a grand conclusion.
DAY 1- PRELIMINARY ROUND 1
Team Code 07 v. Team Code 22
2:04 PM Greetings to everyone. The Assessors and the participants representing both parties have arrived. The host greets everyone and explains the rules to all the participants. The host starts the session with the opening speech, welcoming everyone and Thanking them for joining. The host thanked the assessors, Mr Siddharth Jain and Ma’am Swati Srivastava.
The host clarifies the teams and mediators for the round to assessors. The host reads out guidelines for the participants. (Total Time- 60 – 45 minutes for the round and 15 min feedback). Caucus sessions can be called out, but it should be at most 10 min (5 min each team).
2:11 PM – The Mediators start the session by introducing themselves. They thank both parties and ask for an introduction from the parties. The Requesting and Negotiating party Clients and Counsels introduce themselves. The Mediator points out that both parties should be on equal footing for the session. The mediator lays down specific rules. The importance of mediation is addressed briefly, after which they reassure the parties that they will help them reach an amicable agreement. The mediators outlined the roadmap that will be followed throughout this mediation session to make it as advantageous as possible for both parties concerned.
2:22 PM The requesting party, Melody Records, highlights the unfortunate accident due to a lack of communication. The Negotiating party makes it clear that they want to deliberate on vital issues arising from these unfavourable circumstances. They say that they are seeking a harmonious solution. They point out that this issue is salvaging the reputation of Melody Records. The requesting party counsel thanks the mediators and highlights the issues between the parties. They want to work with the responding party and have come here to accept amicable solutions. The main interest of the requesting party is future collaborative measures. The responding team thanks the mediators and the requesting party. The client highlights the importance of music to her and points out how melody records played a significant role in her music. She raises the issue that they lack trust in Melody Records, and trust has an essential role in this industry. She points out how she was blocked from using her music for her documentary because of this issue. They want to discuss how future relationships will work between the clients and how they can rebuild trust. Another issue raised was about the ownership and creative control of the responding party.
2:30 PM The counsel of the responding party also thanks the requesting party and reiterates his client’s statement. He highlights the two agendas- addressing the past and future. Agenda 1 includes the past trust and release of a song without permission, and Agenda 2 includes future trust ownership and creative control. Mediator lays out common agendas – First is the Intellectual Property Rights of songs, the Second is the creative relationship between clients, and the Third is the ownership of rights of the albums. The counsel of the responding party says that trust should be addressed first, and his client wants to associate with whom she trusts.
2:36 PM The client of the requesting party asks for an apology from the responding party. But says that no chance was given to them to maintain the contract. The counsel of the requesting party points out there are three issues. The responding party wants to understand how they can build trust today and asks whether they can give the rights of the albums back as a representation of trust. The client of the requesting party proposes that the client have her team handled by Melody Records, and more freedom will be given to her. As requested by the responding party, the agreement can be seven years. On the Ownership of Master Rights, the requesting party client describes that those rights would be given when another album is released. And if anyone wants to use the songs, the permission of Saylor will also be asked. The Counsel elaborated that sync rights are still with the client, and they have only rights to original music. Both rights have to be licensed for use in a movie.
2:43 PM The Client of the responding party asks for an equity stake in the company which would also make her trust the company. Mediators request to address building trust and ask for consensus between parties. The Client of the responding party says that they first want the rights of the seven albums. And asks what the requesting party wants from this meeting. The client of the requesting party declares that he will value the client and also addresses threats to company members by fans of Saylor. He also reiterates that as soon as the client releases another album, they will get the rights to one album at a time. The counsellor adds that the client has to give seven albums to get the rights to her seven old albums back. The Client of the responding party asks for ownership of the first six albums first and points out she will record albums with them again. She also offers a world tour together with Melody Records to bring lost reputation and lost fans back.
2:47 PM The counsel reiterates his client’s demands. A 6 month world tour is proposed with Melody Records and they ask for creative control of albums to Saylor. The client of the requesting party proposes that the first three album rights will be given now, and then the old condition of 1 album per new album will follow, and the counsel agrees to the world tour. The Client of the responding party wants to confirm that the rights to the first three albums will be given immediately and that all six albums can be used for the world tour.
2:54 PM The client of the responding party also proposes a community-driven video with her fans which Melody Records will release. The counsel of the requesting party proposes a podcast. The Mediator summarises the decisions. They say three immediate album ownership request has been accepted, along with a World tour, a community-driven video and a podcast.
2:58 PM The counsel of the responding party asks for concrete decisions and summarises in detail the accepted offers. He thanks the requesting party for inviting them here to reach a solution and The client of the requesting party says the same. The counsel of the requesting party reiterates that no equity share is discussed in this meeting. The mediation ends. The moderator thanks the judges and asks the participants to join the breakout room while the judges assess them.
3:14 PM – The judges give feedback to the participants and highlight the importance of body language and eye contact during the meeting. Also gives specific feedback to all the participants. The host ends with a closing speech thanking the judges for the feedback to the participants. I also appreciate all the assessors and participants.
Team Code 01 v/s Team Code 20
02:02 PM Greetings to everyone. The host outlined the road map that will be followed throughout this mediation session to make it beneficial for everyone elaborating on the guidelines and introducing the accessors of the mediation process
02:05 PM The mediators continued by introducing themselves, elaborating on the roles and explaining the mediation process The requesting and responding parties provided an introduction about themselves and agreed to choose this online mediation table with their certified mediators and agreed to be addressed by their respective names. The importance of mediation is addressed briefly, after which the mediator explained that this session will be 60 mins, out of which 45 min is mediation, 15 mins is for the feedback of judges and scoring each party can have private caucuses of 5 minutes each, and reassure the parties they will help them reach an amicable agreement the outcome of the mediation process depends on both the parties the mediators will not impose any decision.
02:14 PM The Requesting party begins with the opening statement by thanking respondents and mediators for joining the process where they express their intention to reach a mutually agreeable solution. The requesting party highlights their interest in the resolution of contractual terms and specifying the issues regarding the ownership of rights and discussing the possibility of any future contractual relationship and regarding the issue surrounding the reputation of parties, The requesting party approached the respondents with the utmost respect regarding these issues in hand
02:21 PM Respondent party explained the reason for parting with Melody Records as the lack of trust in the institution Saylor is not allowed to use her music creation. The party highlights the interest in regaining control over her artistic output, especially regarding her unreleased work “Hallucination” The respondent party urges to work on this proposition as a problem of ours, not only the issue of the requesting party, it could be beneficial for the negotiation of terms otherwise this is detrimental for both the parties.
02:27 PM Common agendas laid down by the mediators after listening to the takes of both of the negotiating parties, that is, the respondent wants to regain her artistic creation and share of profit of the unreleased album “Hallucination” further regarding the reputation of the parties.
02:30 PM The Opening session for agendas on the table starts with the requesting party saying that this issue is regarding a future contractual relationship the counsel further substantiates this claim by referring to a previous contract back in 2018 which was scrapped when the responding client was the manager of the company Zaffar East and now he is the owner of Melody Records asking to negotiate the terms of the contract because this contract would make Melody Record a representative of Saylor and NOW the roles have been changed now the requesting party could trust the responding client because at that time he was protecting the interest of the company of Zaffar East as a Manager and now he is the owner of Melody Records nature of relationship have entirely changed.
02:35 PM Mediators ask for any record before of the past six albums was there any term of ownership of rights in the previous contract the respondent party replies that they are not happy in renewing the contract because they have a history of not being adequate to the artist Saylor in which the requesting party replies that now the nature of the relationship is changed and they cannot distrust the competency of the new institution Melody Records based only on one of the rotten apples. The counsel of the requesting party refers to the client being unhappy and unwilling to continue the contract and asking for a change of heart for a future contractual relationship.
02:42 PM Questions to the requesting party by the mediators regarding the interest of re-recording albums if the ownership rights are not returned to her. To which the requesting party replies that they have less time due to her concert soon and she needs the rights to all six songs because they are all her global favourites, The mediators further ask the respondent party that if they are willing to give rights to the requesting party, they replied that he agrees that the time is less, but the re-recording would result in the depreciation of the reputation of both the parties so he decides to give the rights only on one condition that if the requesting party has to continue the contract with Melody Records
02:48 PM Counsel of the respondent party proposing an alternate solution, an offer rather than giving rights Company is willing to give 10% extra shares to the Artist apart from her father’s 5% shares in the company and sharing of 40% of the revenue coming from her all albums in future, the requesting party requested clarification of the grounds by the counsel of the respondent party, offers already proposed questions regarding will she get back her six albums back, The respondent party demanded $60 million for buying six albums.
02:52 PM, Today’s session concluded with “Some progress is better than no progress” statements by the mediators closing statements by the requesting and respondent parties were happy about the fact accepting the offer at least All of them concluded that it was a fruitful discussion and have further agendas for future mediation. Our esteemed guest is invited to give feedback to the participants He highlighted the off-tracking of the mediation session from the main agendas; the requirement for trust between both parties; always thinking about the upside & downside, highlighting the Importance of presence of mind for creating strategies; mindful of the language must be formal; not being nervous; always ask the takes on the issue after submission from the parties; highlighting the importance of caucuses which prevents the mediation from going off-track.
3:00 PM The participants gave their closing statements. The Session is concluded.
Team Code 03 vs Team Code 14
02:08 PM Greetings, everyone. The Judges and the participants representing both parties have arrived. The host greets everyone and explains the rules to all the participants. Both the parties introduce themselves and exchange pleasantries. The mediator commences the session by greeting both parties and explaining the mediation procedure.
02:12 PM The session continues under the guidance of the mediators. They welcome everyone and proceed to introduce themselves. Mediator 1 initiates with an opening and an introduction to the mediation. The mediators establish the ground rules for the session, provide a concise overview of the session and explain the process to the parties. They ask for the parties’ consent to begin the mediation process and assure them of the confidentiality of the proceedings.
02:20 PM The mediators request the requesting party to commence their speech. The requesting party expresses gratitude to everyone and initiates with their opening statements. The client, Balwant Chopra, addresses his concerns with the client of the respondent party, Saylor. The counsel of the requesting party subsequently emphasises the consequences of the issues and the client’s condition. This includes the loss of reputation resulting from Saylor’s decision not to extend her contract, the client’s experience of facing threats, online harassment and trauma exhibited by Saylor’s fanbase.
02:27 PM Mediator 2 takes control of the proceedings and invites the responding party to start their opening statement. The client of the responding party expresses appreciation and introduces the mediators to her contract with Melody Records, spanning from 2005 to 2018. She highlights the decision not to renew the contract due to controversial management and non-consensual activities within the company, portraying Melody Records as untrustworthy. The counsel of the responding party then articulates and summarises all the issues, emphasizing three significant concerns: The Ownership of the client’s Masters, Damage to her Reputation and Financial Losses.
02:36 PM Both the mediators deliberate on the issues raised by both parties and ultimately identify two agendas and topics of discussion for the mediation: Ownership of Saylor’s Masters Reputational Issues
02:40 PM Both parties commence discussions on the identified agendas. The client of the requesting party delves into the previous contract, emphasizing potential arrangements that could benefit both parties. They discuss points that have the potential to be mutually advantageous, focusing on profitability for all involved.
02:43 PM The counsel of the requesting party offers several solutions to enhance the relationship between the parties and secure future benefits. She suggests that the revenue generated from the masters can be equally shared. Additionally, she proposes granting Saylor a 7% equity stake in the company. A crucial solution is put forth regarding granting Saylor Veto power in decision-making.
02:48 PM The respondent party’s client appreciates the Veto power proposal and asks about the status of her six studio albums, raising questions about ownership. Her counsel summarises the points made during the discussion. In response, the requesting party suggests that Saylor can take ownership of her masters and be granted Veto power but under the condition of a 10-year contract.
02:53 PM Mediator 1 interrupts the ongoing discussion, emphasizing time constraints. He requests both parties to expedite the discussion and conclude their points. Additionally, he suggests that if both parties agree, the discussion can be continued in further sessions.
02:55 PM The requesting party concludes its arguments, expressing appreciation and acknowledging the responding party’s offers. The responding party takes its turn, appreciating everyone and highlighting their offers. Unfortunately, both parties remain unsatisfied with the outcomes, failing to reach an agreement and find a satisfactory resolution.
02:58 PM The mediators assume control of the session, discussing the entire negotiation process. They highlight different aspects of the discussions and underscore that, even though a formal agreement couldn’t be reached, there have been positive outcomes. They specifically mention the resolution of many trust issues. The mediators express their appreciation to both parties for their readiness to continue the negotiation in later sessions, acknowledging the significance of persisting efforts to resolve.
03:04 PM After the thanks from the mediators for such a fruitful session, the judges begin by asking each participant about their experience. Each participant shares their perspective. Subsequently, the judges initiate the marking process to assess and evaluate the proceedings. 03:18 PM Judge Gazal Gupta begins the crucial feedback session by addressing participants’ hand movements and suggesting improvements. She advises shorter statements and more mediator suggestions while commending good summarisation, clarification, and a solution-oriented approach. Subsequently, the second judge, Prasad Barje, recommends participants be less formal, embrace flexibility, and foster creativity. He stresses the importance of increased openness in the process. Both judges extend their best wishes to the participants for their future endeavours.
03:30 PM At the end, the session host delivers the closing speech. He thanked the participants and the judges for their presence and contributions. The session is officially concluded.
Team Code 04 vs Team Code 13
02:03 PM The judges and participants have arrived! They exchanged pleasantries and introduced themselves, and the round commenced. The host reads out the instructions. The mediator greets the judge and other participants. Client Balwan Chopra and their counsel Ananya introduce themselves. Client Saylor and their counsel Blake introduce themselves. The mediator is instructing both parties about the mediation proceedings. The mediator briefed both parties about the rules of the mediation proceedings. The co-mediator addressed the participants and emphasised the importance of the mediation.
02:14 PM Balwan Chopra, requesting party, begins the session by discussing the issue. The requesting party highlights that they want to mediate this problem. The requesting party’s counsel highlights that she is here to keep a check on the legal aspect of the problem.
02:19 PM The Requesting party puts the agenda down. The requesting party’s client, head of Melody Records, has three lineups. The first one is the renewal of the old contract, the second to restore their reputation, which has been tarnished, and the finality to have security for their other employees.
02:20 PM Respondents started by thanking the mediators and other judges and discussing their backgrounds. The client, Saylor, says they were given no control over her art. The counsel of the responding party, Blake, starts by thanking the mediators and expresses her gratitude to the requesting party. They make it clear that they want to deliberate on vital issues arising from these unfavourable circumstances. Counsel informs that their role is merely advisory and that the client has full and final authority over the negotiation.
02:26 PM The respondents put forward their agenda for the proceedings. The client is here to negotiate for two things. The first condition is for the client, Saylor, to own all six songs, and the second is compensation for releasing the song” Hallucination” without the client’s permission, along with associated profits. The mediator then briefly summarises the issues.
02:30 PM Discussion of agenda one by the requesting party, renewal of contract with mutually beneficial terms, starts. They agree to give the ownership of all six music albums and the renewal of the contract for a trial period of 5 years. Client counsel informs that there is no specific verbal contract about the ownership upon deliberation of the mediator.
02:34 PM The requesting party’s client demands a renewal of the contract for six years and highlights that that they will have their profit while Saylor has artistic liberty. Saylor informs that she wants to have complete ownership of all six albums. The requesting party says that Saylor will get a specified amount of royal or set of profits, a shared amount of revenue. The client of the respondent accepted this offer. The client counsel of the respondent proposed a 20% profit to Melody Records and complete ownership of all six albums to Saylor. The requesting party promises artistic liberty to Saylor. It proposes a public benefit concert so that their reputation and the security of other artists associated with Melody Records will be restored. The mediator highlights the conditions of the contract to be discussed first. They want Saylor to work exclusively with Melody Records for the first two years, and the next three years would be up for collaboration. The mediator inquires if the contract will be retrospective. Counsel for respondent informs that her client has essentially stated for renewal of the contract for six years. Out of this, the first two years were exclusively for Melody Records, then the other four years for collaboration. The contract would have no retrospective effect.
02: 48 PM The requesting party’s client highlights that they want Saylor to have a fixed number of collaborations, and 20% of profit will be too little for them. Client counsel highlights that instead of fixing the no of years, they can have a fixed no of collaborations.
02:50 PM The mediator briefly summarises the requirements of the contract. The mediators highlighted that both parties were willing to mediate for a common ground. The mediators thanked the negotiating parties for their flexible approach. The client-counselor of the respondent thanked the mediators for their open-mindedness
02:54 PM The judges are asked to fill out the scoring sheets for the participants. The judges gave feedback. The judge asked the participants to ask him if they had any queries. The mediator Mediatorinquired about the time limit. The judge replied that there should be a division of time and work between the mediators and were advised to do so. The mediators were told to focus on one issue at a time. The mediator inquired about the role of the mediator in reality and if it is the same as it competed. The judge said the role is the same, but the time is longer. In reality, the clients are put at ease, and then the proceedings are explained to the clients. Participants in real life are more responsive. The client of the Responding party inquired about the time division between client and client counsel. The judge responded that the client should have quickly summarised the history and handed it to the counsel. A fixed issue is to be decided and has to be discussed beforehand. Judges tell the counsel of the responding party to put forward the needs of the contract in writing, and the points should be put forward. Requesting counsel inquires about the division of time between the client and counsel. The judge said that they could have closed one issue at a time.
2:51 PM Balwant Chopra is ready to give artistic rights of Sailor only when the renewal contract is extended for nine years they will also grant complete ownership, which also includes the exclusive economic rights of Sailor over the six albums
2:55 PM Sailor agreed to this condition but asked for a change in the period, which is 7 years instead of 9 years and will further extend it if all goes fine.
2:59 PM The mediation session led to a partial conclusion and cannot lead to a full-fledged. The remaining clauses will be discussed in the further sessions.
03:02 PM The host closes the session by giving concluding remarks. There is a contract, and the conditions laid down in it should be abide by the parties, which seemed to be violated when Sailor shared an Instagram post which led to severe backlash to Melody Records and led to reputational damages to Melody Records by the fans of Sailor
3:04 PM OC Mediator conveys his end statements and thanking and appreciating the mediators, clients and counsel for the success and smooth conduction of mediation sessions
3:06 PM Respected judges are giving feedback appreciating all members’ performance, and conveying their expertise.
DAY 1- PRELIMINARY ROUND 2
Team code 17 vs Team code 10
5:03 PM: Greetings to one and all! The judges and contestants have shown up! The round starts after they say hello to one another and exchange pleasantries. The host reads out instructions. By highlighting the importance of the mediation, the mediator extends a warm welcome to the jury and other participants. Both parties receive instructions from the mediators on the mediation process. The mediator advises both parties on the guidelines for the mediation round.
5:08 PM: The requesting party begins the introduction, Doran Martel, a venture capitalist(client) and his Counsel, Walder Fey, followed by the responding party, Edward Stark (the client) and Robert Marathon (the Counsel). After the introduction, the mediators explain the rules such that their advice is optional. The mediators have no personal interests. And they are to help them in guiding. Further, the co-mediator explains the rights procedure and lays down some ground rules for cooperative problem-solving. And the mediators are mere facilitators. The information shared in the session will remain confidential. Mediators will be neutral.
5:15 PM: The requesting begins with their opening statements and explains their positions and interests. The primary goal is to secure a fair share in Heart’s Bane. Moreover, for the client, It’s not a battle for mere profits but for integrity and respect in the business world. The Counsel further explains the interest of the responding party.
5:19 PM: The Responding party begins with their opening statements. They affirm that they recognise their potential. Hence, they decided to invest. The Counsel urges the requesting party to be open-minded and try to devise as many solutions as possible. And, together, they will try to reach the middle ground.
5:24 PM: The mediators set the agenda for today’s discussion.
AGENDAS: 1. Possibility to facilitate and keep the avenues open regarding talks with John Snow, the angel investor. 2. Discuss the proportion of shares to be given to Lannister VC in the holding company and a seat on its board of directors. Agendas are not rigid and open to amendment.
5:27 PM: The mediator asks for an open negotiation between the parties and seeks clarification regarding the involvement of John Snow (Angel investor) and Parent company. Moreover, she asks if the parties want to add other agendas for the discussion.
5:30 PM: The Responding party calls for the caucus. Mediators explain the process of a caucus that it will remain private unless they want to share the information with the other party. They reveal the confidential information in the caucus that they are generating profit from Pitt and Power technology. And they can only share the profit percentage with the requesting party, not the share-holding rights.
5:35 PM: The mediator asks for clarification and states the responding party’s proposal. After that, the requesting party comes into the caucus. They assert that the forming of holding in no way dilutes the control of the Lannister.
5:42 PM: The caucus comes to an end. The requesting party begins sharing their proposals. Their involvement is not restricted due to the formation of a holding company. They will arrange the debt financing to accommodate the holding company.
5:45 PM: The responding party says they will re-consider the percentage instead of share-holding rights; they will give profit percentages. They suggest collaborations, expertise advisory and 10 % of profit instead of the shares in the holding company. The Requesting Party affirms it would not want a third party to hinder relationships. Additionally, they want shares not for the profits but for the say in the company.
5:51 PM: The responding party Counsel concludes and proposes 2% for advisory share and 6% for profit sharing. However, the parties couldn’t reach an amicable solution. They decided to hold another mediation session.
5:56 PM: The session comes to an end. The judges mark the scores and begin with the feedback. The participants do not need to interrupt the session but can take more initiative. The Counsel should not overshadow the client and cut the client. He highlighted the importance of the client in mediation as it’s a client-driven process. The role of Counsel is to bring more clarity regarding the interests of the client. At the end, the session host delivers the closing speech. He thanked the participants and the judges for their presence and contributions. The session is officially concluded.
Team Code 15 v. Team Code 05
5:02 PM – Greetings to one and all! The judges and the participants have arrived! They exchange pleasantries and introduce themselves to each other. The session starts with the host greeting the judges, Vidhan Singh and Deeksha Giri, and the participants. The regulations are explained to the participants by the host.
5:06 PM – The mediator begins by asking the participants to introduce themselves and outlining the mediation procedure to them. Mediator- 2 demonstrates the importance of mediation to the clients by using attractive examples. She later established ground rules and explained how to use caucus and reassure the parties they would help them reach an amicable agreement.
5:17 PM – The requesting party begins with an introductory statement thanking respondents and mediators for participating in the process and expressing their goal to seek a mutually accepted settlement. Doren Martell and his counsel, the requesting party, highlight how passionate they are about business and how they always nurture the startup businesses later outlined their predicament and laid forth their agendas, which were:
- Protection of Equity and Minority Rights
- Proportionate Share Calculation
- Alignment with Eddard Stark’s Vision.
5:21 PM – The responding party’s client, Mr Eddard Stark, discusses how he has always wanted to be an engineer or a tech maniac. While studying, he realised how the e-commerce industry is thriving, so he wanted to create a value-based industry that focuses on stability and to bring this e-commerce platform to everyone in the country. They also complimented Doren for requesting mediation, stating that they believed it was the best option. His counsel further elaborates on his position and presents their agendas which were:
- Discussion on the nuances of the holding company and Doren’s interests in the same
- Negotiation of a detailed agreement
5:29 PM – The requesting party begins with their agenda, stating that their company, Lannister VC is successful and they have excellent relations with many other companies. They further stated that they want some substantial shares calculated using specified formulas because they have invested so much in the holding company and have also provided advisory services to them. They also proposed the protection of minority rights and equity.
5:32 PM The responding party, after hearing the demand of the requesting party, provided them with some solutions. They said they are ready to give a 15% share to the Lannister VC company for investing so much in the parent company and provided them with the solution of optional convertible debenture.
5:39 PM – As the mediation was in a deadlock, The requesting party recommends convening a caucus to explain their demands and present their case to the mediators in a private and confidential setting. While the caucus was about to begin, Mediator 1 assigned the responding party homework to think of inventive solutions.
5:42 p.m. – The caucus begins. The seeking party claims they want a proportionate share based on the holding company’s evaluation, so they are still in a smaller portion. They claim that they want a proper stake in the company with some rights and do not want the optionally convertible debenture proposed by Hart Field. The mediator two then asks them about their best and worst alternatives. Then they responded by claiming that they would concentrate more on equities.
5:47 p.m. – The combined session begins, and the caucus concludes. The requesting party informs the responding party that they do not believe that opting for optional convertible debts is a viable option for their company because they believe they have been a successful company with significant stakes in the Hart’s. Still, they do demand a proportionate share in the holding company. The responding party hears their statements and states that the interest company is based on capital and that they will be more than willing if the Lannister VC wishes to invest in the parent company, but giving out bonus shares without any consideration in return is something that they cannot do since they are a startup. They proposed that if the seeking party wants to work up a consideration on how there will be an anti-dilution clause along with Doren’s interest in buying certain shares in the holding company, they will be more than happy to discuss that.
5:53 p.m. – Due to the time constraint, the mediators requested the parties for their concluding remarks as the session was deadlocked, and no one was willing to move from their demands.
6:02 p.m. – The judges were asked to provide feedback to the participants. The judge, Deeksha Giri, questioned the function of mediators since they did not control the process, but the clients did. She described the mediation process as a funnel, with open-ended questions at the beginning and how the mediation process should start with exploring the subject and just going straight to the negotiation is not a part of the mediation. The judges also advised them to be cautious regarding the caucus in the session because if they give a caucus to one party, they should also give a caucus to the other party. After all, the other party might get offended, and the case may become severe. Other than some inevitable mistakes of the participants, they concluded it a fruitful discussion.
6:08 p.m. – The session is finished after the host delivers the closing remarks.
Team Code 21 v. Team Code 07
5:02 PM Greetings to everyone. The Judge and the participants representing both parties have arrived. The host greets everyone and welcomes the participants and judges. The host thanked the assessors, Swati Srivastava Ma’am and Manoj Kumar Hiremath Sir. The host is explaining the guidelines and time barriers to all the participants. The mediators start the session and introduce themselves. They thank the parties for choosing mediation as their method of resolving the conflict and ask the Clients and Counsels of the parties to introduce themselves.
5:08 PM Mediators highlight the importance of mediation. And clarify that they will help the parties to reach a solution. They also ask to clarify if the parties are here voluntarily. They explain the mediation process and ask the parties to be open to an amicable solution.
5:12 PM The requesting party thanks the mediators and assures them that their priority is to reach the solution. They highlight the issues of the possibility of forming a new company and how they want to acknowledge the past and look towards the future. They also ask to conclude the discussion in 60 days. He invites his counsel. The Counsel of the requesting party thanks the responding party for inviting them for the mediation and points out that the interests of both parties should be seen. They should forget the past and look forward to the future. They have two main agendas. The 1st agenda is to discuss the possibility of his party being a member of the board of directors. He reiterates that they should conclude the discussion in 60 days. The 2nd agenda is about proportionate shares of the holding company given to the client.
5:18 PM The responding client clarifies that earlier negotiations were smooth and that it was decided that the first 10% would be given and then 5%. They want to discuss the Ownership structure of the new company and welcome the idea of Mr Doren, the requesting client, becoming director of the company. They hope to cultivate synergy and wish to uphold core values. They are looking forward to discussions to safeguard company values. The responding counsel clarifies that the issue revolves around ownership of the company. He also reiterates how they truly believe that mediation is the answer to their solutions.
5:23 PM Mediators highlight the commonality between the parties- They want to discuss the ownership structure of the new company by discussing the ownership stakes of Mr Doren in the new company. The agendas now discuss the proportionate share and ownership structure at Heartsbane. The requesting client asks the responding counsel to elaborate on the proposals. The responding counsel elaborates that the purpose by which the holding company is formed is to keep the patents that the client would create, and if ownership is given, then profit will also be distributed. They want to refrain from giving commitments for future patents. So they want Mr Doren to be separate from the ownership structure. The responding client offers to give 10% on 2 AI patents of his. This is in addition to the 15% stake in the subsidiary company. The mediator summarises that the responding party is willing to negate ownership in the holding company. And in addition to the 15%, they propose 10% in 2 AI patents.
5:30 PM The responding counsel points out that if the ownership stake is given to the holding company, it will be detrimental to both parties. TC 21 client emphasises when investing in a company, he wants to get involved. The counsel thinks more than the 2 AI patents are needed for his client. He points out the importance of Lannister VC. He says that his client, Mr Doren, can also aid the company with his experience. The diversity of the portfolio that the company holds will benefit the responding client, and his company should consider the experience of the person they are getting in their team.
5:37 PM The responding client clarifies that they offer a 15 % stake and a position on the board of directors. The responding client highlights that they understand the importance of Mr Doren and his company but are still deciding whether to commit to the future creations of Mr Stark, the responding client.
5:40 PM The mediators ask for a caucus, and the parties enter a caucus session and are informed about the caucus’s confidential aspect. The parties put forth their sides without hesitation and fear of the information being disclosed to the other party. The requesting party first enters the caucus. They emphasise that they need cooperation, not the patents. They are willing to give up the proposed 25% and want a 25% stake in the holding company. They will share their expertise, and Lannister Vc will become the guarantor of Heartsbane and remain behind them throughout. The mediator asks if something has to be kept confidential from the other party.
5:47 PM The responding party joins the caucus session. Mediators put forward new demands of the requesting party. The responding party is not ready to give ownership in the holding company and points out contradictory statements of the requesting party. The responding party clarifies that Mr Doren is already a stakeholder. They lay out the issues. The responding client offers two seats on the board of directors and 20% stakes in Heartsbane to Mr Doren. The Responding party points out nobody is questioning Mr Doren’s legacy and respects his contributions. The mediator asks if something has to be kept confidential from the other party. The caucus session ends, and the session continues.
5:54 PM The mediator summarises the proposals of the parties. The requesting client disagrees with the offers. The mediators thank both parties for their time and commend them, saying that it is unfortunate that a solution is not yet reached, but it is the beginning of reaching a solution. The art of compromising is essential. Handing over the session to the host.
5:56 PM The accessors are requested to give scores after sending the participants to a breakout room.
6:10 PM The judges give feedback to both the parties. Judges also give specific feedback to all the participants. They highlight the importance of concrete proposals. Judges also appreciate the mediators and emphasise the importance of clear communication during the mediation session. The host ends with a closing speech thanking the assessors for the feedback to the participants and appreciating all the assessors and participants.
Team Code 03 vs Team Code 14
05:04 PM Greetings, everyone. The Judge and the participants representing both parties have arrived. The host greets everyone and explains the rules to all the participants. Both parties introduce themselves and exchange pleasantries. The mediator begins the session by greeting both parties and explaining the mediation procedure.
05:07 PM The session begins with the mediators introducing themselves. Mediator 1 opens the session with essential information and emphasises impartiality and voluntary participation. The second mediator underscores commitment to an amicable agreement. Both mediators seek the parties’ consent to start the process, assuring confidentiality.
05:16 PM The mediators request the requesting party to begin their speech. The requesting party expresses gratitude to everyone and initiates with their opening statements. The client, Lannister, starts with a brief introduction and explains her present condition. She highlights critical aspects of their startup and outlines some strategies in the business model. Following this, the client delves into the issues at hand, beginning with an explanation of their concerns regarding the responding party and the reasons that necessitated this negotiation.
05:21 PM The counsel of the requesting party continues to provide insight into her client’s situation, underscoring the significance of the ongoing discussion. She elaborates on the main points of concern and outlines three key topics for discussion: ● Importance of Transparency in the Communication Process. ● Shareholding and Decision-Making Power. ● Considerations for Future Collaborations.
05:25 PM Mediator 1 takes control of the session and invites the responding party to begin their opening statement. The client, Heartsbane, expresses gratitude to everyone and commences with their arguments. They introduce the mediators to the initial terms of the agreement sheet and proceed to explain their perspective and current condition. Heartsbane emphasises the purpose of collaboration for future endeavors and elaborates on the issues and problems with the requesting party, particularly touching on guidance and partnership as points of contention. The counsel then articulates all the critical points made by the responding party and raises two agendas for negotiation: ● Finalizing new terms in a new agreement. ● Addressing concerns about partnership and ethical dilemmas.
05:32 PM The mediators assume control of the discussion and proceed to summarise the agendas raised by the parties. They thoroughly discuss all the agendas and ultimately conclude three main topics for the discussion: ● Transparency in Communication. ● Shareholding and Power in the Decision-Making Process. ● Considerations for Future Collaborations.
05:37 PM Both parties discuss to clear doubts regarding the agendas. They address queries from the mediators and engage in dialogue with each other to ensure a better understanding of the issues. Following this, the second agenda regarding Shareholding is thoroughly discussed and examined.
05:43 PM The requesting party begins discussing the first agenda, Transparency in Communication, stressing its importance for an effective relationship. They mention that the respondent party kept certain key facts hidden and described ongoing negotiations with the holding company. The respondent party presents its perspective, sharing viewpoints and arguments. In response, the requesting party criticises specific points made by the respondent party, continuing the discussion.
05:48 PM The mediators request solutions, and in response, the respondent party offers several. They extend certain rights to the client of the respondent party and explain the reasons for withholding confidential information in the past. Additionally, the respondent party proposes a higher value of shares, offering 15% of the company’s equity in return for 8% revenue. The requesting party engages in a discussion regarding the offers, seeking clarifications and interpretations of the proposed terms. They also express an interest in licensing rights as part of the negotiation.
05:53 PM As the allotted time for the discussion ends, the mediators request some extra time to allow for the conclusion of the parties’ arguments. The judges grant an additional 5 minutes for this purpose. Both parties are then asked to present their concluding arguments and work towards reaching a satisfactory resolution.
05:55 PM Both parties conclude their arguments on a positive note and successfully reach an agreement that is accepted by both sides, marking a successful resolution to the mediation session.
06:00 PM The mediators express their gratitude to everyone for their presence and participation, and the judges proceed with the marking process to evaluate the session for the next 15 minutes.
06:15 PM The critical feedback session led by the judges commences. Both judges express appreciation for everyone’s involvement, offering suggestions for improvements. Both judges then extend their best wishes to the participants for future endeavours. Overall, they provided positive feedback, marking the session as a great one.
06:21 PM At the end, the session’s host delivers the closing speech. He thanked the participants and the judges for their presence and contributions. The session is officially concluded.
DAY 2- OCTA FINAL ROUNDS
Team Code 08 v. Team Code 12
02:01 PM: Greetings, everyone. The Judges and the participants representing both parties have arrived. The host greets everyone and explains the rules to all the participants. Both the parties introduce themselves and exchange pleasantries. The mediator commences the session by greeting both parties and explaining the procedure of the mediation.
02:05 PM: The mediation session begins with the introduction of the mediators. Mediator 1 warmly welcomes everyone and proceeds to ask the participants to introduce themselves. They then go on to explain all the rules and guidelines, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality, neutrality, and respect throughout the mediation process. Following this, Mediator 2 provides further details about the mediation process and addresses any doubts or questions from the participants.
02:12 PM: The mediators request the requesting party to begin their presentation. The
requesting party expresses gratitude and commences with their opening statements. The client introduces their airline, Fly High, emphasizing its profitability between 2012 and 2018. They express admiration for David & Courtney, the responding party, an aircraft engine manufacturer and service provider. The client proceeds to explain the agreement between the two parties.
02:17 PM: The counsel of the requesting party details their current position and dispute
reasons, highlighting issues with the responding party. They stress the complexity of legal
procedures and significant financial losses. The counsel clarifies their intention to avoid focusing on arbitrary disputes.
They raise two key discussion agendas:
- A revival plan for compensating losses.
- Discussion on the terms of the current contract.
02:21 PM: Mediator 2 summarizes the requesting party’s points and then asks the responding party to present their arguments. The client of the responding party expresses gratitude, discusses their company’s current status, monetary situation, interdependence, and internal issues, expressing a desire to address them.
02:25 PM: The requesting party discusses contract flaws that led to losses and insolvency due to faulty products, emphasizing passenger safety concerns. The counsel then clarifies the main focus on compensation, revival plan, and new agreement. They propose compensation based on a third-party profit and loss procedure and seek assurances to prevent future faulty engines.
02:32 PM: The responding party highlights their market reputation for high-quality engines.
They inquire about safety and industrial standards, noting the absence of contract clauses on the topic. They request additional reports from the requesting party on safety standards and mention the lack of objections or reports against them regarding safety.
02:40 PM: Mediator 2 takes control of the discussion and summarizes the points presented by both parties, highlighting areas of agreement and disagreement. After the summary, they
encourage the parties to move on to the next agenda of discussion.
02:43 PM: The responding party addresses the financial burden due to supply delays caused by various constraints. They propose a collaborative approach. Subsequently, the counsel of the
requesting party offers a solution—a joint venture to assure resources. They propose that DC should supply engines with the support of their ongoing ventures, aiming to resolve the issues and concerns raised.
02:54 PM: The counsel of the responding party requests an extension of time for the supply of engines and suggests supplying 5 units during that extended period. Mediator 1 ensures all the points are clear, and both parties agree to these proposed terms.
03:01: The responding party discusses the provision of complementary services and raises the topic of trade secrets. They request a non-disclosure agreement and emphasize the importance of keeping sensitive information confidential. The requesting party agrees to these terms, recognizing the need for confidentiality in handling trade secrets and sensitive information.
03:04 PM: Both parties conclude their arguments and express appreciation for each other’s
willingness to discuss the terms further, even though a final agreement wasn’t reached. They
leave on a positive note.The mediators thank everyone for their participation and express
appreciation for their efforts. They then ask the judges to begin the evaluation and marking
process.
03:14 PM: The judges commence the feedback session by expressing appreciation for
everyone’s participation. They suggest that proposals should be documented for clarity and
transparency. Additionally, they encourage the mediators to participate more actively in the
process and advise the negotiators to propose more plausible solutions in the future.
03:18 PM: The host delivers the closing speech, expressing gratitude to all participants, and
officially concludes the session.
Team code 18 v. Team Code 11
2:00 PM Greetings to everyone. The host outlined the roadmap that will be followed throughout this mediation session in order to make it as advantageous as possible for both parties concerned that the mediation session will be about 60 mins and 15 mins kept aside for feedback.
2:05 PM The session began with the mediators elaborating on their roles and introducing themselves they laid emphasis on the mediators have same roles as doctors to provide a safe and comfortable environment to both the parties where they have equal say and lays down importance of honesty and showed gratitude of posing trust in this mediation table with their certified mediators
2:08 PM The other mediator further elaborated the mediation process and laid down the importance of caucuses and tells both the parties that they are not here to represent any particular party and the outcome of this mediation process solely depends on the negotiating pairs who have participated in this process with good faith. Further, she implies the importance of summarising the takes for better understanding and also that the information shared during the caucuses will remain confidential for building trust between the mediators and parties.
2:11 PM Requesting party starts with the opening statement by thanking the respondent party and mediators for joining this mediation session, where they express their intention to reach a mutually agreeable solution. The client further express journey of her company to reach more hearts airline was formed only for this motive and to provide air travel to all which is economically feasible, commitment of their company regarding the adaptation of new technology and Past year they were not able to meet this commitment due to inability of DC company to deliver the technology which resulted in reconsideration of the contract and 40% fleet had to be grounded due to the failure of contract for supplying of the engines and spare parts by the respondents company, earlier they had full trust of the potential of this partnership but now they’re forced to reconsider the contract due to losses suffered
2:17 PM The requesting party Counsel further elaborated the take of his client and summarising their take began with thanking the respondent party for choosing this process and the counsel is here to advocate interest of their client and company, the contract happened because the client’s company wanted to adhere to international safety standards that is why they contacted with DC and
they believe that litigation spoils relationships hence opted this for resolution their take is simple I.e. that the company suffered losses due to non supply of engines and spare parts, they wanted to adhere to the international safety standard and hence the contract and lastly to explore possible solutions for the current issue and share of responsibilities.
2:22 PM The respondent party began with their opening statement by introducing themselves and laid emphasis that they need to deviate from this blame shifting and focus on more important issues they are hoping to reach a solution, the counsel showed gratitude regarding opting for this mode and elaborates that the goal today is to work towards a resolution between both the parties they believe that the mediation process is a realm of trust and the discussion unfolding today should result in the better future of the aviation industry and the counsel continues that the company has fulfilled all the contractual obligations and the impact of COVID resulted in the mismanagement of the tech supplies. 02:30 PM Opening of agendas put forth by the parties I.e. revitalization of fly high second discussion on the reputational damages suffered by the parties shifting from the blame game for the failure of engines, the mediators summarises issues respondent party wants to ensure the financial stability and looking forward to find a possible solution for protecting their reputation and requesting party has issues regarding supply of engines both parties agreed to place their interests while evaluating fly High economic condition these are the agendas that they are going to focus on today due to constraint of the timings they seek for the possible implementation of a effective resolution.
2:38 PM Mediator questions the requesting party about the suitability of the discussion, to which the client replies about their concern regarding the damages that have been caused to the company, the mediator rephrasing the agendas I.e. non supply and safety compliance of the engines, exploring possible solutions and future collaborations and lastly delimitation of the timeline the counsel clarifies that they are not claiming the damages that occurred before the deal and asks the respondent party that they have any further more concerns while proposing a solution they agree to a third-party analysis for investigation regarding the issue and estimation of course damages and will decide the share of responsibilities.
2:50 PM First solution that is proposed is regarding the investigation of the damages suffered by a neutral third-party which will decide the share of responsibilities and estimating compensation addressing the concern regarding the non supply of engines resulting in 40% loss of the fly high unable to provide engines on time and their concern regarding that the mismanagement occurred due to the unforeseen COVID pandemic, the reason for insolvency was the non supply of engines the respondent party proposed the counter offer that they can provide spare engines from their contemporary rivals for the survival of fly high airlines and the further extension of loan would be after the assessment of the financial situation of fly High by a neutral third-party.
2:57 PM Summarising the solutions achieved by the mediators that the extension of the loan depends on the assessment of the financial situation on 3 months in rebuilding of fly high and fly high will be supplied the engines by DC from its contemporary rivals , the share of responsibilities and compensation will be decided by third-party analysis; to which both the parties agreed and the mediators congratulated both the parties for reaching to a solution.
3:00 PM Today’s session concluded with closing statements by the mediators and the parties; they have agreed to the offer put forth with a common conscience all in all it was a fruitful session mediators were thanked for their Collaborative approach.
3:02 PM Our esteemed guests were invited to give the feedback where they highlighted the importance of protecting the parties interests, prevention from off-tracking from the main confidential agenda, laid importance of clarification of bonds by the counsel and be clear on the positions and the parties can’t make a sceptical promise, also laid emphasis on the importance of caucuses and don’t mention the things that the parties aren’t certain about.
3:05 PM Closing statement by the host. The session was concluded
Team Code 06 v. Team Code 14
2:03 PM Greetings to everyone! Everyone has arrived. Host is introducing the judges. The host read out all the guidelines for the mediation process. Mediators introduce themselves. Both parties introduced themselves and exchanged pleasantries.
2:12 PM The mediator mentioned some rules that should be followed during the session and briefly explains the general process of mediation.
2:16 PM The requesting party starts with the opening speech. Tells about fly high that it is not only a business interest, but a dream that took place in 2005. The aviation industry demands unwavering commitment to excellence, safety above all which is hindered because of the engines supplied by David. They are facing a very daunting challenge because of engines. And the supply of engines has fallen short.
2.20 PM Agendas are mentioned by the requesting party to seek resolution and restore a partnership that has faced considerable challenges. They want to maintain their reputation in the aviation industry. They witnessed a crisis and wanted Financial compensation. Plus financial loss due to breach of contract. Second, keeping an arbitral award. They also need a communication framework, which establish a culture of Accountability and responsibility, we know the challenges faced by requesting party and are open for collaboration in future
2:27 PM The responding party starts with the opening speech. Tells about David and Courtney, that it is a global leader in the field of aircrafts engines. They are fully committed to supply engines and are assuring to replace faulty engines as quickly as possible. But there are reasons for delayed delivery. They want to continue their trust.
The agendas mentioned by the responding parties are:
- They want to explore current situation and adjust the current agreement
- To deal with financial losses that both the parties have suffered.
2:34 PM First agenda started, current situation circumstances which led to financial losses and moving on to the monetary compensations.
Fly high got their fuel checked but the fuel quality was perfect, and it is the engine that is faulty, it is an irresponsible move from david and courtney and we claim compensation because 40% of the fleets are not working and it is creating huge losses to us. It has tarnished their reputation and the loss incurred right now is 10800 crores and adding 40% of the fleets it would be roughly around 15000 crores. The responding party asked how the losses were incurred because of the engines. The requesting party says, The aircraft works because of its engine and we want to ensure our passengers’ safety. It is a very crucial concern for us.
2:44 PM The mediator summarizes all the points and agendas. DC says they have checked every aspect of the engine and that they are actively investigating . They understand the delay and disruption because of them. They asked for the breakdown of the 10800 crores loss they suffered.
2:50PM A call for caucus is made by judges. Fly high requested that financial compensation should remain the major agenda. DC stated that ‘we have no rights over the engines. And arbitral award should be kept secondary and is followed as it was binding and we are not looking forward to renewing our previous contract with DC because of the quality issue.’ And DC also mentioned that they are not willing to give their engines any further to Indian clients. We have 61 aircraft out of which only 20 are leased. Non-functioning aircrafts also come under the contract.
2:59 PM The responding party starts, firstly about the arbitral award and they are open to discuss it and the quality of engines. and they want to restore the partnership with fly high. They are definitely open to providing them with compensation. We want the other party to sign a non-disclosure agreement. And the lease was actually terminated so, fly high had no longer rights over the specific engines.
3:06 PM DC says that it is not a good time to come into any agreement. But we want to put some proposals so that they can think about it and we can talk about it in another session. They are willing to look at the financial situation together with the requesting party. They will have another session in the future.
3:09 PM The honorable judge gives feedback to the participants. Pointed out the negative points of both the parties. Like, Opening statement should be kept short and mediators should have intervened more.
3:22 PM Fly high justifies themselves and judges pointed out their mistakes in the mediation process. Host thanked all the participants and the judge for giving their valuable time and initiating the mediation process. Judges wish all the best to the parties for their future agendas and congratulate them for participating. And the session concluded.
Team Code 05 v. Team Code 16
2:04 pm– Greetings to everyone. The Assessors and the participants representing both parties have arrived. The host greets everyone and welcomes the participants and assessors. Host thanks the judges Mr Annamaya Nanda and Ms Chaitali Jugran. The host explains the guidelines to all the participants and explains the time barriers.
2:07 pm– Mediator starts the session and explains the process of mediation and the role of
Mediator and mentions key elements of mediation and the confidentiality aspect of it.They mention presence of parties to showcase their willingness. Statements put forward would not be used for any judicial proceedings. And asks the Clients and Counsels of the parties to introduce themselves. The parties state their capacity. The Mediators mention that they are here to facilitate communication, provide unbiased guidance and find a way to align the interests of both parties.
2:15 pm– The requesting party client starts with thanking the mediators and the responding
party. Points out the success of their company through the years. Mentions that they had a lot of faith in David & Courtney. They point out that public safety was compromised.
The Requesting Counsel starts by thanking the mediators. Points out that Communication is the best way to resolve the conflict. The responding party joining shows that they are ready to resolve the conflict that arose between the parties.
Agendas for today-
- Compensation -Recovery of losses and indemnity by breach of contract
- Enforcement of Arbitral Award
- Collaboration over the revival plan
2:20 pm– The responding party Client thanks the requesting party. Discuss who they are as
David & Courtney. Points out that they understand Fly High’s situation.It is unfortunate how the problem arose. They reiterate that the concerns of both parties are important and the last 2 years have been hard for all. They are Here to listen and understand Fly High.
The Responding counsel thanks the mediators. Clarifies his role.
2:27 pm– Mediator thanks the parties and reiterates the responding parties agendas.
Summarizes the following agendas-
- Building Trust – Compensation and Enforcement of Arbitral Award
- Renegotiating Terms – Collaboration over the revival plan
- Agreement on Confidentiality
They clarify the common grounds of both parties.
2:32 pm – The requesting client takes up the First agenda and again points out how
passenger’s safety has been compromised. The responding client says that they are also
dependent on other stakeholders and the difficulties in the past year caused disruptions in the supply. The requesting counsel points out the huge loss caused and how passengers safety was compromised. They want to know if the party is ready for timely delivery and quality standards.They want to understand their position on this. The responding client points out that they are not back on their feet. They will try their best to fulfill their demands but want to avoid legal dispute. They also want relaxation in providing the engines per month. The responding counsel says that enforceability of the award will null the discussion today. It mitigates the whole point of negotiation. They suggest that Fly High should reconsider the enforceability of the Arbitral Award . They want to withdraw from litigation which is asking for enforceability of the award.
2:40 pm– The Requesting counsel points out that they are pushing for the enforcement because they need assurance that they are going to get the compensation or atleast the award is enforced.The requesting client asks if the responding party agrees on the remedies set up in the award, they can give up on the arbitral award. Time period for engine delivery can be relaxed. But they clarified that they are looking for a merger or a joint venture. They want to discuss the compensation amount and the time period of engine delivery can be negotiated.
Mediator appreciates that both parties are ready to negotiate and willing to forgo the award if
terms are layed down correctly.
Further discussions can be on clarity of when the engines will be provided and about the
compensation.
2:45 pm – The responding client says that cannot give an exact timeline for giving
compensation. But they can invest in their venture which could form a part of the compensation. For the Engines they suggest that first high priority can be done and first 5 engines per month can be provided. They wish for them to withdraw from legal dispute
2:49 pm– The responding counsel says now they can discuss the legal aspect of it.
The requesting client reiterates that they are willing to take up the proposal of investing in the venture. They ask the responding party to clarify if David and Courtney have any ongoing legal dispute against them. The responding counsel says that they don’t want to enter a legal dispute as it will harm the reputation of both parties.They add as engine providers going to a legal dispute would hamper their future partnerships.They can have a third party arbitrator for discussing this.
2:55 pm– The requesting clarifies that they will take investments after talking to the other
stakeholders.The requesting counsel emphasizes that they are willing to let go of litigation and can break down the compensation by making a plan. They want clarity on how they will get the compensation and ask about expectations for future negotiations. The requesting wants that the phase plan for compensation can be given to them before the 30 day period.
2:58 pm– The responding client reiterates that compensation can be in two phases: 1st can be of investment and 2nd can be compensation in phase manner. They propose that they can meet again in a few days to discuss the financial compensation.
The responding counsel summarizes 2 parts of compensation-First can be Investment and Second can be a cost benefit analysis.
The responding client clarifies that both options can be seen for giving the compensation.
Mediator sees them building trust and commends the fruitful session. Parties agreement was
seen and parties were able to get a mutual agreement. The parties thank everyone and the mediators and set a meeting for next week to further their discussions.
3:05 pm– The accessors are requested to give scores after sending the participants to a
breakout room.
3:17 pm– The judges give feedback to both the parties. Also gives specific feedback to all the participants. They emphasize the importance of mediation. The host thanks all the participation and ends the session.
DAY 3: BEGINNING OF THE OFFLINE ROUNDS
The Samanvay International Mediation Competition has levelled upto the offline rounds and the team welcomes all the participants, assessors & other guests to the beautiful city of Shimla. All the stakeholders started reaching Shimla by 3rd of November to take part in the rounds on 4th and 5th of November.
09:05 AM The teams have arrived from their respective lodgings.
9:06 AM The guests have arrived and are being welcomed.
9:09 AM Teams are registering themselves. Teams and judges are having their breakfast.
9:32 AM All the teams are sitting in hall one.
9:37 A.M – Participants are enjoying their morning meal.
9:51 AM Other judges are arriving now.
10:36 A.M – The judge’s briefing has commenced. The competition and the ADR centre are being introduced by the host. Later on, she clarifies what mediation really is and how it works. She goes on to describe the judge’s duties.
10:45 A.M – The presenter is providing the judges with confidential data.
10:48 A.M – The host gives the assessors an explanation of the scoring method.
10:49 AM Briefing of judges is going on. Release of confidential information has started.
10:55 A.M – The briefing session ends.
DAY 3- QUARTER FINAL ROUNDS
Team Code 05 v. Team Code 18
11:18 A.M – Greetings to everyone! The judges and the participants have arrived! They exchange pleasantries and introduce themselves before the round begins. The host reads out the instructions. The mediator welcomes the judge and the other participants.
11:26 A.M – The session begins with the mediators deliberating on the roadmap that will be followed throughout the Mediation session in order for it to be most useful to both parties concerned. The mediators emphasize the significance of their role in enabling the conversation that will lead to an amicable resolution of the conflict. We are now all set to begin with what we hope will be a fruitful round of mediation.
11: 36 A.M – The requesting party speaks about his country, The Republic of North Shire, and its geographical location, as well as the country’s rich culture. They mention the country’s long-standing and bilateral relationship with the Union of Rivendell. They express their gratitude for Rivendell’s help when they were going through a difficult time. They talk about how the events of March 5th, when a bomb exploded near the Tahira desert border, causing major damage and the death of five troops patrolling in the area that night, made them question their relationship with them. But they believe that mediation is the best way to reach an amicable solution to this dispute arising between both the countries.
11:41 A.M – The requesting party talks about their agenda for today’s session.
- Regarding terrorism and national security
- Trade disruption and economic impact
- Bilateral cooperation including Future collaborations
11: 43 A.M – The responding party praises the requesting party for informing them about their country’s standing and how much they appreciate it when they are referred to as siblings rather than guests. They further discusses about their country, economy, and connections with other countries and the North Shire. They claim that their alliance is founded not merely on diplomacy, but also on historic friendship. They further say that the accusations of the responding party felt like a direct attack on them, given their great bond. As a result, they want to resolve this issue as soon as possible because it includes not only the decision-making authorities of both nations, but also other stakeholders and, most importantly, the citizens of both countries. They express to the responding party how the recent occurrence in the Tahira region has greatly upset them since the bombing was associated with them without any conclusive proof, and that they would never do anything which would cause damage to the North Shire or support any association that does such things.
11:52 A.M – The responding party lays down their agendas for this session.
- Economic concerns and trade disruptions in which they want to discuss the MFN (Most Favored Nation) status, certain sanctions and travel restrictions.
- Issue of Terrorism, Bilateral talks, and National security of both the nations.
- Future relationship.
11:54 A.M – The mediators concise the agendas of both the parties into one liners, which are as follows:
- Identifying responsibility for the attack and preventing future instances of terrorism.
- Resolving trade disputes and mitigating economic impacts.
- Rebuilding diplomatic relations and future collaborations.
11:56 A.M – The requesting party begins with the first agenda. They believe their worries are reasonable, and because both countries have such prosperous relations, they expected a response from the responding party’s government, which they never received. They further claim that the reaction they received from the Union of Rivendell was unsatisfactory at the international convention. They ask the responding party about investigations taking place in the Union of Rivendell regarding such attacks. The responding party says that they did try to conduct bilateral talks regarding this issue but the country of North Shire did not respond to them. Because the topic of terrorism is so sensitive, they cannot make any public statements or use any international platforms without first thoroughly vetting and probing. They question the requesting party about what led them to believe they were involved in the attack, despite the fact that they have undertaken investigations and taken action on the matter. The requesting party replies back, stating that the problem was their inaction and lack of responsiveness on this issue, which prompted them to take retaliatory activities against the Union of Rivendell. Furthermore, all parties agree that they are opposed to terrorism and will work to decrease it as much as possible.
12:03 A.M – Both parties reach an agreement that they will launch a joint inquiry into this matter. They will also conduct cooperative border patrols and issue red alerts to each other in the event of an incident. They agreed on facilitated and collaborated by a neutral third party. The responding party also tells the requesting party that they will notify them if anything is discovered during the investigation.
12:08 A.M – The parties begin discussing the second agenda item, trade disruptions and economic impacts. The requesting party requests the responding party’s suggestions for the second agenda. According to the responding party, because they are an agrarian economy suffering from extreme poverty and a significant degree of unemployment, the Shire’s trade and economic sanctions are eventually harming the bottom line. So they propose lifting the restrictions placed on them so that they can once again refer to each other as siblings who have enjoyed a 63-year connection and reclaim MFN status. The requesting party claims that if the Union of Rivendell is willing to relax the trade and economic sanctions placed on them, they can likewise relax the restrictions imposed on their nation. The responding party also suggests that the travel restrictions and visa bans imposed on them be relaxed because they impede the running of the two nations. The requesting party retaliates that they are unwilling to lift the travel restriction put on the Union of Rivendell because they do not have definitive answers as to what caused the attacks and because they are unsure who may be a perpetrator. The responding party tells the requesting party that they will conduct stringent checks on residents who are traveling, and the requesting party promises to relax the travel ban after they determine who is responsible for the attacks.
12:17 A.M – The parties achieve an agreement on the second agenda. The mediator recounts the whole agreement that they have made. The responding party asks for the confirmation from the requesting party if they are willing to lift the travel ban a little. In response, the requesting party agrees and states that they are willing to make exceptions for students and workers.
12:26 A.M – The mediators review the entire session and expresses how wonderful it was that they were able to achieve an agreement on the two objectives. the mediators conclude the session by complimenting the parties on a productive session. The mediation round concludes with the hope of meeting again for another session to further examine the remaining concern with the same zeal.
12:48 A.M – Our esteemed judges are providing feedback to the contestants. The parties are commended for their dexterity in dealing with the surprises thrown at them by the other party. The assessors advised the participants to avoid reading during the entire process, but everything else was excellent. Closing statement by the host. The session is concluded.
Team Code 12 vs Team Code 11
11:28 AM: Greetings, everyone. The judges and participants from both sides are now present. The host warmly welcomes everyone and provides an overview of the rules. Both parties take turns introducing themselves and exchange friendly greetings. The mediator starts the session by addressing both parties and outlining the mediation process.
11:32 AM: The mediation session begins with Mediator 1 extending a warm welcome to everyone. They invite the participants to introduce themselves and then delve into a comprehensive explanation of the rules and guidelines, underscoring the significance of confidentiality, neutrality, and respect throughout the mediation. Subsequently, Mediator 2 elaborates on the mediation process, addressing any inquiries or concerns raised by the participants.
11:38 AM: The client of the requesting party starts with gratitude, an introductory speech, and then proceeds to their opening statements, emphasizing the issue’s foundation and concerns. They express hope for a constructive discussion. The counsel follows, elaborating on their position, discussing diplomacy, and potential solutions while focusing on future prosperity.
11:43 AM: The client from the respondent party explains their perspective, including the issues, root causes, the relationship with the requesting party, the agreement, and shared interests. Then, the counsel representing the respondent party discusses the reason for mediation, their government’s position, addressing allegations, economic pressures, suffering, assistance, diplomacy, and security concerns.
11:48 AM: The mediators step in and summarize the arguments from both parties. They emphasize two key agendas for the topic of discussion:
- Assistance to ensure accountability and nation recovery.
- Re-establishment of trade.
11:52 AM: Both parties engage in discussions about the agendas and make some interpretations. Ultimately, they reach a consensus on two key agendas:
- Discussion about the ongoing issue which pertains to the terrorist attack that occurred on March 5th.
- Consideration of the economic and national interests of both parties.
11:56 AM: The client of the requesting party starts by discussing the first agenda, focusing on terrorism and its impact. They emphasize trade relations and counter-terrorism efforts. They accuse the responding party and propose three solutions: an international investigation, transparent discussions, and conditional trade merits. They ask the responding party to consider the most favorable proposal.
12:02 PM: The client from the responding party responds by discussing the issues and proposals put forth by the requesting party. They also offer their perspective on the matters raised and provide interpretations. The counsel summarizes the entire argument and expresses appreciation for the solutions presented by the requesting party, emphasizing the importance of mutual understanding.
12:05 PM: Mediator 1 summarizes the arguments and mentions that the respondent party is open to the investigation but has concerns regarding the allegations. Then Mediator 2 suggests a caucus session, but both parties decline the proposal.
12:09 PM: The client of the requesting party addresses the composition of the investigation team, emphasizing the need for a code of conduct, transparency in sharing investigation results, and conducting the investigation in the responding party’s nation, Rivendell. They also raise questions for the responding party’s clarification and further discussion.
12:12 PM: The responding party expresses appreciation for the points raised by the requesting party and agrees to the first agenda. The mediators extend their congratulations to both parties for this positive development.
12:18 PM: The requesting party initiates the discussion on the second agenda, focusing on the national interests of both parties. They specifically address issues related to travel restrictions on the responding party, highlighting concerns about people’s safety, distress, cross-border conflicts, and the impact on the local economy.
12:25 PM: Mediator 2 raises the issue of time constraints. Mediators request closing statements. Requesting party appreciates the responding party’s agreement, emphasizing its importance for economic ties, and thanks everyone. Responding party thanks everyone and applauds the requesting party’s understanding. Mediator 1 concludes with thanks, deeming the session fruitful.
12:32 PM: The mediators invite the judges to make remarks and engage in discussions about various aspects of the session.
12:40 PM: Then the feedback session is commenced by the judges. Our esteemed assessor, Bhawna Arul, initiates the feedback session by inquiring about everyone’s experiences. Participants share their experiences and discuss their strategies and main points of discussion. They acknowledge clarity in both teams’ arguments and highlight a few mistakes. Our 2nd esteemed assessor, Shubham Singh expresses appreciation and extends best wishes for the future to all participants.
12:52 PM: The host expresses gratitude to everyone for their presence and delivers the closing speech, marking the end of the session.
DAY 3- SEMI FINAL ROUNDS
Team Code 11 V. Team Code 04
3:31 PM– Greetings to everyone. The assessors and the participants enter and some join us virtually. The moderator starts by welcoming the assessors and the parties. They express a warm welcome to the assessors, Ms. Radhika Shapoorjee, founder of Meditation Mantra, Ms. Sumedha Rathi senior partner at Lexidem & Rathi and Mr. Prathamesh D Popat, founder of Prachi Mediation. The moderator reads out guidelines and informs about the time barriers of today’s session- 90 mins mediation and 15 mins for scoring and feedback. Caucus can be called out for a total 20 minutes where 10 minutes for each team will be given. It is the discretion of assessors for extension of time if needed.
3:35 PM- The mediators start the session and welcome the parties. They state that as the Pre mediation agreement has been signed and if both parties have authority for this session. The mediators ask the parties to introduce themselves. The requesting party introduces themselves as representatives of South Korea and the USA. The responding party introduces themselves as representatives of India and Germany. The mediators assure that they are certified to be here. They explain the process of mediation with an analogy.They Clarify essential aspects of mediation. They are here to provide solutions to their problems. They highlight that anything said in this session will be confidential.
3:40 PM- The co-mediator lays out ground rules, stating that the parties’ presence demonstrates their voluntariness and their purpose to facilitate finding a middle ground. They urge the parties to use their time to reach an amicable solution.
3:43 PM-The representative of South Korea starts by introducing themselves, emphasizing the significant impact of today’s results. They point out how South Korea has advanced technology that benefits people, highlighting the need for regulations that are technologically neutral, respect companies’ privacy, and avoid forcing companies to disclose information they don’t want to. They express hope for a fruitful discussion. The US representative finds themselves at a critical juncture in terms of AI, with a focus on fostering innovation and addressing questions of accountability. They emphasize technology neutrality in AI regulation, summarize their interests in data accessibility which should be free and open and privacy protection. They firmly believe in ethical considerations and the spirit of open dialogue.
3:50 PM- The responding party representing the EOC greets everybody, expresses gratitude to the mediators and the requesting party, and presents certain facts. They mention the tech renaissance with Sentinel AI and how negotiations between both blocs were interrupted by some issue. They emphasize the importance of bilateral cooperation and express an open mind to understand each other, hoping for a solution. The responding party representative of Germany also thanks the mediators and the requesting party, acknowledging that mediation is a two-way process. They see this as an opportunity to repair relations between the two blocs and mention that the most influential nations are trying to regulate AI. They summarize key issues as data privacy, data localization, and ethical guidelines regarding AI.
3:53 PM- The mediator summarizes the interests of both parties and identifies common agendas to address first, such as data privacy and technology neutrality. The requesting party starts by addressing the first agenda, asking why stringent regulations on AI are necessary. The responding party responds that, as developing countries, they need to protect the data of their citizens. They want to proceed slowly and cautiously to protect against the misuse and unethical use of data. They seek a transparent disclosure of AI for assurance and inquire how the other party can assist in this matter. They express willingness to discuss any offers from both blocs. 4:04 PM – The requesting party acknowledges the need to protect the privacy of citizens and suggests that no restrictions should be imposed on companies for sharing data. Their counsel summarizes that companies should have voluntary participation, with no mandatory restrictions. The mediator emphasizes that there should be no blanket restrictions on a company.
4:07 PM – The responding party agrees to listen to the offer of a voluntary data transfer agreement if it includes provisions for data localization. They emphasize that the rights to the data should remain with the country. The requesting party commends the suggestion and seeks clarification on what data localization entails. The responding party explains that areas related to human rights should be localized, and the requesting party inquires about other areas of data. 4:10 PM – The mediator summarizes the discussion. The requesting party suggests that if they are accommodating regarding data localization, they can provide data in other areas, and stringent ethical guidelines can be discussed with a hybrid approach.
4:14 PM – The responding counsel summarizes that the requesting party has agreed to data localization in areas other than critical ones. The mediator party summarizes the agreement, noting that there is an agreement on the first agenda. The responding party clarifies that in critical areas, the government has a say, while in other areas, companies have a say.
4:17 PM- The requesting party proceeds to the second agenda concerning ethical guidelines and seeks clarification on these guidelines. The responding party expresses their desire for reassurance regarding AI data leakage and AI malfunctions and how they would address these issues. They suggest that countries can be flexible with some basic regulations that all countries must adhere to.
4:21 PM- The responding party inquires about the penalties.
4:23 PM- The responding party requests a private caucus to discuss the details of the penalties with the mediators. The requesting party is excused, and the private caucus begins. The mediators ask about the progress of the mediation. The responding party mentions that they want to discuss penalties for AI leakages and have a specific percentage in mind. They propose a 4% penalty on AI companies in case of leakages and suggest starting negotiations at 7%. They are open to being accommodating as long as ethical norms are maintained. Their counsel expresses the need to understand how data transparency will work. The mediators summarize the discussion and highlight the questions posed by the requesting party during the joint session, particularly regarding who will decide the ethical norms. The responding party states that the ethical norms will be decided by both parties.
4:32 PM– The other party is called in for a caucus session. The mediator points out the privacy of the session. The requesting party lays out the concerns that the responding party has. The mediator discloses some points of contention and elaborates on the hybrid method, which will involve both parties if ethical norms are followed. They also discuss the penalty offer by the other party, which starts at 7%, with negotiations possible. The responding party mentions that if data leakages occur, they should only happen in a natural state, and they need to decide on how to handle them. They express their willingness to consider some points of the other party but seek further clarification. The mediator asks about the transparency of sensitive data, and the requesting party responds that they are agreeable to discussing steps to ensure transparency, beginning with differentiating between company and government data. The mediator asks if there are any stances to address in the joint session.
4:42 PM- The responding party joins the session. The mediator thanks both parties for stating their points and summarizes the stances of the requesting and responding parties, emphasizing the distinction between company and state data and the importance of transparency and the hybrid setup.
4:44 PM- The requesting party asks for clarifications on penalties. The responding party reiterates that a 7% penalty applies in case of data leakages. The requesting party suggests that the question of penalties should be addressed later and, initially, the focus should be on the issue of transparency.
4:47 PM- The responding party raises questions about transparency, specifically whether it will be based on stringent or liberal guidelines, how AI answers questions about its algorithm, and the adherence to ethical norms in the process. The mediator summarizes the discussion.
4:50 PM- The responding party seeks reassurance regarding transparency. The requesting party clarifies that transparency should be more emphasized for government information rather than private company data. The requesting party emphasizes that as far as sensitive information is concerned, there should be transparency. They clarify that less transparency should be maintained for private companies and personal data, while more stringent transparency is needed for critical data like health,defense etc.
4:55 PM- The requesting party summarizes that two agreements have been reached: one regarding data localization and the other related to government data with more transparency and a stringent approach. The responding party confirms that the first agreement was formally decided, but the second agreement on the hybrid structure and governance will be discussed in the next session, along with penalties. The mediator now requests both parties to provide their closing statements. The requesting party thanks the mediators, assures that the agreed topics can be discussed in the next sessions, and thanks everyone for their participation, noting that the discussion was fruitful.
5:01 pm- The responding party thanks all the mediators and the requesting party for choosing mediation to solve this issue. Again thanks mediators and the requesting party for today’s discussion and say that the details of next session will be discussed. The mediator ends the session by pointing out the fruitful session and commends the communication between the parties.
5:04 PM- The parties are requested to leave the room by the moderator and the assessors give scores to the parties.
5:20 PM- Feedback is given by assessors to the participants.
Team Code 05 vs Team Code 13
03:32 PM Greetings, everyone. The judges and participants from both sides are now present. The host warmly welcomes everyone and provides an overview of the rules. Both parties take turns introducing themselves and exchanging friendly greetings. The mediator starts the session by addressing both parties and outlining the mediation process.
03:35 PM Mediator 1 from New Zealand opens by thanking everyone and clarifying the process, ensuring voluntary participation and addressing any concerns. Mediator 2 from Canada expresses gratitude, explains the mediation process, outlines key rules, and underscores the significance of neutrality, confidentiality, and mutual satisfaction.
03:44 PM The requesting party opens with thanks and addresses Artificial Intelligence, discussing policies, innovation, and growth. They stress flexibility, focusing on startups and economic growth. The counsel summarises arguments and highlights the session’s key aspects: ● Intellectual Property Protection ● Technological Aspects ● Voluntary Data Transfer 03:53 PM The mediator summarises the arguments of the requesting party and invites the responding party to present their arguments. The client of the respondent party expresses gratitude and addresses the issue of indefinite balances, explaining how to address these imbalances today. They emphasise key clauses and raise three agendas: ● Regulation of Sensitivity in Data Transfer and Privacy ● Deliberation of Ethical Norms ● Discussion on Liability for Negligence
04:02 PM The mediator summarises the agendas, and with the mediator’s permission, the client of the responding party begins their opening statement. They discuss balancing innovation and ethics with flexibility, primarily focusing on data transfer. They highlight the significance of individual data privacy and advocate for keeping individual data within national boundaries.
04:06 PM, The requesting party responds to the agenda by discussing the importance of the free flow of data. They propose that individuals should have a personal choice in sharing their data. They delve into data transfer and pose several questions to the respondent party. The client of the respondent party responds by answering the questions raised by the requesting party. They emphasise that data transfer should adhere to specific moral standards and maintain a high level of ethics. They assert that there should be no involuntary transfer of data and no data security breaches. Individual data sharing should not be compelled through unfair means.
04:12 PM The mediators take control of the session and provide a summary of the arguments presented by both parties. They then pose questions to the responding party to clarify any remaining doubts or uncertainties. The responding party begins clarifying the questions raised by the mediators, shedding light on sensitive data, including biological and personal information. However, as they encounter difficulties discussing the issues, they request a caucus session. The mediators and the requesting party agree to this request, allowing for further private discussion and resolution.
04:16 PM During the caucus session, the responding party’s client highlighted their concern for privacy and ethical standards, including transparency, honesty, and truthfulness. They support a hybrid model that considers national interests and individual concerns, ensuring voluntary data transfer. Mediator 2 checks for concerns, and the responding party emphasises the importance of balance and preventing involuntary data transfer. They approve of the hybrid model with a broader perspective. Mediator 1 summarises the arguments and assures confidentiality to the responding party.
04:27 PM In the caucus session with the requesting party, mediators emphasise confidentiality. The client discusses the importance of laws, measures for individual benefit, and the need for narrow data transfer provisions. They also mention the need for voluntary data transfer in various sectors. The counsel explains the hybrid model’s provisions, including societal impact and humanitarian considerations. They propose discussing tech neutrality and intellectual property protection in a joint session. Mediator 1 summarises the key points. 04:38 PM: As the caucus session concludes, both parties rejoin the session, and the mediators share all the discussed points, mentioning the areas of agreement. The requesting party discusses the non-substantive framework and the need for stringent measures. The responding party then shares their perspective on these points.
04:44 PM The mediators summarise the points and address time constraints. They suggest that the issue of Intellectual Property can be deferred since the current focus is more country-specific. The requesting party concludes the discussion on the first agenda and proceeds to address the second agenda.
04:47 PM The requesting party, while discussing intellectual property in the context of AI, emphasises the significance of protecting Intellectual Property, especially in AI mechanisms. The responding party appreciates the views of the requesting party but raises the issue of jurisdictional values in this context.
04:55 PM The requesting party appreciates the views of the responding party and mentions they will take these points to all nations. They inquire about how EOC nations will handle economic settlements. The responding party responds, explaining their approach to economic settlements and outlining their stance on privacy and security for their citizens.
05:06 PM The mediator takes control of the session and requests both parties to conclude their arguments due to time constraints. Both parties present their closing statements. The mediator summarises the discussions, noting that while a final agreement couldn’t be reached, progress has been made. They conclude by expressing that the session was productive and fruitful and thank everyone for participating.
05:21 PM During the remarks and feedback session, the judges commend all the participants for their well-presented and well-researched arguments. They suggest that future arguments should be more documentary, emphasising facts over personal opinions and intricacies. The judges extend their best wishes to all the participants for their future sessions and endeavours.
05:34 PM The host delivers the concluding speech, expressing gratitude to everyone for their presence and participation. With that, the session comes to a closure.
DAY 3- GALA DINNER
5: 45 PM : All the guests, faculty members and students have arrived at the parking area for the cultural evening called “GALA DINNER”. The snacks and tea are being served to all.
5:47 PM : The host welcomes all the guests and participants and provides an insight about the competition and the evening being organised by the Organising Committee.
5:50 PM : The Honorable registrar sir of HPNLU, Prof. S.S. Jaswal is felicitating the assessors for giving their esteemed presence for this competition.
5:52 PM : The first performance by Harshali Srivastava gives the audience a soothing vibe of some famous songs through her melodic voice.
6:00 PM: A skit is performed by the Pro Bono Club on the importance of mediation in our daily lives. The story is about the importance of Mediation and other ADR methods in real-life scenarios like marital issues, nuisance, property disputes, etc. The skit was performed by some drama enthusiast students of HPNLU- Sidhant, Priyanshu, Kartik, Sonam, Snehashish, Vishrut, Adity, Ishan, Hiral and Vihaan.
6:12 PM: After the educational skit, it was time for other joyful performances for the day, with Saswat Sahoo and Harshal Srivastava giving the audience a taste of some classical as well as modern songs through their melodic voices.
6:20 PM: A classical folk song of Shimla is being graced with the voice of another performer, Shagun Bhatoa, with her performance.
6:25 PM: The host calls for the mandatory performance of the folk dance of Himachal Pradesh i.e. “NATI” performance by the students of the university. The audience seems too enthusiastic after watching the classical performance.
6:35 PM: The host announces a performance prepared by the Organising Committee. The members are serving an exemplary dance performance to the surprise of the audience. The audience also starts vibing with the songs.
6:40 PM: Since the stage is now set, the host calls on for the announcement of the results for the Semi-Final rounds. The two negotiating pairs advancing for the final rounds are TC- 04 and TC- 05, and the mediators qualifying for the final rounds are TC- 06 and TC- 09.
6:50 PM: The host thanks everyone for their esteemed presence for the event and to all the performers for making this event a success.
7:00 PM: All the assessors and participants are moving towards the dining area for the Dinner.
DAY 4- FINAL ROUNDS
9:00 AM– The teams and the assessors have arrived at the University. The welcoming team is already there to welcome all the participants and the assessors with a bunch of flowers.
9:15 AM– The teams are having their breakfast in the dining area. The assessors have moved towards the VIP room to have their meals.
10:00 AM– The teams have been provided with the Confidential Information for the round in the CI Rooms for the requesting and responding parties.
10:15 AM– The judges’ briefing session starts. The competition and the ADR centre are being introduced by the host. Later on, she clarifies what mediation really is and how it works. She goes on to describe the judge’s duties.
10:45 A.M – The presenter is providing the judges with confidential data.
10:48 A.M – The host explains the scoring method to the assessors.
10:55 A.M – The briefing session ends.
11:00 A.M– The participants have moved to their respective rooms for the conduction of rounds.
Team Code 04 (NARNIA) VS Team Code 05 (RIVENDELL)
11:21 AM Greetings to all! The judges and all of the competitors have shown up. The host is introducing each of the judges. The host reads all the guidelines.
11:25 AM The mediator is introducing herself and extending greetings to everyone. Each participant is giving their introduction and exchanging greetings. The mediators are explaining the mediation’s procedures, methods, and other details.
11:33 AM The requesting party starts with the opening statement. Narnia is a politically stable country and has been a signatory of UNCLOS since 1992. Tells about the importance of Lucifer island for both the nations.
Agendas-
- Deliberation regarding territorial sovereignty over the Lucifer island which also involves a dialogue regarding the oil and gas exploration.
- Financial turmoil which river dell is facing and are open to negotiation relating to economic co-operation.
- They are also open to restoration of cultural and historical ties.
11:40 AM The responding party starts with the opening speech. Talks about the fisherman of their island whose livelihood is based on the lucifer island. They also mention that Narnia suddenly in 2023 included Lucifer Island in their territory by amending their constitution. Which affected the life of the fisherman there. They are proposing the Establishment of a neutral zone and a common economic zone on Lucifer island. They want the safety of their fishermens.
Agendas-
- De-escalation of the tension that has arisen between both the islands.
- Economic and resource sharing aspect.
11:50 AM Every agenda is summed up by the mediator. In addition, agenda items for discussion include cultural and historical linkages and territorial sovereignty. The responding party, though, is interested in discussing de-escalation. The acquisition of Lucifer Island as a whole is now under discussion.
11:53 AM The party in response queries, “What prompted the other party to amend the constitution and add Lucifer island to Narnia so suddenly?”
Requesting party mentions that their country is in their expansion phase and the valuable oil, mineral and gas exploration has led to sudden change in the constitution.
Requesting party asks, “What are they exactly demanding from them about de- militarization ?” To which they answer that Lucifer island is also an integral part of our economy and there are a lot of fishermans who relied upon it, their livelihood is affected and they are also arrested and put into custody and are also facing constant harassment. That’s why they want a neutral zone without any interference from the army and navy.
Responding party questions, “What measures could Narnia take in terms of securing the interest and livelihood of the fisherman?
To which they answer, They are ready to give them their traditional area for fishing and also certain insurance coverages and safety measures to protect them from harassment. They are okay with continuing fishing there. But they want territorial sovereignty over the island.
12:01 PM The responding party says instead of claiming complete sovereignty both can have joint sovereignty over the territory of Lucifer.
But the requesting party offers other things regarding the outsourcing of oil and gas, in which they will use their own resources like machines and labor. They shall be charging only the basic operation cost. From the outcome of the exploration they are ready to keep 15% with them and 85% for the responding party to help them economically. And this will benefit the youth of both the islands.
12:09 PM The responding party claims that if they allow shared sovereignty, it won’t restrict their ability to develop on this island. The requesting party’s offer is very captivating but they believe that signing such an agreement will limit the growth of their country. Requesting party instead of joint sovereignty wants their offer of 15 and 85% to be accepted. And resources can be demarcated at 50-50%.
12:14 PM A call for caucus is made by the requesting party. They mention that they have territorial sovereignty on the island, they found a very valuable mineral, scientific marbles and a unique fish species that will be beneficial for their island. And they also want to demarcate certain areas of the sea and the land to have claim over. And they are agreeing on the 50-50% resource sharing as well as the revenue generated but under a condition to have some area with full sovereignty. We want to promote Rivendell country as well. Main agenda is that they want to have full sovereignty over certain areas.
12:25 PM The responding party asks about the full sovereignty of that certain area and what are the terms of these demarcation when the territory and resources are to be divided in half. Mediator summarizes all the points. And the requesting party will provide the list of the certain area and a map also for which area they are talking about to the responding party. And also want the clarity that are they sharing resources or the land ? The requesting party wants to move forward from resource to the land sharing aspect. What part of the land will both the countries have?
Responding party believe that they are agreeing to the resource sharing and joint research on the land, and 50-50 of equity and enjoyment of the land to be demarcated.
12:40 PM The requesting party wants assurance of the percentage that they want to retain 9-10% of a certain area of the land which they want to retain at any cost and the remaining 90% they can divide between both the islands. And asks that How we are going to share the revenue and how joint management can take place ?
12:46 PM The land and resources will be exclusive of each other, said the requesting party because land and resource distribution cannot go hand in hand. Responding party ask if land and resources can be made inclusive because it will be difficult for both sides to decide on resources. And let’s stick to the sharing of resources now. Responding party want a cohesive agreement to address any future turmoil and management that will occur between the nations.
12:55 PM Requesting party mentions that there should not be the demarcation of land but of resources. Resources will be shared equally in a 50-50 % ratio except that 10% area. And will demilitarize the area for the fishermans in a phased manner if granted that 10% of the land. Responding party wants to indulge in joint research regarding exploration in future. Responding party agrees to give 10% of that certain area and in return the other party is allowing the fishermen to work on Lucifer island. Both the parties want to discuss their conclusive statement in the further session.
01:03 PM The closing statements from each side are being delivered. We’ve ended the session.
01:07 PM The judges are filling the score sheets first.
01:20 PM Judges start giving their feedback. The parties are questioned by the judges and mentioned points regarding the shortcomings of each party. The session ended with a thank note from the host.
DAY 4- VALEDICTORY CEREMONY
02:35 PM: The event begins with a formal start, including the commencement of the valedictory session. This is followed by a serene Saraswati Vandana, a traditional invocation to the goddess of knowledge and wisdom. The atmosphere is further enriched with a heartfelt felicitation of the esteemed guests.
02:42 PM: The audience participates in the rendition of the Kulgeet, which serves as the anthem of HPNLU, creating a sense of unity and pride among the attendees.
02:45 PM: The session host opens with an introductory speech, extending a warm welcome to all the attendees and esteemed guests. This introductory address sets the tone for the session, creating a sense of inclusivity and hospitality.
02:48 PM: The Vice-Chancellor mam, Prof. Dr. Nishtha Jaswal delivers a warm welcome, adding a touch of poetry and quoting Justice Krishna Iyer. Her speech is inspiring, emphasizing Gandhi’s wisdom of looking beyond winning. She appreciates the participants, promotes the idea of “Vasudeva Kutumbakam” (world as one family), and connects ADR to our traditions.
03:04 PM: Divyansh Rathi, our guest of honor, begins with a gracious thank-you. He then delves into the fascinating world of meditation, discussing its levels and benefits, while quoting Buddha for added wisdom. Divyansh sir shares his personal experiences from the competition, updates the audience on India’s arbitration landscape and ADR progress, and introduces “latest laws.com” as a valuable resource. He closes with another note of gratitude.
03:14 PM: Guest of honor Prof. Naveen Sirohi, appearing virtually, expresses gratitude. He highlights the growing importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), advocates for unity with “Vasudeva Kutumbukam,” and discusses the limitations of formal litigation. He appreciates HPNLU for their event, introduces his Center for Excellence in ADR, and wishes all participants the best of luck.
03:21 PM: Chief Guest Prof. Dr. Ranbir Singh expresses gratitude and extends his congratulations. He shares insights into the university’s growth, emphasizes the importance of law schools’ mandates, and underscores the significance of professionalism in India. SIr also sheds light on the art of advocacy and effective communication, providing the audience with valuable knowledge and best wishes for their future endeavours.
3:38 PM – The ceremony moves forward with the Presidential Address of Prof. (Dr.) P.S. Jaswal, Vice Chancellor, SRM University, Sonipat. He has more than 40 years of experience and more than 60 papers published. He commends the University for conducting regular competitions like this. He states that by organizing competitions like these, the growth of the University will increase. He further thanks the faculty and the participants of this competition and compliments and congratulates them. He reiterates how Mediation is us looking back at our history of panchayat and emphasizes that if we want to make mediation at all levels, then we have to start at our grassroots level where the idea of mediation was taken from.
3:50 PM – Now Dr. Mritunjay Kumar comes on to give a report of the event. He explains how Samanvay refers to the idea of compassion and states how this is a milestone for this competition, and how students can learn how to reconcile. It is a great achievement of this university to conduct this international competition where 24 teams from across the globe join us.
3:55 PM – The results are declared by Professor Ranbir Singh. Winners include: – Spirit of the competition: Asia Pacific Institute of Information Technology, Colombo – Best Mediation Plan: MNLU Nagpur – Best Mediator in Preliminary rounds: NMIMS – Best negotiation in Preliminary rounds: National University of Singapore – Runners-up Mediator: RMLNLU, Lucknow – Runners-up Negotiating Pair: University of Legal Studies, Punjab University, Chandigarh – Best Mediator: University of Legal Studies, Punjab University, Chandigarh – Best Negotiating Pair: Jindal Global Law School
4:00 PM – Distribution of awards by the dignitaries to all the winning teams. Internships from various organisations like IICR, Ex Curia International, and Mediate Guru are given to the competition winners.
4:05 PM– With this, a vote of thanks is presented by Professor S.S. Jaswal. He thanks all the dignitaries present, all the participants, and the assessors. He ends by thanking all the resource partners for this competition.
4:08 PM– Then all rise for the National Anthem.
4:12 PM- All the participants and the dignitaries now move towards the Common Mess for the High Tea.
