Live | 1st HIMCC 2024

The 1st Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition 2024 is inspired by the ideals of late Hon’ble Justice Mr. M. Hidayatullah, who firmly believed in the potential of young lawyers and how important it is to groom them at a young age. In furtherance of Justice Hidayatullah’s principles, HIMCC’24 is being conducted to primarily instill critical thinking and ignite law students’ minds to provide them with a starting point in their upcoming law careers.

The competition is organised under the able guidance of Prof. (Dr.) V.C. Vivekanandan, Vice-Chancellor, whose conviction to transform HNLU into a hub of intellectually stimulating legal activities is firm. The central theme of  HIMCC ’24 is ‘Competition Law’, one of the contemporary and relatively unexplored practices in the Indian legal regime.

HIMCC moot proposition stems from the advanced and evolving VR gaming industry, where enterprises at various levels compete to emerge as market leaders, often employing questionable strategies. The problem statement encapsulates a clever interplay between modern advanced technology and competition law. The meticulously drafted moot proposition brings out the nuances of competition law and encourages the teams to deliberate upon issues such as anti-poaching agreements, exclusive dealing, predatory pricing, inter-portability of data, etc. The uniquely drafted problem statement gives an opportunity to the exceptional teams from around the world to put forth the cases of their respective sides with eloquence and compelling arguments to bring home the much-coveted trophy of the 1st Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition.

DAY 1

Inaugural Ceremony

17:04 PM	Ceremony commences. Anchors welcome everyone to the inaugural ceremony of the 1st Justice Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition, 2024.
17:06 PM	Everyone rises for the national anthem.
17:09 PM	Prof. Dr. Anindhya Tiwari, Secretary of the Organizing Committee, invited to deliver the welcome address.
17:11 PM	Mr. Tiwari thanks Chief Guest Mr. Dilip Ukey, Prof. Dr. V.C. Vivekanandan, Vice-Chancellor of HNLU and the sponsors, AZB & Partners for making this event happen.
17:13 PM	Mr. Anirudh Agarwal, Convenor, Student Organizing Committee, invited on stage to speak more about the flagship moot court competition of HNLU.
17:14 PM	Mr. Agarwal recalls the journey of HNLU as a rising educational institution for aspiring students of law and the significance of hosting an international moot court competition.
17:15 PM	Prof. Dr. V.C. Vivekanandan called upon to falicitate the guest of honour.
17:15 PM	Prof. Dr. V.C. Vivekanandan takes on the stage to grace the gathering with his words.
17:16 PM	Mr. Vivekanandan speaks on the honour and accolades of our guest of honour, Mr. Ukey.

17:17 PM	The Hon’ble Vice Chancellor goes on to speak about the contribution of faculties to organizing this esteemed event.
17:18 PM	Mr. Vivekanandan elaborates on the realities of a court room and how mooting provides for a mere simulation. A moot court competition nevertheless grants an invaluable opportunity for both the participants and observers to learn.

17:20 PM	He emphasies on skill developments that occur due to participation in mooting, like legal research, critical thinking, analytical and argumentative skill.
17: 21 PM	He concludes that it helps build future lawyers by simulating a close to real court environment.
17:22 PM	The anchor invites the guest of honour, Vice-Chancellor of MNLU, Prof. Dr. Dilip Ukey, to address the gathering.
17:24 PM	Mr. Ukey takes on the dais and greets the crowd.

17: 26 PM

He praises the dynamic leadership of Prof. Dr. V.C. Vivekanandan and his contribution to legal education.

17: 28 PM	Mr. Ukey acknowledges the sacrifices it takes to build an institution and deems it his honour to be a part of the ceremony.
17: 29 PM	He elaborates on the experience and significance of legal education and how the same can be achieved through mooting.
17: 30 PM	In his words, though mooting is a mock, it provides a real life simulation of actual working of law.

17: 32 PM

He speaks on precedents, the law declared by the highest courts of the land, beyond the law given in books.

17:33 PM	Mr. Ukey tells us the importance of reading court decisions, in their entirety, to understand the arguements and contentions.
17: 35 PM	He gives an example of historical judgements given by the Hon’ble Justice S.R. Bommai. He uses his example to explain the difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.

17: 37 PM	Mr. Ukey talks about Per incuriam decisions and the non-binding nature of the same.
17: 38 PM	Further discourse is about the flavours that are encompassed in a decision, a law beyond the law.

17: 39 PM	Though law in its language doesn’t change, the judiciary interprets the word in the legislation to truly depict the soul of Article 141.
17:42 PM	Mr. Ukey in the same line of thought of emphasizing the importance of winning, acknowledges the presence of the international teams from Bangladesh and Nepal, underscoring its identical foundation – the constitutionalism.

17:45 PM	The entire auditorium has a curious atmosphere, tinged with a shifted perspective of the impact of landmark judgements.
17:46 PM	Mr. Ukey questions the law fraternity’s remembrance of the constitution through Preamble readings, examination questions and research papers to see if it infact reflects the ground reality of the functioning of the justice system.
17:48 PM	He lightly yet very confidently says that this speech isn’t about addressing law students, but future Justice Chandrachud, future Salves, future Chief Ministers and leaders of the world.

17:50 PM	A much needed blend of passion and compassion, the purpose of being a human being is so simply and beatifully structed as the message of this speech. With this note, the speech comes to conclusion.
17:52 PM	Mr. Ukey declares the 1st Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition open.
17:53 PM	The anchor invites the Registrar, Dr. Vipan Kumar for the vote of thanks.

17:54 PM	Dr. Vipan Kumar makes a grateful acknowledgment of the Faculty Convenor Dr. Anindhya Tiwari and the entire faculty team, the guiding light of the student organzing team, for organizing this esteemed competition.
17:55 PM	The National Anthem plays signaling the end of the Inaugural Ceremony.

 

DAY 2

Preliminary Rounds 1

 

Court Room 1

10:28

The courtroom hums with anticipation with the arrival of judges and excitement fills the room as judges take their seats.

10:30	The participants inform the judges on how they will be spending their allotted time through the course of this round.
10:32	On the behalf of the informant, speaker 1 takes up the dias and briefs the judges regarding the facts of the case.
10:33	The counsel for the Petitioner seeks the permission to address the bench collectively as “Your Honor”. The counsel now begins with the facts but he seems a little nervous in his approach.

10:36	The Hon’ble Judges are listening to the counsel with all ears and now have started to cross-question the counsel.
10:39	The court clerk rings the bell to intimate the time left i.e. 10 minutes. Now the Hon’ble Judge has posed a fiery question which impedes the counsel for the petitioner from proceeding confidently.
10:41	The Opposite party is listening to the arguememts advanced by the counsel for the petitioner with utmost sincerity.
10:44	The Hon’ble Judge stops the counsel from proceeding further by posing a counter-question. The counsel is going through plethora of emotions and somehow manages to figure his way out.
10:47	The court clerk rings the bell to make aware the counsel of the time left i.e. 2 minutes. However, the counsel is focused on advancing his arguments.
10:50	The co-counsel for the petitioner stands up with confidence and is preparing to advance his arguememts. But he is reprimanded by the Judges for not being in proper courtroom formals.

10:53	The co-counsel for the petitioner is struggling as he is asked fundamental questions by the Judges which he is unaware of. The dire situation of the petitioners, it seems, is satisfying to the opposite party.
10:56	The co-counsel seeks help from his contingent and the court clerk rings the bell to apprise the co-counsel of the time left i.e. 5 minutes.

10:58	The Opposite party is constantly making notes and they are engaged with all their energy. However the Hon’ble Judges apprise the co-counsel of the time left i.e. less than 5 minutes.
11:00	It seems that the petitioners aren’t well prepared as they have not mentioned many case laws in the memorandum. However, they are quoting it orally, showing a casual approach to the case.
11:03 AM	The time alloted is over but the Judges have give the co-counsel a relaxation and he continues with his arguments. The co-counsel has started to recite the prayer and he is well versed with the prayer, conveying it with utmost sincerity.
11:05	The arguements for the petitioner side is complete and the Hon’ble Judges have permitted the counsel of the respondent to commence with his speech.
11:08	The counsel for the respondent seeks the permission to address the bench as “Your Ladyship” which is allowed by the Hon’ble Judges.
11:10	The counsel for the respondent is coherent in her approach and has started her arguement. Further she is apprising the Judges with the facts concerned in a brief manner.
11:13	The counsel is taking the help of a practical example for persuading the bench and links it with the case law concerned, mentioned in the memorandum, unlike that of the petitioners.
11:16	The court clerks are punctual with their work and make the counsel aware of the time left i.e. 5 minutes.

11:18	The Hon’ble bench is cross-questioning her at every step. But it seems the counsel has bled more in the training to bleed less in the war; she speaks eloquently without using any filler words.
11:21	The time is over but the Judges have allowed a few more minutes to the counsel as they seem to be content listening to the arguments advanced by her.
11:23	The counsel has handed the reign to the co-counsel now to represent. She commences the argument with her bold voice. She is posed with a question by the bench and she takes it with confidence, evident from her approach.
11:27	The atmosphere outside the court room might be hot but it is soothing inside as the counsel is controlling the environment with her confident arguements.

11:32	The counsel looks like she is struggling to tackle the plethora of questions posed but the co-counsel has found her way out as she refers to the memorandum for help.
11:35	The Hon’ble Judges have asked the co-counsel to wrap up her arguments as there is a crunch of time and the court clerk rings the bell to apprise them of the last 2 minutes. The bench has allowed some more time for her to continue with her arguments.

11:39	The counsel seems stuck as she is trapped by the judges in the intricacies of the facts concerned but there is a confusion revolving around the facts which is concerning the co-counsel for the respondent.
11:44	The co-counsel has started to recite the prayer and the bench has asked if the petitioners have something to add on. The counsel for the petitioner has approached the dais and is advancing his presentation.
11:47	The rebuttals have started and the counsel for the petitioner has rebutted five claims made by the respondents. Now the counsel for the respondent has approached the dais with the permission of the Judges, defending the claims made.
11:50	The proceeding is adjourned and the participants leave the court with a sigh.

Court Room 2

10:25	The judges have entered the courtroom ramping up the teams as they ready themselves for the oral rounds.
10:27	The courtroom is filled with excitement and anticipation. The teams await the clock to strike 10:30 to begin their oral rounds and display their exceptional advocacy skills today.

10:30	The informant side seeks permission of the bench to proceed with facts of the case. After their assent, the counsel proceeds further, eloquently explaining the intricacies of the case.
10:32	The judges listen intently to the counsel absorbing each word with careful attention.
10:34	The counsel is abound with confidence and present their arguments with clarity without facing any questions from the bench yet.
10:35	The trail of arguments are followed by questions from the bench which the counsel tackles with grace.

10:38	In their struggle to explain the nuances of the legal issue at hand, the bench still seems unsatisfied with pillars supporting the stance of the informant side. Despite this, the counsel maintains her calm demeanour.
10:41	The counsel musters up the confidence and structures her arguments which leaves no scope for the judges to pose further questions. Being reminded of the paucity of time, the counsel concludes her first issue and moves on to the next one.
10:43	The opposite team is rummaging through their documents while also listening intently to their rivals.
10:45	The counsel apologizes for exceeding the time limit and humbly requests the bench for an extension to summarise briefly, which is graciously granted.
10:48	After concluding remarks, the counsel steps down from the dais allowing the co-counsel to now represent the team.
10:49	As soon as the co-counsel begins with the arguments, the bench shoots a question which leads him to fumble a little, however, he composes himself quickly and progresses with confidence.
10:51	The preparation of the counsel is very evident from their ability to deal with the bench’s questions with much poise.
10:53	The bench seems satisfied with the arguments of the co-counsel as he tactfully displays his oratory skills and knowledge of the subject.
10:58	Due to the paucity of time, the co-counsel is directed to wrap up his arguments.
10:59	The informant side rises together for the prayer and the opposite team approaches the dais to challenge the pillars supporting the stance of their rivals

11:01	The atmosphere in the courtroom is rather calm as the bench listens to the counsel without posing any questions.
11:04	The bench sways the counsel with the first question which is dealt smoothly by the counsel while also being reminded of the time limit as the first bell rings.
11:06	The pleadings are made in a structured and systematic manner by the counsel and the judges continue to listen.
11:09	The counsel supports her argument with the ‘test of intent’ to which the bench seeks further clarification. The bench allows the speaker to complete her arguments after this.
11:11	The bench, satisfied with the pleadings made for the first issue, permit the counsel to proceed with the second issue at hand.
11:13	To draw the attention of the bench, the counsel pauses for a brief moment and requests the bench to refer to the memorandum of the opposite party.
11:15	The counsel seeks permission from the bench for an extension of 60 seconds to conclude her pleadings.
11:16	After the given minute, the speaker is provided with no further extension and the co-counsel approaches the dais to address the third issue.
11:17	The brunt falls on the co-counsel to cover up for the counsel and fill in the seconds the previous counsel unfortunately lost.

11:22	Dissatisfied with the co-counsel, the bench starts grilling him, adamant to test the knowledge and preparation of the team.
11:24	It seems like the team is walking on a tightrope due to their inability to satisfy the bench with valid reasoning and justifications.
11:25	The team ratchets up in the courtroom as the bench continuously shoots a series of questions.
11:26	The trail of questions leaves the counsel flustered yet he holds on to the edge of the cliff and tries to support his arguments with case laws.
11:27	The researcher comes to the aid of the speaker as he fumbles in the middle of his arguments. In their stride towards victory, the team grapples on to every second, squeezing the most out of it.
11:28	The co-counsel, due to the limited time at hand, concludes with prayer and steps down from the dais.
11:30	The floor is now opened for rebuttals.
11:32	The rebuttals made by the informant side shake the very roots of the arguments made by the opposite team.
11:33	The tension reverberates around the walls of this room, the pressure squeezing the most out of the last minutes of the rebuttals to emerge victorious in the round.

11:36

As a heated argument ensues between the teams, the court clerk requests the teams to exit the room for scoring and with this, the preliminary round one ends.

Court Room 3

10:24	The Judges have entered the courtroom. The energy of the competition can be seen in the faces of the participants. The rules are being told to the participants.
10:30	The counsel 1 from Informant’s side has started speaking, giving the introduction to the case, however the Judges start off with their questions in the first minute itself.

10:32	The Counsel still introducing the facts of the case and judges seek clarity from the speaker about the Contract Act.
10:34	The judges posed many questions from the beginning. They ordered the speaker to jump to the issues instead.
10:36	The judges seems to be very attentive towards the speaker as he maintains his flow, amidst the incoming questions.
10:37	The speaker cited a case to prove his argument. As the court clerk made the courtroom aware of the time, the speaker keeps up his energetic attitude.
10:39	The Speaker refers to the Competition Act and the Judges check the memorandum if the same is cited.
10:41	The speaker answers one of the judge’s questions with mixed emotions of positiveness and confusion.

10:44	The Judges ask a question wanting the speaker to answer until their satisfaction. The amount of questions keep increasing. The bombardment of questions in turn rises the temperature of the courtroom.
10:46	The judges don’t seem to be anywhere near satisfied with the answers given.
10:47	The Court Clerk signals the end of the allotted time, however, the speaker disregarding that continues on with his arguments with the permission of judges.
10:50	The judges continue to pose questions despite the time being over, making it difficult for the speaker to proceed with his arguments. One of the facts seems to be not mentioned in the memorandum and the speaker referred to his team for clarification.

10:54	The Judges ordered the counsel to wrap up his argument.
10:55	The second speaker of the informant’s side started with an energetic voice, filling the courtroom with renewed interest. The courtroom was made aware of the time – that 10 minutes had passed.
10:57	The speaker requests the Judges to refer to an explanation in the memorandum to prove his arguments. He seems more confident as he successfully answers a question of the bench.
10:59	The document from the informant’s side is given to judges, they seem to be satisfied with the arguments presented by the speaker.
11:01	The Courtroom was again indicated of the time. The judges nod along to the speaker as he highlights the facts.

11:03	The Speaker moved to the issues and sought permission to wrap up his argument if the judges didn’t have any questions. In reply to this, one of the judges posed a lengthy question to him.
11:05	The Speaker is answering very confidently but the Judges do not find clarity in what is presented. The Speaker asked for an extension of time and 2 minutes were granted by the Judges. They seem to really want to listen to every last word of his argument.
11:09	Counsel 1 from the Opposite Party seeks permission to start her arguments and duly clarifies that she will wrap on time allowing the co-counsel to continue the argument.
11:11	The Counsel seeks permission to present the issues and the same is granted by the Judges.
11:13	The Judges are continuously referring to the memorandum as they seem to find many loopholes in it but the Speaker is proving her arguments by proper citing of the cases. The clerk informs that only 5 minutes remain.

11:15	The Speaker continuously asks for the attention of the Judges to be moved to the memorandum, referring to multiple paragraphs intent on proving the substance of her arguments.
11:17	Amid her presenting her arguments with determined flow, the Judges interrupted her with a question, which she managed to tackle well.
11:18	The Judges are not able to find a case mentioned by the Speaker and the Judges are dissatisfied that the case is not cited properly.

11:19	The Counsel sought a two minute extension and the same is granted. The Speaker had overcome another obstacle posed by the judges.
11:22	The counsel requests for another extension, which the Judges grant for wrapping up the arguments.
11:23	Now the co-counsel has taken up the dais with full energy and also told the structure of the arguments, providing the allegations while submitting the memorandum.
11:25	The judges seem to be satisfied with his attitude of presenting the argument and attentively listen to him. The Judges asked him to give certain justifications, for which the speaker drew the bench’s attention to the memorandum.
11:28	The speaker cited a case to prove his argument and he answered with the loudest voice he could muster. He knows how to keep his pace while arguing.

11:30	The Judges continuously ask questions and require clarification about the intention of the party, to which the Speaker cites a case. The Judges are nowhere near content and ask the Speaker to think about the reasoning behind the argument presented.
11:34	The Judges now seem satisfied with his answer but still pose questions almost as if to check his patience. The Speaker finally moves on to further issues.
11:39	The Speaker is rushing as the courtroom is made aware of the time and he continues to present his argument speedily. But towards the last minute, the Judges want the Speaker to not to exceed the time and wrap up.
11:41	The Speaker is now submitting the prayers but he is rushing through his memorandum. The allotted time was over but the Speaker asked for an extension of 1 minute and the same was granted by the Judges.

11:43	The Judges were satisfied and the extension time also has expired, prompting the Speaker to present the prayer.
11:45	The Speaker concluded with the argument in time and the Speaker from the Informant side has taken the dais for rebutting the arguments provided by the opposite party and submitted the same on time.
11:47	The Speaker from Opposite party is arguing the question and asking the Counsel of the other side the line of reasoning. The time for rebuttals is over, hence, she was not able to answer it on time and apologized for the same.

11:48

The time is now indicated as over, marking the successful conclusion of the first round.

Court Room  4

10:22	The participants eagerly await the commencement of the preliminary rounds. The air in the courtroom is charged with nervousness and excitement as they wait for the proceedings to begin.
10:24	The participants stand up to greet the judges who make their timely arrival at the courtroom. The participants flip through their papers and conduct their final round of discussions to prepare for the upcoming challenge.
10:27	The first speaker seeks the judges’ permission and subsequently begins explaining the facts of the case by elaborating on the market structure and nature of the agreement involved in the case.
10:29	The judge’s questions to the speaker were answered to the full satisfaction and understanding of the judge in a clear and assertive manner.
10:31	After a short pause, the speaker continues with their speech without losing the initial momentum.
10:32	The speaker demonstrates his confidence by addressing the concerns raised by the judges despite their intense questioning.

10:35	The judges however are not entirely convinced by the answers provided by the speaker and continue to express the issues seen in the speech.
10:37	The speaker establishes parallels between the problem presented to them and previous cases by comparing the circumstances of the cases.
10:38	The judges request the speaker to back their assertions with relevant authorities to establish their validity.
10:40	The bell is rung indicating that the speaker’s time is up. However, they continue to answer the judge’s questions to their satisfaction before giving up the stage to the second speaker.
10:42	The second speaker rustles through their documents and begins after a short moment of hesitation.
10:44	They begin their speech by comparing the case to relevant statutory provisions of the Competition Act.

10:46	The speaker structures their approach in a three-fold manner and validates their arguments by citing relevant cases for the same.
10:47	The speaker answers all the questions raised by the judges upon the first issue presented by them and proceeds with the second issue.

10:49	The judges listen to the speech paying full attention but do not raise many doubts regarding the second speaker’s speech.
10:50	In a moment of nervousness, the speaker waits for the judges to open the documents cited as he cracks his knuckles.
10:52	The judges do not seem entirely convinced by the speaker’s arguments as they frown in response to some statements made by the speaker.
10:54	The ringing of the bell showing that only 5 minutes of speaking time is left for the second speaker appears to disrupt the previously well-maintained flow of his speech.
10:56	The speaker expounds on the key point of the case and competently cites the appropriate provisions to answer the jugdes’ queries.
10:59	The speaker requests and subsequently obtains an additional minute to wrap up his speech as his allotted time expires.
11:01	The second speaker ends their speech by only summarising their case and requests the panel to consider their arguments.
11:03	After this, the counsel for the opposing side begins by claiming that the previous arguments were only presumptions and were not established suitably, typical of an opposing counsel.
11:04	The speaker argues their case passionately in a loud and confident tone with fitting voice modulation.
11:06	He proceeds to make a comprehensive analysis of the various flaws in the other side’s arguments.
11:09	The speaker seeks questions from the judges but proceeds with the third issue seeing none coming his way.
11:11	After a long speech with no interruption, the judges raise an inquiry which was duly answered by the speaker.

11:13	The speaker sets a convincing position in the minds of the panel for the opposing counsel before handing the floor to the next speaker also from the opposing counsel.
11:14	The next speaker explicates the remaining issues raised by the opposing side.
11:16	The speaker raises doubts regarding the definitions of words used by the other side and puts forward alternative interpretations for them.
11:18	The judges began to grill the speaker upon identifying a flaw in their claims which the speaker is forced to acknowledge thereafter.
11:20	The speaker fails to fully satisfy the judges as they remain sceptical despite the speaker’s attempt to elucidate the doubts. The judges do not think these are adequately justified.
11:22	The speaker clarifies that they understand the judges’ concerns but request an extension of speaking time due to their inability to address this within the time limit.
11:24	The speaker is unable to conclude despite the time extension and takes an extra minute to explain a test connected to the case.
11:25	The judges continue to raise challenges with the claims presented and the speaker gets jittery with every reminder of the end of time.
11:27	The speaker is compelled to conclude leaving her response incomplete and the first side is given a chance to rebut the opposing side.
11:29	The first side’s speaker brings up the amendment of a statute that tips the argument in their favour.
11:31	The speaker winds up his speech and the judges gather their documents to verify the speaker’s allegations.
11:33	After a deep silence, the opposing side’s speaker takes up their counterarguments.
11:35	The speaker brings up important facts that they believed were not brought to the due attention of the panel and describes them in detail.
11:37	After a short series of refutations by both sides, the participants leave the courtroom and the judges ensue the challenging task of discussing the case and aptly scoring the participants.

11:39

The participants await with tense anticipation as the round comes to an end.

Court Room 5

10:22	Both parties have settled down, eagerly awaiting the arrival of judges. With anxious hearts and a position to defend, both appear strong and confident in their preparation.
10:23	The first judge on the bench having arrived, the anticipation and excitement thickens. The courtroom clerk clarifies the doubts of the judge.
10:25	With the arrival of the second judge, the bench is now complete. All that the participants currently await, is the commencement of the courtroom proceedings.

10:28	The silence in the courtroom speaks volumes as the judges shuffle through the memos.
10:29	Speaker 1 of the Informant seeks permission to approach the Bench and further seeks permission to address the judges as Sir and Ma’am.
10:30	The Counsel seeks permission to move directly to the arguments, having confirmed the Judges’ acquaintance with the facts.

10:32	With great eloquence, the counsel explains in great detail the reason for filing a complaint with CCE under section (1) of the Competition Act, 2002.
10:34	Moving straight to the core of the arguments, the Counsel cites a US Authority and requests the Bench to refer to the compendium.

10:36	The Counsel, strong in his arguments, claims that the opposite party has a mala fide intention of eliminating competition. Upgrading the skill set of the workers is a farce claim that hides the anti-competitive activity of the opposite party.
10:37	Section 4 (2) (e) of the Competition Act is cited to make arguments for the second issue and claim the violation of the same by the opposite party.
10:39	Claiming the abuse of dominance by the opposite party, the Counsel quotes a European Case and shows how labour force of the Informant has migrated due to acts of the opposite party.
10:41	Moving on to the third issue, the Counsel explains how both parties are professionally engaged with Falcon.
10:44	Citing the Ultra Tech Cement case, the Counsel explains the scope of control Falcon has on Octane.
10:45	The courtroom clerk rings the bell signalling the utilization of speaker time by Counsel 1.

10:46	Patient throughout the arguments, the bench is deeply absorbed in the issues raised and does not question the Counsel in between his arguments.
10:48	The second time signal has been given by the court clerk. The Counsel is determined to explain the abuse of dominance by the opposite party citing the exclusivity clause of the agreement.
10:50	The third signal has been sent out. The Counsel passionate to prove his point seeks an extension of time which is graciously granted by the Bench.
10:51	Counsel 2 of the Informant seeks permission to approach the dais. She takes up Case C and further seeks permission to proceed with her arguments.
10:52	Taking a three-fold approach to substantiate her point, the Counsel shows how Bravo has abused its dominance and has compelled consumers to incur costs.
10:55	Showing how Bravo can act independently of other competitive forces, the Counsel claims a comparative advantage that Bravo enjoys. Citing a European authority, the Counsel goes to substantiate her claims and contentions.

10:57	The court clerk has sent out the time signal; the Counsel is undeterred in her approach to prove the consumer harm caused and abuse of dominance led by Bravo.
10:59	The Counsel concludes that Bravo has violated Section 4 of the Competition Act. Having sought permission to move to the prayer, the counsel is met with questions from the Bench.
11:01	Having been questioned on the claims of gatekeeping, the Counsel is unafraid to justify her arguments. She lastly prays the bench to pass an order by principles of justice and expresses her gratitude to them for their patient consideration.
11:04	Counsel 1 from the Opposite Party seeks permission to approach the dais. She moves directly to the submissions, informing the bench that she will be dealing with issues 1 and 2 under Case A and B of the proposition.

11:06	Typical of an opposing party, she denies the allegation of anti-competitive practices and shows how no such agreement was intended and entered into.
11:07	Citing a US Authority, she goes on to show how such agreements can rather have a pro-competition effect.
11:09	Explaining the incentives given to the hired workers, she shows how increased efficiency has contributed positively to the overall market growth.
11:10	Denying the claims of targeted hiring, she requests the Bench to refer to certain annexures in the compendium to prove that growing market share mandated hiring and not a mala fide intention.
11:12	Having succinctly concluded the first issue, the Counsel seeks permission to move to the second issue.
11:14	Falsifying the claims of the Informant, the Counsel submits that Falcon does not exercise substantial control over Octane.

11:16	The Counsel determined to prove her point, shows how Hex-8 and Hex-7 are not materially different from each other. An anaology of Iphone production is employed to prove her point.
11:17	Citing a relevant case law, the Counsel moves on to the next issue and submits that the dominant position is in itself not punishable.
11:18	A time signal from the court clerk, the counsel is far ahead in her arguments to succumb to the pressures of time. Undeterred, she continues with her submissions.
11:20	Discrediting the claim of mala fide intention of Octane, the Counsel seeks permission to continue with her arguments so as to conclude her submissions.
11:22	Counsel 2 of the Opposite Party seeks permission to approach the dais. Issue 3 will be addressed by the Counsel and all allegations shall be discredited by him.
11:23	Directing the Bench to the memorandum, the Counsel brings attention to the observations of the DG.
11:25	The opposite party determined to prove their points with relatable illustrations, the Counsel draws an analogy of Netflix and Amazon fire TV Stick to prove his point.
11:27	Justifying Bravo, the Counsel shows how their market is not limited only to consumers but also sellers, which might not be the case with other competitors.
11:28	A time signal from the court clerk, the Counsel proves his point on the dominant position and seeks permission to move to the next issue.
11:29	The Counsel justifies his client’s actions on increase in prices by citing the upgradation in services. He further moves on to discredit the allegations of denial of data access.
11:31	A second-time signal from the court clerk and the Counsel continues with his submissions showing how even privacy concerns have been taken care of by their client.

11:33	A third time signal from the court clerk and the Bench deems it right to question the first Counsel on her iPhone anaology.
11:35	Citing first mover advantage, the Counsel justifies access of processor to Octane. The Counsel, dealing with counter questions from the Bench in a manner eloquent and strong, shows how Falcon and Octane do not form a group as opposed to the claims made by the Informant.
11:38	A share of 36% and voting rights given to Falcon has become a strong point of discussion between the Counsel and the Bench wherein the Counsel justifies ardently the position and intention of her client.
11:39	The Counsel 2 on behalf of the Opposite Party submits the prayer to the Bench and requests them to pass an order in favour of justice.
11:40	Counsel 1 of the Informant seeks permission to approach the dais and clarify his claims and counter the submissions of the Opposite Party.

11:41	Citing the test of material influence and industry expert, the Counsel shows that irrespective of 36% share, Falcon and Octane nonetheless form a group.
11:42	A time signal from the court clerk, the Counsel seeks permission for a time extension to conclude his rebuttals.
11:43	Counsel 1 of the Opposite Party approaches the dais, with a look of determination to provide surbuttals to the rebuttals of the Informant.
11:45	Acknowledging the argument of material influence, the Counsel shows how the proposition is silent on voting rights and therefore, cannot claim formation of a group.
11:47	Concluding her rebuttals, the Counsel ends her submissions by highlighting how there was no abuse of the dominant position by her client. After a few minutes of silence, the teams leave the courtroom, leaving enough room and discretion for the Bench to make up their decision.

Court Room 6

10:25

The participants wait with bated breath as the bench walks in the courtroom. The court clerks buzz around making sure the judges are comfortable and all the rules are clear, to avoid any hassle during the rounds.

10:32

The round starts! Counsel 1 takes permission to start arguments and present the facts of the case.

10:33	Within a minute of the start, the bench asks for clarifications on the facts of the case. A beautiful to-and-fro occurs between the speaking counsel and the bench.
10:35	A question testing the basics of the case on the concept on non-compete agreement is asked, answered beautifully by Counsel 1.

10:37	There appears no respite will be given to the speakers, as the bench continues questioning Counsel 1.
10:40	Counsel 1 forwards their arguments while referring to the relevant paragraphs of the memorial.
10:43	With two minutes left for Counsel 1 to present his submissions, he expertly answers all questions put forth by the bench, concluding his arguments at the same time.
10:43	The bell rings signalling the end of the speaking time for Counsel 1. However, the questioning continues, and the bench enquires on nitty-gritties of the case. The Counsel refers to the memorial again and swiftly answers the question.
10:45	Counsel 1 seeks an extension of 30 seconds to conclude his arguments, which has been granted by the bench.

10:47	Counsel 1 invited his co-counsel to present her arguments. Counsel 2 seeks permission of the bench to approach the dais and address the bench. She informs about the issues she will deal with and summarises the same within a few seconds. On the bench’s request, she breaks down her arguments into sub-arguments.
10:49	With sheer determination on the face of Counsel 2, submissions start.
10:51	The bench asks for relevant precedents supporting the second counsel’s arguments. She supplies the bench with relevant case laws promptly.
10:54	10 minutes left for the submissions of Counsel 2, her voice exudes confidence as she answers all the questions presented by the bench.
10:57	The complex questioning by the Bench continues, however, Counsel 2 stands ready to provide their stance and justify the same to the bench.

11:00	The 5-minute bell rings. The Counsel appears undettered as she refers to the memorial, and explains the intricacies and how the case is affected by it.
11:02	As the talk of the numbers began, questions of fact come to the forefront. With the 2-minute bell ringing, the voice of the Counsel shivers as she tries to answer the questions of the bench, with time for submissions running out.

11:05	Questions continue, as the Counsel regains her stance. The bell rings signifying the end of time. An extension is asked, duly provided by the bench.
11:07	Counsel 2 starts presenting the final argument for her case.
11:08	The bench asks a question on differentiating between streaming and gaming platforms.
11:10	Last question for Counsel 2 is posed. Time stretches out as the questioning does not seem to stop.
11:12	The bench appears slightly frustrated as the question asked isn’t asnwered correctly. However, as the Court Clerk reminds of the paucity of time, the bench relents. The arguments for Informant party ends.

11:14	The Court Clerk reminds the court about the time constraints.
11:16	The Counsel for the Opposite party seeks permission to approach the dais and present his arguments. He swiftly deals with the division of issues between the Counsels of the Opposite party.
11:18	Arguments start. Not even 30 seconds into the arguments, the Counsel’s mistake is pointed out by the bench, where he makes a mistake regarding the territory where the case is based.
11:20	The Counsel expands on exemptions under the Competition Act, and how the same affects the case of the Opposing Party. The bench does not rest, and starts questioning the Counsel on the said exemptions.
11:22	The bench requests the Counsel to provide case laws and precedants only of the territory provided in the Moot Proposition.
11:24	The Counsel obliges and provides relevant case laws. He also explains that reliance is placed on both foreign and national judgements, in a collaborative manner.
11:26	Counsel seeks permission to further his arguments, provided that the bench has relieved themselves of the issue on territory and application of foreign precedants. He further seeks permission to move on to the next sub-issue.
11:27	Quickly explaining the concept of non-compete agreement, the Counsel shows his presence of mind. Relevant case laws are cited as given in the memorial. Bell rings, signifying 5 minutes are left for the Counsel to complete his arguments.
11:28	Explaining the next sub-issue on “predatory hiring practices,” the Counsel explains the basics of the concept. He further explains the sub-issue with respect to the case at hand.
11:30	As the 2-minute bell rings, the bench asks a pressing question on the usage of employees who have been inducted uses the predatory hiring practices. Referring to the moot proposition, the Counsel unhesitatingly answers the question.
11:32	The Court Clerk signifies end of time. As the Counsel seeks for an extension, the bench indulges the request and informs that the time provided will be adjusted.

11:34	The Counsel starts his submissions on his next issue, with seconds left in the extension of time provided. He struggles to complete his arguments, as the bench continues soliciting answers on the issue at hand.
11:36	As the extension time ends another extension of 30 seconds is provided to the Counsel to answer the questions posed.
11:37	The bench is quick at pointing out mistakes of the Counsel. He apologises, and continues his submissions.
11:38	Counsel 2 of the Opposite Party seeks permission to approach the dais. Without wasting any minute, he starts his submissions.
11:40	The sub-issues are outlined by Counsel 2. He seeks permission to start with his arguments.
11:41	He submits that there appears to be no use of dominance by Falcon, even though it stands at that position. The bench questions him on the same and clarifies the stance of the Opposite Party.

11:43	As the bench questions on the two-fold test, the Counsel breifly answers the question, supplying that he will expand on it later. The bench accepts and the Counsel continues his submissions.
11:45	The time flies as the Court Clerk rings the bell for the 2-minute mark. The Counsel fervently submits on the aspect of pricing of the product. He delves into the economic concept of Cost of Production, justifying the stance taken.
11:47	The time ends for the Counsel, who seeks a 30-second extension to conclude his arguments. Doing the same, permission is sought for the prayer of the Opposite Part, duly provided by the bench.
11:48	Counsel from the Informant party seeks permission for rebuttal. He points out various defects in the case of the Opposite Party. He swiftly concludes his rebuttal within the allotted time.
11:49	Counsel from Opposite Party seeks permission for rebuttal. On his request a 1 minute extension is provided.
11:50	The bench is unrelenting and continues questioning the Counsel during his rebuttal remarks. He zealously provides his submissions.
11:52	The bell rings signalling the end of the allotted time. With a 30 second extension he concludes his remarks. The submissions end and the Court Clerk approaches the bench.

11:55

The participants move out of the room as the bench discusses and marks the performance of both the parties.

Court Room 7

10:30	Courtroom’s air became thick the atmosphere is positive. Informant speaker seeks permission to start his argument, counsel would submit 3 issues
10:33	Counsel begins speaking about anti-poaching agreement.
10:36	The judges starts questioning about the reference to the agreement in Competition law.
10:37	Counsel Could not satisfy the judges, but anyway proceeds with his arguments.

10:39	10 minutes left, the counsel starts with adverse effect of anti-competitive agreement with due permission of the bench.
10:40	The Counsel begins about his second submission to prove his point on anti competitive behaviour.
10:42	Counsel refers to case laws to support his submission.
10:43	The judges were referring to other compendium, with less time the counsel seems not so worried, his argument is so far smooth.
10:45	The judges asks about how the Box Vision’s offering to their employees is unjustifiable.

10:47	The counsel begins his argument about how it is abuse of Dominance, with just less than 2 minutes left counsel seeks to establish the satisfaction of judges.
10:49	Last submission of speaker one, he begins how the extraordinary chipset is asserting their dominance.
10:51	Judges asks to wrap up the argument quickly.
10:52	Speaker 2, seeks permission to present his argument and asks to begins with submission. With due permission he begins.
10:53	The Counsel describes the specifications of relevant processor.
10:55	The argument asserted by the Counsel is that Falcon has acquired in lower markets which has asserted their dominance.

10:56	The judges seem to be satisfied with arguments of the Counsel, he continues with his argument further.
10:58	Judges refer to the market being more competitive.
11:00	5 minutes left, Counsel continues, with his argument. He refers to a case law to support his claim.
11:01	Counsel refers to relevant provisions. The market share owned by the mentioned entity is pretty large.
11:04	The entity imposes unfair conditions, due to their high bargaining powers as the counsel submits.
11:05	Judges ask relevant questions and the Counsel provides answers to support his claim. Now the Counsel asks to conclude his argument.
11:06	The Counsel submits his arguments.

11:07	The opposite party seeks permission to begin with his arguments. He informs the judges about the time allocation between his co-counsels
11:09	The Counsel begins his argument about how the entities are not anti-competitive.

11:13	The judges do not seem to agree with the argument provided by the counsel.
11:15	5 minutes left, counsel ramps up speed, begins mentioning case laws to support his claim about the anti-poaching agreement.

11:17	Counsel makes a submission about predatory intent. He subimts his argument but the time is not much left.
11:19	Counsel submits that there was a need of the employee so it does not amount to an anti poaching agreement.
11:20	Speaker one concludes.
11:21	Other counsel starts his submission, and begins with relevant case laws. The judges are satisified with his arguments.
11:22	Counsel moves further with market dominance, he submits that dominance is not illegal, and supports it with case laws. There is healthy competition in the market as per submission of the Counsel.
11:25	Counsel begins with the abuse of dominance. Cites case law to prove the legitimacy of his argument.
11:26	Judges ask the Counsel to read the judgement, to which the Counsel was referring.
11:27	The Counsel justifies that there was non-arbitrary increase in the price of Processor according to the market.
11:29	The counsel mentions a case law that deals with non-arbitrary practices of market by an entity.
11:31	5 minutes left, counsel moves to the third issue which is dominant market.
11:33	Increase in price is not exorbitant, also they have upgraded the services provided by them which is reasonable practice in the market. Counsel cites a case law.

11:35	Time is over. the judges ask about the cited provision.
11:37	The informant party begins with their argument.
11:39	Speaker alleges that the opposite counsel had misled with the information they provided.
11:40	Time has run out.
11:41	Opposite Counsel begins with his argument. He tries to justify his claims, asserted on the basis of facts.

11:42	He mentions that future possibilities are to be considered. He further claims that the Informant party did not understand what anti-poaching agreement is.
11:44	Judges begins with their feedback. She asserts that the argument to be made very clearly so as to understand it in better way.
11:45	Round over.

Court Room 8

10:29

The judges have arrived and have taken their respective seats.

10:31 AM	The judges seek certain crucial clarifications from the Court Clerk and are briefed promptly regarding the same.
10:33 AM	The judges peruse through the memorials of each teams.

10:41 AM	The First Counsel for the Informants seeks permission to approach the Dias, which is subsequently granted by the judges.
10:43 AM	The Counsel confidently presents the facts of the case while shedding light upon the reasons behind filing information before the CCI.

10:47 AM	The Counsel relies on their Compendium to corroborate their submissions. The judges seek relevant clarifications regarding the binding force of the authorities cited.
10:51 AM	The judges have asked the Court Clerks to stop the timer as they arrange their reading material.
10:52 AM	The timer starts again as per the directions of the Hon’ble judges.
10:54 AM	The Court Clerk indicates that the Counsel has 5 minutes left to conclude his speech.

10:56 AM	The Counsel continues to keep the Bench occupied with the Compendium and brilliantly cites various judgements while connecting the same with the facts of the case at hand.
10:57 AM	The Court Clerk indicates that the Counsel has 2 minutes left to conclude his speech as the Counsel struggles to complete his submissions.
10:59 AM	As the Court Clerks indicate that the Counsel has exhausted his allotted speech time, the Bench graciously grants extension of 2 minutes to the Counsel.
11:02 AM	The Bench continues to hear the arguments of the Counsel and seeks clarification as to when the Compendium was submitted by them.
11:03 AM	The Counsel concludes his arguments while wiping the sweat off his brow which the Bench extracted even in a well air-conditioned room.

11:05 AM	The co-counsel of the Informants’ seeks permission to approach the Dais and he is granted the same by the judges subsequently.
11:08 AM	The judges continue to seek clarifications and point out the flaws in the position of the Informants regarding their claim of dominant position in the present case.
11:12 AM	The judges express their dissatisfaction over the interpretation of Informants on the definition of “consumer” but allow the Counsel to proceed with his submissions.
11:14 AM	The judges direct the Counsel to present authorities to support their argument that an exclusive supply agreement shall be considered anti-competitive and the Counsel relies on their Compendium for the same.

11:16 AM	The Court Clerk indicates that the Counsel has 5 minutes left to conclude his speech.
11:18 AM	The Counsel proceeds to submit his argument, however, is not able to conclude comfortably within the allotted time.
11:22 AM	The Bench allows an extension of 30 seconds to the Counsel for conclusion of his submissions.
11:23 AM	The Counsel submits the prayer on behalf of the Informants and the Informants take their respective seats while anticipating the speech of the Opposite Parties.

11:26 AM	The first counsel on behalf of the Opposite Party seeks permission to approach the Dais.
11:27 AM	As the Counsel begins to present their first contention, the Bench directs the Counsel to reiterate the facts of the case, while highlighting the facts which were missed by the Informants. The Counsel does this satisfactorily.
11:29 AM	The Counsel moves to question every limb of submission presented by the Informants and submits that the agreement in the present case shall not be considered an anti-competitive agreement.

11:32 AM	The Counsel seeks the aid of their researcher when asked by the Bench to present authorities regarding their contention of the inability of a contractual agreement to be anti-competitive on its own.
11:34 AM	The Court Clerk indicates that the Counsel has 5 minutes left to conclude his speech.
11:38 AM	The Counsel smartly handles the continuous line of questioning of the Bench by stating that the issues will being dealt by them later in their submissions and continues to present her arguments.
11:40 AM	As the Court Clerk indicates the elapse of the allotted time to the Informants, the Counsel seeks an extension of 2 minutes and the Bench graciously grants the same.
11:42 AM	Accidents continue to occur in Court Room 8 as Counsel’s phone falls on her toes. She is granted an extension of another minute to wind up her arguments.

11:43 AM	The co-counsel of the Opposite Parties seeks permission to approach the Dais. The judges direct him to wait as they peruse through the arguments presented by the first Counsel.
11:49 AM	The Counsel proceeds with his arguments in a confident and precise manner, however, is seen stumbling when the judges seek clarification regarding their contention of dominant position.
11:53 AM	The Counsel relies on several authorities cited by them and keeps the Bench engaged with the Proposition and their Compendium

11:54	The Court Clerk reminds the Counsel that he has five minutes left with him.
11:58 AM	The Bench does not seem satisfy with the last submission made by the Counsel and continues to seek explanation regarding the increased pricing by the Opposite Parties.

12:01 PM	The Bench has graciously granted an extension of two minutes to the Counsel to wind up his submissions.
12:05 PM	The Bench does not pay heed to the placard presented by the Court Clerk and allows the Counsel to conclude his submissions.

12:07 PM

As the Court Clerk indicates the elapse of time for the third time, the Bench directs the Counsel to conclude his arguments within a minute.

12:11 PM	Despite the Counsel’s best efforts to support their contentions, the judges do not seem to be satisfied with the answers being presented and continue to question the Counsel. However, after the subsequent request by the Coutr Clerk, the judges direct the Counsel to submit their prayer.
12:13 PM	The Counsel from the side of the Informants seeks permission to approach the Dais for rebuttal, and he is granted the same.
12:15 PM	The Counsel is graciously granted an extension of 30 seconds to conclude his rebuttals.
12:16 PM	The Counsel from the side of the Opposite Party seeks permission to approach the Dais for rebuttal, and he is granted the same. The Counsel attacks the argument relating to anti-poaching agreement presented by the Informants.
12:18 PM	The judges do not allow any extension to the Counsel due to paucity of time and the speeches come to an end.
12:19 PM	The participants are directed to wait outside the court room as the judges evaluate their speeches.

12:27 PM

Due to the paucity of time, the judges proceed to give the feedback to the participants outside the room and the round comes to an end.

Court Room 9

10:25	Both the judges have finally arrived as the anxious participants do the last minute brush-ups.
10:27	The room is buzzed with anticipation as the moot court competitors gets prepared for their showdown. With judges seated and pens at the ready, everyone awaited the exchange of arguments with bated breath. It is time for a thrilling display of legal skills to begin.
10:30	The session commences as the counsel from the Informant side stepped up to address the esteemed Judges, poised to lay out her arguments with confidence and precision.
10:31	The counsel seeks permission to state the jurisdiction, the judges gives the nod while closely listening to her arguments.

10:33	The judges closely analyses the memo trying to find out potential loopholes while the counsel goes on to elaborate on the issues.
10:34	The judges bombards the counsel with continuous questions while the counsel tries her best to answer it.
10:35	The court clerks reminds the counsel of the time paucity.
10:36	Although, the counsel tried answering the queries stated by the judges, they seem dissatisfied with the response and lets her proceed with her arguments.
10:37	The judges continue to grill the counsel while she barely holds her ground. Although, she seems confident while speaking but a slight nervousness can be seen in her arguments.
10:38	The judges inquires about the understanding of the counsel while she tries to move on with her arguments, the court clerk signals that only 5 minutes are remaining.
10:40	The counsel refers the judges to the memorial, while she is desperately trying to move ahead with the arguments, the judges continue to grill her.
10:42	When asked about the nature of the market, the counsel referred it to be ‘volatile’ in nature, making the judges smile.

10:45

The counsel tries answering the question with a case law but to her dismay the judges are still not satisfied with the answers provided.

10:46	The court clerks signal that the time is up while the judges allows her to conclude her arguments. The judges asks for a copy of the judgements referred in the argument while criticizing the aspect that there is nothing to substantiate the claims made by her. The counsel concludes her argument.
10:47	The co-counsel approaches the dias, he seems much more confident with his arguments. He is aware of the continuous questions judges asked previously which could be observed in the speed with which he is presenting his arguments.

10:50	For the first time, judges seem satisfied with the answer provided by the counsel from the informant side. Although, this does not affect the frequency of questions. The court clerk signals that 10 minutes are left.
10:53	As the co-counsel tries to complete his argument as soon as possible, he is constantly being paused by the judges with technical questions which he hastily answers.
10:56	Tension filled the courtroom as the judges fired off a barrage of questions, each one probing deeper into the heart of the matter. Despite the co-counsel’s best efforts to respond, their answers fell short to satisfy the judges, adding fuel to the already heated atmosphere.
10:58	While the judges discuss the answers of the co-counsel, there is not much time left. The nervousness of the co-counsel is visible in his face as he faces a time crunch. The court clerks signal that only 2 minutes are remaining.
11:01	The co-counsel directs a case to the judges while giving relevant data concenrning the case. The judges continue to grill the co-counsel while the time is running out of hand.
11:03	The co-counsel asks for a minute to conclude and state the prayer his arguments, the judge agrees to grant him extra 30 seconds. After heavy delibrations, the judges are impressed with the co-counsel’s adamant approach towards his arguments and they both exchange smiles after the end of the round.
11:05	The counsel from the respondents side seeks permission to approach the dais while the judges asks to delay it by 2 minutes as they need time to deliberate on the arguments of the counsels from the informant’s side.
11:07	The counsel again asks for the permission to approach the dias, the judges grants it this time.
11:10	The judges state that they are aware of the facts of the case and requests the counsel not to go on elaborating the facts.
11:12	The counsel seems underconfident while answering the questions posed by judges, he fails to answer several question which made the judges asking the counsel to continue with his argument.
11:14	The court clerks signal that the time is over, while the judges continue to ask questions to the counsel. The counsel stated a US case law which left the judges somewhat dissatisfied. The judges asks for an alternative authority to support his argument before leaving the dais.
11:16	The co-counsel from the respondent’s side seeks permission from the judges to approach the dais to which the judges gives a nod.
11:19	In a whirlwind of interrogation, the judges bombarded the counsel with questions within the opening two minutes of his argument. Amidst the rapid-fire inquiries, one judge requested a specific case law, prompting the counsel to swiftly direct them to the precise page number of the citation. The judges closely reviewed the referenced material, adding another layer of intensity to the courtroom exchange.

11:22	The co-counsel takes a long pause before answering, he takes the help of the note which was passed by his researcher.
11:24	As the atmosphere again starts to heat-up, the judges asks for a specific case law which he is able to eloquently state. The judges are impresssed by the co-counsel’s awareness and research.
11:27	The judges continue to grill the co-counsel while asking him situational questions, closely analysing his understanding and stance on the present issue. Subsequently, the co-counsel seeks permission to conclude his argument, he is granted the same.
11:30	The judges express their reservations on a notification by the Competition Commission of India referred by the co-counsel to substantiate the contention by pointing out the lack of necessary time duration in such notification.
11:33	The court clerks signal the court that there is no time left, while the co-counsel seeks permission to conclude his argument. The judges grant him 30 seconds to conclude. The judges clarifies beforehand that each party would be given 2 minutes for rebuttal.

11:34	The counsel from the infromant’s side seeks permission to approach the dais for rebuttal, he is granted the same.
11:36	The judges continue to question the counsel while he is presenting his rebuttal and is allowed extra 30 seconds to complete it.
11:38	While the counsel from the respondent’s side presents his rebuttal, the judges seek clarification on whether the said component is ‘similar’ or ‘same’ in nature, to which the counsel nervously replied in the affirmative.
11:40	As the final rebuttal rounds conclude, both parties settled into their seats. In a quiet yet charged atmosphere, the judges meticulously deliberated the marks on their score sheets, determining the outcome of the intense legal arguments that had just unfolded before them.
11:42	The judges hand the respective sheets to the court clerks. Subsequently, they gave constructive feedbacks to both parties greatly enriching their experience at HIMCC. The judges also goes on to appreciate the quality of research done by both the parties, which seems like a wholesome end after bombarding them with questions.

Court Room 10

10:30	An air of excitement looms in the courtroom, as the participants seemingly eager to argue, are not even leaving the subject of switching which fan on, out of their purview. Whispering slowly amongst themselves, they now await the arrival of the Judges to begin hearing their tailored arguments.
10:31	The arrival of the judges marks the commencement of this competition, as the judges lay out the rules of the court, the time allotted and the role of each of the participants.

10:33

The first counsel now takes the podium and greets all the respective parties to this case, laying out the facts of the case and his respective issues regarding the same. As the buzzer goes off from the court clerk, the first counsel slowly accelerates his submissions and wraps up his 1st Contention.

10:35

With the second contention, the first counsel begins to massage his knuckles, a sign of probable nervousness, and starts to break sometimes while submitting his arguments. The judge noticing the mentioning of a word, asks a question to gauge the preparedness of the first counsel.

10:40

The first counsel, brushing through their notes, attempts to quickly find the relevant definition of the word, asked to be defined by the Hon’ble judges. Using the jurisdiction of several sub clauses and sections, the first counsel attempts to convince the Judge, which seems to be successful. As the buzzer goes of – stating 2 minutes left to the counsel’s arguments, the counsel continues to be concise while answering the judges.

10:42	The first counsel, noticing the paucity of time, requests the judges to conclude their arguments. Another speaker from the first counsel now takes over the other, to lay out the submissions previously made by his respective team member.
10:45	The opp. party sensing the concrete arguments of the first counsel, requests me to switch off the noisy A.C , to better hear the arguments made by their respective counterpart.
10:50	The judges pose another question to the first counsel, which hamstrings the first counsel due to the buzzer going of, like a broken record, the first counsel is forced to settle for a more shorter submission, due to lack of time.

10:51	The judges continue to poke in between of the submssions made by the first counsel. The buzzer acting like a nagging alarm clocking on a sunday afternoon, continues to demoralise the first counsel, effectively more than the judges.
10:53	The judges are seemingly satisfied by the submissions made by the first counsel, yet their satisfied expressions can be easily altered, as the counsel keeps on submitting their arguments.
10:55	The first counsel, now ending his arguments, sets forth the arrival of the opposite party to the podium, as if choreographed countless times, the opposite party begins their arguments with a noticeable tone in his voice.
11:00	A volley of interruptions are made by the judges, as the opposite counsel seems to be confused on which party he is representing, as they fumble their words.
11:02	The judges, seeming unsatisfied by the contentions made by the opposite party, continues to question on “Who they are representing” as the judges find the opposite counsel’s arguments brittle.

11:04	Like fish out of water, the opp. counsel appears to be unprepared, as the judge mentions the facts, & the anologies submitted by the opposite counsel to explain their argument, is not matching.
11:07	A ray of relief appears on the expressions of the opp. counsel, as the judge agrees on atleast some of the contentions made by them. Yet, the rest of the contentions are still in deep water, as the judges consistently interrupt the opposite counsel.
11:11	The buzzer concluding the opp. counsel’s arguments for them, they now proceed towards the end of their arguments.

11:13	The opposite counsel’s seated participants seem worried, as the participant making the submissions fumbles the definition of another relevant term, mentioned by the judges.
11:15	The Judges seem unsatisfied by the opposite counsel’s arguments, as they keep interrupting the submissions made, mentioning certain errors and ambiguities in the opposite counsel’s arguments.
11:20	Another precedent cited by the opposite counsel, is found to be irrelevant to the judges. Now proceeding to the other issues of their case, their co-counsel now takes the place.

11:25	Before the opposite counsel could truly commence their arguments, they are met with fierce questions from the judge, as the counsel seems unsure of the facts of the case. The counsel now appearing deeply anxious, they begin to face a case of dry mouth.
11:30	The buzzer going off, adds to the perils of the opposite counsel, as they continue to face the judges peircing questions. They now proceed to argue their findings with the judge, who seem slighlty unsatisifed.
11:35	The researcher of the opposite counsel offering some scribbled note to their speaker, provides some fuel to their contentions. Yet the judges find their contentions confusing.
11:38	The judges statement “We cant assume facts” lands a striking blow on the opposite counsel, as they slowly find their submissions, not being met favourably by the judges. Finally concluding their arguments, the opposite counsel mentions their honour in representing their case before the bench.

11:40	The first counsel now commences their rebuttals, with the judges mentioning a time limitation, for them to summarize and refute the contentions made by the opposite counsel.
11:42	The first counsel now being met with questions on ‘legal principles’ stated by them earlier, finds it fairly easy to answer. They now take their seat as they conclude their rebuttals.
11:45	The opposite counsel now taking the podium to proceed with their rebuttals, starts to find some headway with the judges, as they seem satisfied by the contentions made by them. Concluding their arguments, the opposite counsel now mentions their honour in representing their arguments before the bench. The judges now request all the participants to exit the courtroom.

Court Room 11

10:20	The judges have arrived. The participants are being instructed by the courtroom clerks.
10:23	As the preliminary round is about to begin, the participants can be seen clearing their throat.
10:25	The informant counsel 01 seeks permission from the panel and approaches the dias with great enthusiasm.

10:26	The informant counsel 01 put forth the facts of the cases in front of the Panel. The panel graciously hears to the counsel 01 keeping a continuous eye contact with the Informant counsel 01.
10:30	A bit of nervousness can be seen in the faces of the informants as the counsel 01 speaks and is trying to analyze the mood of the panel. The informant counsel 01 asks the panel to refer to certain pages of the memorandum.

10:32	The court clerks have altered with the remaining 10 minutes to put forth rest of the arguments.
10:34	The panel questions the counsel 01 to explain the definition and the counsel has successfully managed to answer the panel by quoting relevant authority.
10:36	The panel gives another perspective of the case and counter-questions the informant counsel 01. The questions seem to be pouring back and forth from the panel to the informants.

10:38	5 minutes left and still the panel doesn’t seem to be satisfied by the answers provided by the informants and here we go the panel asks the informants “What do you want?”
10:40	The panel seems highly engaged and the counsel left with just 2 minutes and asks the panel to grant them an extension of a minute which was denied by the panel.
10:42	And the first speaker runs out of time. Informant Co-Counsel approaches the dais and delivers the prepared arguments. The panel is fully devoted in the memorandum as the co-counsel speaks.
10:45	The Panel questions the co-counsel and the respondents are quite nervous as they evaluate the panel and gets anxious trying to calm themselves.

10:48	The courtclerks gives a reminder of the time. The panel pours questions and the co-counsel is yet to maintain his enthusiasm with a smile and tries to draw a chain of relation.
10:52	The time is ticking and the co-counsel rushes to put forth their argument in front of the panel. And the Times-up. The co-counsel submits in front of the panel and leaves the dais.
10:54	The Respondent counsel 01 seeks permission from the panel and approaches the Dais.
10:55	The Respondent counsel 01 can be seen a bit nervous as he says that he would like to start with his prepared speech and the panel immediately questions the counsel 01 – “Is this a Speech?” The respondent Counsel 01 holds his breath and gather his enthusiasm and replies the panel with – “Argument”
10:58	The Respondent counsel gives a brief and asks the panel to refer to the memorandum by mentioning specific page.
10:59	The Respondent asks the panel if the panel is satisfied by the counsel and moves ahead. The level of nervousness can be seen among the respondent teammates as they shake their legs and constantly looks back and forth to the counsel and the panel.

11:07	The panel questions the Respondent Counsel and the counsel confidently answers the panel and draws a relation through it. The Respondent counsel elucidates his argument to the panel.
11:10	With 2 minutes remaining the counsel asks the permission of the panel to invite the co-counsel to submit the argument.
11:11	The co-counsel from the respondant side seeks permission to approach the dais and the same is granted. He goes on to build the dispute which rests at the center of the case.

11:13	Respondant Co-counsel refers to the caselaw cited by the Informants which has put pressure on the informants as the respondent co-counsel draws the attention of the panel by quoting relevent authority.
11:15	The Informants discuss among themselves and note down the contentions being made against them.
11:17	The Respondant counsel makes a dedicated attempt to answer the questions put forth by the Panel. Time alert has been given and the counsel is left with 2 minutes. The counsel asks for one extra minute to the panel but the panel rejects it and asks them to sum up the arguments within the stipulated time.
11:23	The Respondant counsel Concludes.
11:24	The counsel representing the informant approaches the dais and submits their prayer to the bench.
11:25	The Respondents are granted with 3 minutes for rebuttals. Which goes on with utmost intensity.
11:28	The ongoing round is successfully concluded and the panel wishes best of luck to both the teams.
	The Participants leave the courtroom.

Court Room 12

10:20 AM	With merely ten minutes left for the commencement of the preliminary rounds, anticipation bubbles in the courtroom as the speakers arrive at the venue of the soon to follow intense and passionate round of mooting. The arrival of the bench is awaited with much eagerness.
10:24 AM	The wait culminates with the arrival of the esteemed bench that shall be presiding over the heated session of mooting, and grilling the participants with its testing questions and queries.

10:28 AM

A fascinating conversation seems to be unfolding between the judges comprising the bench. It feels as though the bench were bracing up for the pivotal and mentally simulating role it shall be playing in conducting the session.

10:34 AM	The atmosphere of excitement builds up in the room as some final preparations are concluded prior to the culmination of the session. The court clerks discharge their duties diligently by interacting the bench and propagating some crucial information.
10:37 AM	Finally, after a prolonged wait the session commences as the first speaker from the team representing the informant approaches the dais and begins with her speech.

10:38 AM	With much confidence, the counsel highlights the legal provisions vital to the proposition and lays down the role to be played by the co-counsel. Just two minutes into her speech, the bench inquires about the division of issues that shall be dealt with by the counsels. The counsel gives a satisfactory answer and is allowed to proceed
10:40 AM	After clearly and thoroughly laying down the statement of facts, the counsel moves on to the issues of the case and proceeds with her argumentation. With the aid of authorities like case laws and legal provisions, the counsel strengthens and builds upon her contention.
10:41 AM	The proceedings seem to be going on an intensely active note as within the interval of a minute, the bench fires a question at the counsel and asks the counsel to address an issue relevant to the case. With poise, the counsel states she shall be approaching the said issue in a short while.
10:44 AM	Drawing the attention of the bench to a particular landmark case, the counsel continues to contend her case with utmost grace. The bench asks the counsel to read out a particular judgment cited by the counsel. The researcher comes to the aid of the counsel but in spite of that, the bench does not seem to pleased with the counsel and asks the counsel for the holistic reading of the judgment and not a part of it.
10:46 AM	The counsel makes her best efforts to satisfy the successive inquiries and cross-questions posed by the bench. Even so, the bench highlights the vagueness existent in the words of the counsel and seeks greater clarity.
10:48 AM	In an attempt to satisfy the ongoing queries of the bench, the counsel draws the attention of the bench to a particular paragraph in the factual matrix. The counsel is asked to proceed to the next issue by the bench.
10:50 AM	While the counsel deliberates on the second issue and addresses the question of market share and market power, the bench fires yet another question at the counsel. By then, the counsel runs out of her time but in spite of that, the bench does not stop grilling the counsel. The counsel requests for an extension, which appears to have been granted by the bench.
10:52 AM	Not appearing satisfied with the counsel’s contentions, the bench asks the counsel for the detriment to competition in the market and consumers, which may be caused by the agreement between the stakeholder firms.

10:54 AM	Two successive extensions of thirty seconds are granted to the counsel by the bench. The counsel tries summing up her arguments but seems to be running out of time. Another extension of one minute is granted by the bench.
10:55 AM	The bench shows great firmness and tells the counsel to substantiate her contentions with relevant case laws instead of simply posing allegations. In the meantime, the court clerk raises the “time over” placard for the fourth or the fifth time in a row.
10:56 AM	Finally, once the arguments of the first counsel comes to an end, the second counsel approaches the dais and begins with her contentions.
10:57 AM	The bench asks the counsel to directly arrive at the second issue, and the counsel begins to continue with her arguments. While the counsel tries establishing the facts yet again, the bench tells the counsel about its knowledge of the facts and asks the counsel to proceed with the issues instead.
10:58 AM	While the bench agrees with the counsel’s assertion of the a stakeholder firm having dominant position in the market, it seeks clarification on the abusive use of such dominance by the said firm.
11:00 AM	Merely four minutes into her speech, the bench fires yet another question at the counsel. However, the counsel appears undeterred and answers the questions with confidence. Even so, the cross-questioning by the bench does not cease at this point as the bench brings the issue of IPR licensing into the picture.

11:02 AM	The bench continues to grill the counsel and highlights a dichotomy between the statement made by the counsel and the contents of the factual matrix. It appears as though the bench feels the counsel has omitted “upgraded”, an important word from her statement. Additionally, the bench urges the counsel to ask for any relevant provision or law which may adequately substantiate her arguments. The dissatisfaction of the bench with the counsel’s contentions appears quite unnoticeable.
11:04 AM	Not pleased by the counsel’s contentions on that particular issue, the bench asks the counsel to proceed with the subsequent issue. The counsel continues with her contentions and highlights various prongs of the anti-competitiveness test.
11:06 AM	While the counsel has merely five minutes left to conclude her speech, the bench goes on to ceaselessly grill the counsel and expresses disagreement with the allegations of predatory pricing imposed by the counsel.
11:07 AM	The counsel fervently tries to address the queries made by the bench but the bench still does not appear to be pleased with her justifications for her claims. The researcher comes to the aid of the counsel. The counsel then takes the bench’s attention to a particular para in the factual matrix.
11:09 AM	The bench asks the counsel if she would like to proceed with another issue, and the counsel requests for an extension of one minute which is granted by the bench. The counsel is left with merely one and a half minute (with a minute long extension) to conclude her contentions.
11:11 AM	It is certain that the bench is hard to please. The ceaseless firing of questions at the counsel bears testimony to the perfection and utmost clarity that the bench expects from the counsels. With this, the counsel runs out of her time.
11:12 AM	Finally, the counsel concludes with her submissions and seeks permission to proceed with the prayer. The bench urges the co-counsel to join the counsel at the dais. The court clerk beckons the researcher of the informant team to stand up while the reading of the prayer is underway.
11:14 AM	The spotlight shifts to the counsels of the opposing party as the first speaker approaches the dais.

11:15 AM	The counsel seeks the bench’s permission to lay down the statement of jurisdiction and thereby, commences her speech. With poise and apparent clarity of thought and legal knowledge, the counsel quotes the relevant provisions of the Indian Competition Act.
11:16 AM	However, the quotation of the legal provision causes much displeasure to the bench. “Do you think we do not know the laws?”, the bench vehemently asks with a clear not of disapproval in its demeanor. The displeased bench asks the counsel to move on to the facts and deliberate on the issues instead. The bench firmly holds that quoting relevant provisions is the job of the informants and not the opposing party.
11:18 AM	Undeterred by the dampening rebuke of the bench, the counsel tries delivering the goods by proceeding with her contentions on the issue. However, the bench seems to be in no mood of sparing the counsel by incessantly grilling the counsel and seeking clarity on anti-purchase and anti-poaching agreements. The bench directs the counsel to cite relevant authorities in support of her contentions.
11:21 AM	The counsel quotes a Supreme Court judgement to substantiate her claims. Yet, the bench does not appear content with the counsel’s answer and poses cross-questions.
11:23 AM	Nervousness seems to grip the counsel as the pace of her speech heightens. The constant questioning and grilling by the bench seems to have provoked her nerves causing her to suddenly increase the speed of her speech.
11:25 AM	Not showing any signs of leniency, the bench questions the counsel on her basics about Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
11:26 AM	While the counsel frantically tries to satisfy the bench, the bench asks her to move onto the subsequent issue instead. Complying with the bench’s command, the counsel proceeds with her contentions on the second issue.
11:27 AM	Even though the counsel is left with precious little time to conclude her speech, the bench poses yet another question to the counsel. While the counsel attempts to answer the question, the bench asks her to answer the basic question of the purpose of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 instead.
11:29 AM	Disagreeing with the claims of the counsel, the bench states that the agreement in question was indeed anti-competitive opposed to her assertions. In an unsuccesful attempt to defend her case, the counsel cited the ruling of the Director-General in favor of her case. Yet, the bench questioned the authority and stated the Director-General’s word were not final.
11:31 AM	Finally, the counsel concludes her speech and passes on the mike to her co-counsel, who then approaches the dais.
11:32 AM	Within merely a minute into her speech, the grilling bench begins its relentless round of questions and cross-questions. The counsel seems to be having a hard time in availing the opportunity to say a word in her support as the bench ceaselessly fires questions and queries.
11:34 AM	The counsel cites relevant authorities from the Companies Act to defend her client and argues that the practices being deemed as anti-competitive were actually normal and routine commercial practices. More questions are fired at the counsel in response to her contentions. The bench says, “It seems you are forcing me to accept your conditions” with the aim of highlighting her client’s anti-competitive behavior, which she seeks to defend.
11:37 AM	In her defense, the counsel cites legal provisions from the interpretation clause of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, the bench calls out the inadequcy in her citations and asks her to be mindful of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
11:38 AM	While the counsel makes her best efforts to address the bench’s questions and concerns, the bench fires yet another question at the defendant and asks her for the final stance of the important DG Report.
11:40 AM	With barely any time left, the counsel stresses on the opposing party’s counsels’ efforts to establish the lack of abuse of dominance by their clients. Subsequently, the counsel runs out of her time.
11:42 AM	While the court clerk raises the “time over” placard a second time, the bench continues to question the counsel on her contentions. The dissatisfaction of the bench is clearly apparent. Yet, the counsel endeavors to satisfy the bench.
11:43 AM	Finally, the counsel proceeds with the prayer and is joined at the dais by her co-counsel. The researcher too stands up while the prayer is being read. In the meanwhile, the counsels of the informat side seem to have rebuttals to the contentions of the opposing party’s counsels.
11:44 AM	The counsels of the infomant take the stage yet again and with utmost confidence, they state their rebuttals. They highlight the fallouts in the authorities like the Coal India Ltd. v. CCI case and provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 cited by the counsels of the opposing party. In a final attack, the counsels of the informant question the authority of the DG Report quoted by the counsel of the opposing party.
11:47 AM	The counsel of the opposing party approaches the dais and proceeds with her counter-rebuttals. They refute the claims of the informant’s counsel that alleged the violation of legal provisions of Indian Competition Act, 2002 and Indian Contract Act, 1872 by their clients. Additionally, the counsel states that the matter had been brought in front of the Competition Commission and not a civil court and argues that the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded because of which the arguments of the informant’s counsel fall flat on their face.
11:50 AM	The counsel of the opposing party then highlights the inadequacy of the informant’s counsels’ claims and states that the counsels of the opposing party had cited enough authorities to prove the allegations imposed by the informant’s counsels were not relevant.
11:51 AM	The time does not seem to favor the counsel of the opposing party as she is left with barely thirty seconds to pose the rebuttal questions. However, the bench graciously grants her an extension of one minute thereby rescuing her.
11:53 AM	The informant’s counsel takes the stage yet again to answer the rebuttal questions posed by the counsel of the opposing party.
11:54 AM	A minute later, the proceedings at the court room come to a close as the counsels are allowed to depart from the courtroom. The bench takes its time to deliberate on the merits of the contentions made in front of it by the counsels of the informant and the opposing party. With this, the first preliminary round comes to an end.
12:03 PM	After an extensive pause of nine minutes, the counsels re-enter the courtroom for the feedback session. The bench shows utmost graciousness in its demeanor and enlightens the counsels about their shortcomings and stresses on the necessity of making the best use of the available time. Further, the bench advises the counsel to indulge in deeper research and cite more case laws. Plus, the bench acquaints the counsel with the proper courtroom etiquettes and advises them to be careful with their words.
12:04 PM	In spite of its insightful suggestins, the bench recognizes the hardwork and effort invested by the counsels. Finally, the bench wishes the best to the counsels and expresses its hopes of seeing the counsels in the finals of the first Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition.
12:07 PM	After the initial closure of the proceedings minutes ago, the feedback session too concludes as the counsels leave the courtroom for the final time. The judges too take their leave from the courtroom.

Court Room 13

10:26 AM

The judges have arrived at the courtroom and the participants are eagerly anticipating the start of the proceedings.

10:29	The air in the courtroom is thick with anticipation as both the teams are awaiting with bated breaths. Every participant is in a nervous state
10:31 AM	The proceedings begin with the speaker 1 of the informant’s side, who states the division of time between both speakers
10:33 AM	Speaker 1 begins with the issues and asks for permission to begin with the first argument. The counsel passionately submits her arguments.

10:35 AM	The Hon’ble bench starts questioning the counsel to better understand the depth of her knowledge. The judges continue their grilling while the counsel stands her ground.
10:37 AM	The court clerk rings the first bell while the judges continue their grilling and now the counsel seems flustered.
10:39	The court clerk rings the next bell and the counsel concludes the problem and moves to the next issue.
10:41 AM	The counsel proceeds with the second issue, initially appearing under-confident due to previous questioning but quickly picks up her pace.

10:42 AM	The judge asks another question to understand her knowledge of the precedents as the final bell rings. The judge grants an extension of one minute.
10:43 AM	The allotted time for the first speaker ends and the judges notify her to conclude her arguments.
10:44 AM	The second speaker takes up the dais and confidently strides through the issues he will be dealing with.
10:45 AM	Co-counsel begins his argument submission but is immediately stopped by the judges, who seek clarification on the facts.
10:47 AM	The judges seem to have caught the counsel on a question of law, however, the counsel is unable to answer the question and moves on to the next issue.

10:49 AM	The counsel moves through his submission and is now stopped by the bench with a question. The counsel stands his ground and responds.
10:50 AM	The judges continue to grill the counsel with questions as the court clerk rings the first bell.
10:52 AM	The counsel points out a para from the proposition however the judges don’t seem satisfied. The judges asked for a reference to prove the point; however, the counsel was unable to do so.
10:53 AM	The counsel proceeds to the next issue and begins with his sub arguments.

10:57 AM	The bench poses another question concerning the law, and the counsel takes a pause, seeming a little underconfident with his answer.
10:59 AM	The court clerk rings the next bell and the counsel now speeds through his sub arguments. However, the judges have a different perspective as they stop the counsel with another question that the counsel confidently answers as he differs form the judge’s opinion.
11:01	The time for the second speaker is up and the judges ask the counsel to summarise his arguments.
11:02	The judges discuss among themselves as the counsel concludes the arguments with the prayer.
11:03	Speaker 1 of the opposite party asks permission to approach the dais. The speaker asks for the permission of the judges to begin with his submission with the facts of the case to which the judges deny and ask the counsel to proceed with the arguments.
11:05	The hon’ble bench begins their grilling as the speaker proceeds with his submissions. The counsel confidently strides through his arguments as the researcher of their team provides the speaker with a point.

11:07

The counsel provides precedents to substantiate his arguments as the judges proceed with their grilling.

11:11

The judges continue posing questions to the speaker as the counsel stands his ground although a little nervous now.

11:13

The counsel proceeds with his arguments, however, the final bell has rung and the counsel seeks an extension of 2 minutes. The judges allow for an extension of a minute.

11:15

The counsel quickly summarises his arguments as the extension bell rings. The second speaker asks permission to approach the dais and begins with her submissions for issues 2 and 3.

11:18

The counsel provides with the copy of a case as she cites the case in her arguments.

11:21

The counsel asks for permission to continue with her arguments, however, she is stopped by the honorable bench, which poses another question on the present argument.

11:24

The first bell rings and the grilling continues. The researcher of the team proactively provides the speaker with a chit. The counsel tries to persuade the judges with her answer.

11:28

The counsel seems confident with her arguments and the judges intervene with a question that the counsel replies to stating that the moot proposition is silent on the matter. The judges seem to be dissatisfied by the answer and both, the judges and the counsel go through the propositions to prove their respective points.

11:31

The counsel concludes the second issue and moves to the next issue. She continues providing case copies as she cites the precedents in her arguments.

11:33	The counsel continues with her justification as the final bell rings. The counsel asks permission for an extension of two minutes to wrap up the third issue.
11:35	The counsel’s justification is followed up by newer questions and the extension bell rings. However, both the bench and the counsel seem to be unbothered by the bell.
11:37	The bench finally permits the counsel to proceed with their prayer. All the members of the teams rise as the prayer begins.
11:38	The counsel from the informant party joins the dais to begin with their rebuttals.
11:39	The counsel points out the contradictory arguments from the opposite party. The opposite party, on the other hand, is busy scribbling points in their notepad.

11:43	The counsel from the opposite party strides through the rebuttal points and completes her submission within three minutes and with that, the first preliminary rounds conclude.
11:44	The judges ask both the teams to stay outside as they discuss the scores for the teams.
11:54	The round has concluded, and the Hon’ble bench has given feedback to both teams.

Court Room 14

10:20	The honorable judges have arrived, and the participants look calm and composed on the outside. The start of the proceedings is awaited now.
10:30	The speaker 01 from the Informant side has approached the dias and seeks the bench’s permission to start. The bench allows the counsel to skip the facts of the case.

10:32	The counsel is now stating the issues, albeit a little nervously.
10:33	The bench interrupts the counsel and seeks clarification regarding what the counsel is trying to establish: whether there was an agreement that was both existed and executed or not.
10:35	The existence of an agreement between the concerned parties continues to be in question. The honorable judge continues to pose counter-questions. The counsel confidently answers the questions.
10:38	The questioning by the bench continues. Seems like the bench is still a little unconvinced by the arguments of the counsel. The court clerk rings the bell.

10:41	The counsel is trying to hold his ground strongly, but the Lordships are not letting the counsel off that easily. The counsel’s confidence finally falters, he seems unsure about some facts.
10:43	The court clerk alerts the counsel to the speeding time, but the bench doesn’t stop with the questions. The counsel goes silent in response to a question asked by the bench.
10:45	The counsel gains back his confidence although a little unnerved by the unexpected questions.
10:46	The court clerk rings the bell again, indicating the remaining 2 minutes. The counsel seeks the bench’s permission to move ahead with his arguments, which the bench grants.

10:48	As the Time ends, the bench gives the counsel two more minutes to summarize his arguments and speech quickly. The counsel stutters and stammers a little as he tries to wrap up his entire speech in the extended Time.
10:51	The bench poses more questions to the counsel, which he tries to answer but the court clerk again rings the bell to indicate the end of the extended period. The bench allows the counsel to wrap up his speech, again.
10:53	The speaker 01 concludes his speech confidently. Speaker 2 approached the dais after getting permission to proceed from the honorable bench.
10:56	The judges seem satisfied with the counsel’s arguments so far, which gives the counsel a much-needed boost to their confidence.

11:01

The informant side’s researcher provides the speaker with some relevant documents as the harsh but valid questioning by the bench continues.

11:06

The counsel still seems unruffled by the continuous questioning and holds her ground firm. The court clerk alerts about the remaining 2 minutes of the extended time.

11:15

As the counsel moves forward with her arguments, the Lordships seem satisfied so far. They continue to listen intently and puts forward questions whenever they need clarity from the counsel.

11:20

The judge seeks clarification as the counsel tries her best to answer.

11:23

As the bell rings, indicating the end of time for the speaker’s speech, the counsel seeks for an extension from the bench. The bench grants an extension to the counsel.

11:29	The speaker finally moves to her final part of the argument as the court clerk notifies the end of the extended time. The bench allows the counsel another 30 seconds to conclude her arguments.
11:30	The speaker 02 of the opposition side approaches the dais and seeks the bench’s permission to begin. He calmly describes the structure of his argument to which the honorable bench seems satisfied and gives the counsel a green flag to go ahead with his arguments.

11:38

The counsel has been notified by the court clerk about the remaining time, the counsel moves forward with his argument swiftly.

11:42	The court clerk indicates the end of the allotted time by ringing the bell. The honorable bench allows for an extension as they are not content with the arguments of the counsel yet.
11:46	The chain of questions continues from the bench and the counsel is unable to finish his speech. The bench points out the contradictions and fallacies in the counsel’s arguments.
11:48	With the signaling of end of time from the court clerk, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to conclude his speech with prayer.

11:50	The Informant side is not done with their counter-arguments but the bench asks them to stop as the time’s up.
11:51	The opposition side comes up to the dais and quickly finishes with their counter-arguments within the stipulated time.
11:52	The court clerk declares the end of proceedings as per the directions of the honorable bench. The participants leave the courtroom briskly.
11:58	The participants come back in for the judges’ feedback. The honorable judges first congratulate the teams on completing their arguments and then proceeds to give their valuable feedback to the teams.
12:04	With the feedback, the first Preliminary round comes to an end as the honorable judges leave the courtroom.

Court Room 15

10:30	The Hon’ble Judges enter the room and the participants look a little nervous.
10:34	Speaker 1 asks permission to approach the dais which is granted.
10:36	The Counsel from the Appellant side begins to present the facts of the case. The judges ask the speaker for the page in the memorial where these facts are mentioned.

10:39	The speaker passionately continues with their arguments. The judges express uncertainty about the memorial pages that the speaker is presenting. It turns out that the Speaker had mentioned the wrong page and paragraph. The mismatch is fixed and the speaker continues.
10:42	The Court clerk signals the paucity of time. The speaker hurriedly continues with their arguments

10:44

There is a sudden pause in the flow of issues as the Hon’ble judge starts questioning the Speaker.

10:45	The court clerk rings the bell as the time for the first issue is over, but not before the Judges go on a spree of rapid-fire questioning. The speaker reiterates the relevant facts to support their arguments.
10:47	The speaker is not spared from the line of questioning regarding the lack of provision supporting the speaker’s argument. The speaker appears to be flustered and tries to give a response, but the judges do not seem convinced.
10:50	The speaker has to call upon their Co-counsel for the second issue as the court clerk signals that the time is over.
10:52	Speaker 2 confidently begins with their arguments and appears to be adequately prepared, as the Judges go through the Memorial.
10:55	The Counsel supports their arguments with relevant provisions and continues with their issue in a seamless manner
10:56	The counsel is halted in their presentation, as the Bench asks the speaker about a piece of specific information. The counsel seems a bit unsure and asks their Co-Counsel to present the relevant files.

10:57	The Second issue continues as Speaker 2 successfully provides the Hon’ble judges with the relevant informtion and futhers her argument along a logical line of reasoning.
10:59	The Bench causes a pause in the issues as the Speaker is asked about her arguments being supported by the correct provsions. The speaker is a bit flustered but coninues with her arguments
11:01	Time is running out as the court clerk signals that only 5 minutes are left, but their is no respite for the speaker as the Judges latch on the the gap in the Speaker’s argument.
11:03	The Speaker is able to find back her ground by managing to grasp the correct information to support her arguments. But the time waits for none as the clerk mentions that only 3 minutes are left.
11:06	The second issue is wrapped up as the Speaker asks permission to move on to the final issue. The Bench grants permission.
11:08	The Speaker being aware about the paucity of time, continues with her arguments but is prevented by the judge’s questioning regarding the Speaker’s client’s conduct.
11:10	Questioning regarding the same continues as the Speaker tries to present some examples supporting the conduct of their client as justifiable.
11:12	As the court clerk rings the bell regarding the time being up for the final issue, the Speaker hurriedly tries to wrap up their arguments. The judges however are still unsure of the intention behind the issue raised and go on to the final round of questioning.
11:15	The Speaker asks permission from the Hon’ble Judges to move on to the prayer. The same is granted and the speaker presents the bench with the prayer.
11:17	The Opposite party seeks permission to present their arguments before the Hon’ble Judges. The Speaker 1 seems ready to rebut the arguments presented by the first party.
11:19	As the Speaker continues with the issue, the first question by the bench regarding the relevant provisions supporting the Opposite side’s argument is posed.
11:21	The Speaker promptly responds to the question posed but the Judges are not convinced with the response, as relevant provisions of law seem to contravene their arguments.

11:24	The Court clerk rings the bell to signify the remaining time. The Speaker asks for an extension of time which is promptly granted.
11:26	The concluding part of the first issue by the speaker is halted, as the Bench points out a flaw in the argument. The Speaker tried to respond but the time seems to have run out. The speaker asks for extension of time, which is granted by the bench.

11:32

The Co-Counsel approaches the dias and seeks permission to move forward with the Second issue. Permission is granted by the Bench.

11:37	The argumentation by the Speaker 2 is broken as the Judges pose their first question regarding the Second issue, asking the speaker to provide the relevant information from their Memorial.
11:40	On being provided with the same, the Speaker 2 continues with their arguments. But before they could do so, the Bench asks the Speaker regarding the Horizontal arrangements regarding another specific piece of information
11:42	The court clerk rings the bell, informing the room regarding the remaining time to be 10 minutes. Speaker 2 on being informed tries to hurry up with their issue.
11:44	The Hon’ble judges raise a question regarding the conduct of the counsel’s client to be violative of provisions of the Indian Contract Act and even of the Fundamental right of Article 19 of the constitution.
11:47	The counsel justifies the actions of their client by arguing that nothing in the law is absolute and exceptions are always there. To support her argument, the Speaker presents the bench with relevant case laws regarding the same.
11:50	The speaker tries to maintain their calm as they are questioned and cross-questioned by the bench. The paucity of time is signaled by the court clerk, as only 2 minutes remain for the Second issue.
11:52	The Speaker 2 continues their arguments as the time seems to be running out. The speaker hurridly tries to wrap up their second issue and are given an extension of 1 minute.
11:55	As the Second issue is wrapped up, Speaker 2 moves on to their final issue. The time seems to be running out in a blink, but the unrelenting questioning by the Hon’ble Jusdges does not seems to be ceasing.
11:57	The arguments by the Speaker 2 are halted, and the judges seem to be disappointed by the lack of the Speaker’s reference to their Memorial, who is instead citing information from some other source.
11:59	A serious flaw with the issue is posed by the Judges and the time for the speaker to respond to the same is dwindling, as the court clerk signifies the remaining time.
12:01	Speaker 2 finally seems to have managed to respond to the posed question, but the bench seems to be unconvinced regarding the response given.
12:03	The bench asks the Speaker to conclude their issue and move on to the prayer. The prayer begins.
12:06	The court clerk rings the bell and signifies the rebuttal rounds to have begun. Both Teams are given 3 minutes to rebut and are asked by the Judges to not give out exaggerated claims.
12:10	Both the teams present their rebuttal to the opposition’s arguments. As the bell rings, the courtroom falls silent, marking the end of the 1st Preliminary rounds. Both the teams receive commendation from the judges, their efforts applauded as they await the final Verdict.
12:15	The long-awaited end is finally here, as the Bench addresses both teams regarding their strengths and weaknesses.

Court Room 16

10:35	The counsel meticulously constructs compelling arguments, demonstrating a profound comprehension of e facts thereby captivating the court’s attention and decisively influencing the course of the proceedings in her favor
10:36	Speaker 1 engages in cross-questioning with the judges as they test her knowledge regarding the facts of the case. Speaker 1 confidently stands her ground and briefs the judges about her argument
10:38	Faced with an onslaught of questioning, the counsel confronts each query headlong, skillfully interweaving relevant legal precedents and compelling reasoning to bolster his case.

10:39	The courtroom master rings the bell, which is acknowledged by the speaker. The judge then asks her to conclude the argument.
10:40	The speaker is growing confident as she guides the bench to look through the memo to which the judges seem impressed.

10:42	The court master rings the bell, leading the speaker to hastily conclude her points, to which the judges seem to be nodding in agreement.
10:44	The courtroom master signals that the time is over to which the speaker requests an extension of 30 seconds.
10:46	The judge, cutting through the air, asks the speaker to summarise all her arguments in one line.

10:48	Speaker 2 from the informant side confidently takes up the dais and gets into the factual description of the case. The speaker manages to capture the bench’s attention as they speak with eloquence, providing a comprehensive understanding of the facts of the case.
10:49	The bench negates the assertion and the speaker seems to lose grip over his arguments.
10:50	The co-counsel provides his team with a sheet of paper which seems to be turning the direction of their argument.
10:54	Integrating legal reasonings and precedents, the speaker eloquently supports his answer.
10:56	The reasoning provided by the speaker is challenged by the judges who seem to rely on facts that contradict the speaker’s argument.
10:58	The bench seems a little dissatisfied with the arguments presented by the speaker and asks the speaker to quickly wrap up his argument.
10:59	Speaker 1 from the opposite party approaches the dais and commences with their arguments wanting to go into the details of the case to which the judge asks the speaker to skip the facts and jump straight into the arguments.

11:05	The judge demands the counsel to bring in the specific facts on which the counsel is basing her arguments.
11:06	A series of relevant case laws are being given to substantiate her arguments as an attempt to sway the proceedings in her favour
11:07	The exchange persists and the atmosphere in the room thickens, The counsel finds herself in a challenging situation as she is expected to clarify a number of penetrating inquiries as the time alert surfaces in the courtroom
11:11	Speaker 1 from the informant side calls upon her co counselor to take up the arguments further
11:12	The speaker asks permission from the counsel to take up the dias. The judges of affirmation
11:14	The speaker seems to be losing her grip on the argument and she looks over to her co-counsel, who provides her the memorandum which she is asked to read out loud.
11:16	The Bench picks apart the case to and her voice cracks up as she is required to take help from her co-counsel again. The judge seem to be disappointed as they are not getting enough substantial information from the speaker.
11:19	A hush descends the room as the judge meticulously dissects the counsel’s case causing the counsel to grow frantic.
11:21	The speaker takes a minute to gain her composure, her voice cracking up as she manages to stay afloat in the water while presenting legal reasonings and precedents forward.
11:23	The speaker is seen to be taking the help of her co-counsel as her co-counsel keeps providing her with the arguments on her behalf in a desperate attempt to save the proceedings for their party.
11:25	The court master appears and holds the board of ‘time over’ to which the speaker asks for enough time to conclude her argument. The judge although dissatisfied gives her a chance to conclude her argument in a line.
11:28	The informant steps up confidently on the dais going in with the facts to which the bench frankly hints that it’s time that he skips over the facts and goes in with the arguments.
11:30	Faced with questioning, the counsel confronts each question skillfully, interweaving relevant legal precedents and compelling reasoning to bolster his case.
11:33	The counsel seem to be growing more and more confident as he goes unchallenged by the judges and overtime the judges also acknowledge that the counsel is thorough with the legal reasonings and the facts alike.
11:35	The speaker rapidly wraps up the case leaving the judge content with the presentation of the rebuttal round. With the spirit of a victor already he heads back to his seat
11:37	The opposite party comes forward for the rebuttal round on the dais seeming a little underconfident as they go about their arguments and wraps up her argument for the rebuttal.
11:38	The judges rustle through their pages as everyone gets up and the participants seem to be asking for the feedback then and there. The bench smiles it off and the participants leave the courtroom. The feeling of uncertainty getting a hold on each one of them leaving them anxious and nervous.
11:42	The atmosphere in the courtroom seems tense as we see participants making their way back into the room.

11:48

The round has been concluded and everybody gets up to leave.

Court Room 17

10:31	Team 1 approaches the dice seeking permission to address the bench as your lordship and states the jurisdiction of the case. the judges listen to speaker witch anticipation
10:32	The judge is clarifying his contentions and asking questions to the speaker 1. Speaker 1 seems nervous with such a sudden wave of questions. The speaker has confidently answered all the questions and left the judges settled.
10:35	The speaker has now shifted to the main arguments of the state. The judge is now grilling the speaker by throwing questions of jurisdiction under section 3 of competition act. The speaker is unable to answer it corrected and has pleaded ignorance.
10:37	The judges have now moved to the second question which is related to vertical agreements. the judge is still not satisfied with his answer and has resumed grilling the speaker.
10:39	The speaker is answering all the question leaving everyone in awe.
10:40	Only 5 mins are left for speaker 1. There is a sudden wave of anticipation in the hall and speaker is hurriedly completing his remaining arguments.
10:41	The judges seem to leave no room for doubt and are continuously throwing questions at Speaker 1 leaving him baffled and confused. The time for speaker 1 has completed but is seems he wants extra time to complete his remaining arguments.

10:44	The judge is again asking him questions relating to the facts of the case. As expected the speaker seems nervous but he gracefully handles the whole situation by his wit.
10:46	The time for speaker 1 has completed but is seems he wants extra time to complete his remaining.
10:49	The judge seems to be in no mood to stop the grilling but have finally stopped owing to the paucity of time.
10:50	Speaker 2 has approached the dais and is interrupted by the judge in his first sentence itself. Only 10 mins are left for Team 1 and they seem baffled as they would not be able to complete their arguments on time.

10:53	Speaker 2 is trying to convince the judges by answering the questions confidently but the judge’s question don’t seem to end easily. There is an air of thrill in the hall and team 2 is eagerly waiting for their turn.
10:55	The judge is trying to test the speaker’s knowledge of the laws and the speaker is able to answer them all leaving the judges impressed.
10:58	The bench explains the law to the speaker to see if he gets nonplussed. The time is over for team 1 but it seems that no amount of time is sufficient to make the eminent judge satisfied with their reasoning.
11:00	The grilling still continues and it is exciting to watch the whole situation the speaker has now handled over his arms and

	It is exciting to watch Speaker 2 fight with all the questions till the very end even if the time is over
11:04	The clock is ticking leaving everyone in anticipation. Speaker 2 has already taken much extra time
11:07	The grilling doesn’t seem to end anytime soon this highlights the thrilling side of a moot competition as the Speaker is trying is best to convince the judges with his contention but the judges as showing no mercy.
11:08	The much awaited moment has finally arrived and the judges have finally let the speaker say the prayer and leave the dias.
11:09	Team 2’s Speaker sounds very confident and has approached the dais. The judges are listening to him with sheer interest and are eager to listen to his arguments.
11:10	It seems that the judges are well versed with the facts and they want the speaker to directly move towards stating the agruments.
11:12	The judges are clearly impressed with the Speaker’s arguments and his vocal skills. Now the exciting part comes as the judges start grilling him on the question of law.

11:13	The speaker leaves the judges in awe by answering all the questions
11:15	The speaker seems to be confident and holds the attention of the hall as he poses his arguments to the panel.
11:17	The counsel is questioned on the requisites of the anti-competitive markets and to the judge’s surprise he is able to convince him by using his wit.
11:20	The panel seeks more clarification from the speaker,the answer to which seems to still not satisfy the honourable judge.
11:21	The judges wants to know if there lies any evidence supporting the arguments of the counsel.
11:22	The counsel is trying to convince the judge by citing examples of other companies relating to abuse of dominance.

11:24	The courtroom is heating up with rising anticipation among the Teams and the judges. The speaker continues to cite examples leaving the judges satisfied everytime.
11:26	As the speaker presents his arguments with unwaveringconviction,the courtroom falls silent captivated by the sheer force of his logic and reasoning.With each point he makes,the bench nods giving a convinced sight to the counsel.
11:28	The silence is shortlived as the judges put up their brunt of grilling on the counsel. He musters all his energy to holster his stance to sway the judges with his arguments.
11:30	The speaker is surprising calm owing to the atmosphere of the room and is trying his best to muster up his courage and dodge all the questions that are thrown on him.
11:32	The speaker indulges with the next issue,and as the trend goes, he is again posed several questions by the panel. the Speaker gets anxious about the time paucity and requests the judges to hand over the dias to his co counsel.
11:35	The co-counsel from the respondent’s side approaches the dias. She clarifies the issues she would be dealing with, while the panel listens to her contentions with anticipation and is eager to find a loophole in her arguments to start grillling.
11:38	The co-counsel confidently goes ahead with her arguments and submissions,and requests the judges to refer to the moot memo.To everyone’s surprise the panel interuupts and cross questions the speaker.
11:40	The co-counsel crisply substantiates her point by citing examples,however, the bench seems not so satisfied and asks for highlighting other case laws to support the argument.
11:42	The panel is throwing an unending wave of question relating to the abuse of dominance by the company.The judge is still not satisfied with her reasoning on this issue and has resumed his cross-questioning.
11:45	The judges is presenting his reasoning to the Speaker by expanding the ambit of the question.The speaker asks the panel to refer to compendium to sustantiate her point.
11:48	The courtclerk rings the bell signaling seeking everyone’s attentions towards time but it’s not enough to make the speaker anxious as she stands unwavered by the plethora of questions thrown upon her by the panel.
11:51	The counsel is encountered with a series of questions fundamental to her stance, she overcomes the arduous line of questioning with excellennt advocacy.
11:52	The panel questions the Counsel on questions relating to downstream or upstream market/With just two minutes in hand to conclude the submission the speaker still has some contentions left to sustantiate and is asked by the panel to quickly jump on the other issue.
11:54	The Counsel is now summing up her arguments owing to the pausity of time and has accepted that the company has a dominant position in the market but refuses to change her stance that the compancy is not abusing his dominant position.
11:56	The time left with the counsel if flying and she is now hurridly trying to conclude her arguments and she is able to convinve the judges to some extent by her impressive use of with and reasoning.
11:58	The bench expresses their discontent with the contentions of the counsel and asks her to convince them by citing some precedents of case.
12:00	The counsel is asks to present her counter argument against the contention that the company is abusing his dominant position by employing unetchical means.
12:02	While the speaker is running out of time and not able to give convincing recipes to the bench,he is asked to quickly move ahead and start the prayer.
12:04	The judges asks if the teams seek rebuttal to which the informant’s side denies but the respondent’s side proceeds to question the informat’s side but surprisingly they seeks ignorance and refuse to answer the question presented to them.
12:06	Subsequently,the first preliminary round concludes and the participants are requested to depart from the room to allow the judges to deliberate in confidence.

Court Room 18

10:25	The teams wait with anticipation of what lies ahead as the judges enter the courtroom.
10:27	The speaker 1 of the appellant approaches the dais with confidence and starts with their speech.
10:29	The counsel asks for permission to move ahead with facts and is given the permission.
10:30	The judges question the counsel on the facts and undeterred by the question, the counsel answers gracefully.
10:31	The judges are continuously jabbing questions at the counsel and with great persona, speaker 1 leads them to relevant paragraphs in the moot proposition.
10:34	The speaker 1 moves persuasively but is further grilled on the facts.
10:36	The judges points out the remoteness of arguments and ask for elaboration on the arguments.
10:38	The judges do not seem satisfied with the answers provided by the counsel and are further explaining their question to the counsel to get the desired answer.
10:41	The counsel tries to prove her point by citing the relevant case from the compendium to make her ground clear and substantiate the arguments in her favour.
10:43	Even after the continuous flow of questions, the speaker 1 has answered all the questions with elegance and moves ahead with the arguments.

10:45	The counsel makes her way with the arguments but is again questioned by the judges on the relevancy of the arguments, while the courtmaster reminds them of the time.
10:46	The counsel has asked for an extension of 3 minutes and is given the permission by the judges while the other teammates wait with beating hearts.
10:50	With great questions and equally great answers, the arguments from speaker 1 come to an end and speaker 2 approaches the dias.

10:53	The speaker eloquently puts her arguments while leading the judges to relevant paragraphs in the moot memorial to make her point.
10:55	The judges question the counsel on the argument put forward and undeterred by the question, the counsel tries to answer clearly while referring the memorial to make her point.
10:58	The counsel contends that the facts are silent on the question asked, while the court master brings them to reality by reminding them of the time.
10:59	The counsel artfully answers the question as her time for arguments moves faster than ever.
11:01	The judges do not seem convinced of the answer but tell the counsel to move forward with the arguments and substantiate their arguments.
11:03	The counsel makes the argument but the judges ask the counsel to substantiate it with relevant case laws which makes the speaker falter as she is not able to answer the question.

11:05	The counsel moves with heavy heart as her part comes to an end, the speaker 1 of respondent side approaches the dais gracefully.
11:07	The counsel asks for permission to brief the judges on facts and is questioned on the matter of the jurisdiction of the case.
11:10	The judges question the counsel on the provision and the counsel makes her point successfully while citing the provision but is again roadblocked by another question.
11:12	The speaker 1 divides her arguments into parts as well as moves with grace toward her arguments but is questioned on the legal nitty-gritties of the arguments.
11:14	The speaker substantiates her point with citing case and is questioned regarding the facts of the case cited which she answers with competence but is further questioned about the jurisdiction of the case.

11:16	The judges point out that the contention put forward by the counsel does not have substantiation but the counsel tries to further substantiate her arguments with reasoning.
11:19	The judges do not seem satisfied with the answer but let the counsel move forward, while the court master reminds them of the running time.
11:20	The atmosphere of the courtroom is thick with anticipation of the other teammates as the counsel is continuously questioned and the counsel is not able to substantiate her point to the satisfaction of the judges.
11:22 AM	As the time of speaker 1 comes to an end, speaker 2 approaches the dais with the bravery of a soldier in the battlefield.
11:24 AM	The counsel submitted her arguments convincingly but stopped midway to be questioned on account of the clauses used in the argument which is submitted.

11:27	The counsel is questioned on the types of market and answers confidently but is again blocked by furthering questions.
11:29 AM	The counsel leads the judges to relevant pages of the memorial but the flow of questions never stop.
11:31	The counsel persuasively submits her arguments but the expression of judges are indiscernible regarding their stand on the argument made and are questioning the counsel at every step.
11:34	The Judges are keeping the counsel at their toes while they are making their arguments as they are pointing out any mistakes made and questioning on the laws to check their knowledge.
11:36	The counsel is fighting with time to make her arguments convincing and seeks an extension to argue the remaining issue which the judges allow.
11:38	The counsel listens to the questions closely and tries to answer the questions with substantiation to prove her point but incessant flow of questions slow down her pace of arguments.
11:40	The counsel moves with issue 3 with the extension provided but the time was not in their favour as the time of extension also comes to an end.
11:41	The judges generously give an extension of 30 seconds.
11:42	The counsel of informants start with the rebuttals eloquently pointing out the flaws in the arguments in the other parties’ arguments and show that they have an upper hand in the current case.
11:44 AM	The counsel of the opposite party shows that their arguments are sound by stating their points again but the time comes to an end.

Court Room 19

10:25	the judges have arrived, marking the formal beginning of the preliminary rounds
10:27	The room is thick anticipation and excitement, with the participants glancing anxiously at the judges
10:29	The counsel requests permission to approach the dais and introduces himself and his client
10:30	He then moves on the facts, pertaining to the case, pertaining to the VR and gaming industry
10:32	His co-counsel then approached the dais and begins his formal submissions, however he is immediately faced with the bench’s grilling as to the jurisdiction of the case
10:35	The counsel calmly answers the bench and thus begins his arguments, providing the structure of his arguments
10:36	the bench asks a question regarding the sources of the counsel’s arguments, seemingly throwing him off-guard, however, he quickly recovers and in a confident, booming voice answers
10:38	The discussion delves into anti-poaching agreements and its relation to India, answered clearly by the counsel with a depth of knowledge, however the bench’s grilling does not let up.
10:40	The counsel glides clearly through his arguments citing precedents and reports, with the judges nodding in approval.

10:43	Not only theoretical knowledge, but a clear grasp of the proposition’s facts are reflected in the counsel’s arguments, however with only 5 mins left he must make a clear conclusion
10:45	The bench brings in the question of efficiency, and question the counsel’s understanding of the market structure, shaking his argument’s very foundation
10:48	Bringing a quick recovery however, the counsel brings in the pooling agreement, and seeing the quick thinking, the bench graciously advance an extension to the speaker
10:50	The bench’s grilling only gets more intense however, leaving the counsel flipping furiously through their notes. While he may have a good grasp on the moot proposition, he does not however seem to know his memorial’s citations. The bench moves on.
10:53	A second extension is granted, with the discussion now moving onto the abuse of dominance in the market, and the role of engineers in the market.

10:55	The bench seems to agree with the counsel’s arguments, with him moving onto case B however time does not seem to be on his side with only a few minutes left on the clock
10:57	Seamlessly weaving the facts with the law, the counsel crafts his argument, successfully gaining a third time extension of 2 minutes. Showing incredible composure in the face of the bench’s questioning, he gains a last extension of one minute. Dealing quickly with the facts the counsel is unable to complete his detailed arguments.

11:03	The second speaker now approaches the dais to deal with case C. Only time will if he can satisfactorily complete his arguments.
11:06	He provides the structure of his contentions, and is immediately faced with the bench’s questioning
11:08	With only 2 minutes left, the counsel seems to struggle in drawing the thread connecting facts and legality, however, he moves on to his next arguments
11:11	Aided by his researcher the counsel gains an extension of two minutes, and begins citing precedents to prove unfair pricing. With a second extension, it is the bench who continues their questioning. Answering quickly, the counsel moves on to his next submission.

11:14	With a calm conclusion the counsel on behalf of the informants begin their prayers before the bench. The team’s knowledge of their memorial once again fails, with an error in the same. The bench once again moves on.
11:17	The counsel for the respondent now approaches the dais beginning the second part of the rounds. Cleverly moving beyond the facts, the counsel directly delves into her arguments, gaining precious time to finish her submissions
11:19	The counsel moves into Section 27 of the Contracts Act, receiving scant help from her researcher in face of the bench’s questioning. The other party appear to be furiously preparing their rebuttals.
11:22	The counsel moves on to her next argument, with five minutes left.

11:28	Her arguments continue, with an extension of 5 minutes. The bench’s questioning continues as well, with the discussion swiftly moving from one argument to another, at their request.
11:31	The bench request a short summary of the counsel’s arguments, proving the lack of clear connection between her contentions and the facts.
11:32	The second speaker now approaches the dais to discharge his responsibility and continue the arguments.
11:35	He proceeds to state numerous precedents to support his case, interrupted by the bench. His answer does not draw satisfied looks by the judges, who look on, sceptically.
11:39	The judges’ grilling takes on an intense turn, leaving the counsel clearly flustered. His answers seem to lack a practical applicability, as seen by the judges questioning.
11:42	The bench’s questioning and subsequent answer draws a moment of silence among all the members in the room. The bench graciously grants the counsel a time extension. The bench’s questioning is met with further silence, and confusion, the researcher providing no additional help. The judges murmer amongst themselves, never a good omen.
11:47	Staggering through his arguments, the counsel is advised to make concise his arguments. Serendipitously, the timer rings off with two minutes left.
11:50	The discussion moves to excessive and predatory pricing, with a further three minute extension. The bench calmly dismantle the counsel’s argument, with consecutive questions. The counsel eventually proceeds with his final argument.
11:54	Unable to conclude, the bench requests the counsel to move onto the prayer.
11:56	We now move onto the rebuttals. Aggresively coming down on the respondents, the first speaker, with his booming voice, strategically picks apart their citations and logic. The fact that they have three minutes does not hurt, as they bring their scathing questioning to an end.
11:59	The first speaker for the respondents now approaches and provides her rebuttals. With a short time extension, she quickly concludes her statements. With this the first Preliminary rounds are complete. The weather outside remains bright, but only time will tell whether the same is true for the participants’ prospects.

Court Room 20

10:30	The air inside the courtroom is thick with anticipation as a sea of anxious participants wait with bated breath for the judges to make their entrance. Every participant appears to be in a state of nervous excitement, their hearts beating rapidly as they contemplate what lies ahead.
10:33	The judges declare that the court is in session. Speaker 1 of the informant side steps forward, and begins to passionately argue her case. The counsel gives the structure of her submissions and the judges listen alternatively.
10:39	The respected panel of judges initiates an inquiry with the counsel, probing her with questions to assess the extent of her expertise and requesting clarification on the speaker’s argument. Court master raises a time alert.
10:41	The counsel continues her arguments with 2 minutes remaining.

10:43	The counsel embraces the questioning from the bench, leading the discussion into the complexities of Competition Act. The counsel seems nervous and is finding it difficult to understand the counter-questions from the bench.
10:47	With 2 minutes remaining, the counsel proceeds to her concluding statement. The opposite party appears stressed and continues scribbling on their pads.
10:51	Counsel 1 from informant party has completed her submission.

10:53	Counsel 2 from informant party has been granted permission by the judges to present her arguments, as the informant moves forward.
10:57	The bench questions the counsel on the Consumer Protection Act and the recent Data Protection Act, causing her to appear slightly confused and her voice cracks. The bench doesn’t seem satisfied with the counsel’s answer.

11:02	The bench questions both the counsels on fair competition, to which Counsel 1 attempts to answer the same with the help of case laws. The bench appears to exhibit a lack of impression towards the provided response.
11:04	The counsel wraps up her arguments successfully.
11:06	Counsel 1 from Opposite Party, requests permission to present her arguments before the esteemed judges. She seems prepared to contest the information presented by the informant.

11:10	As counsel 1 delivers her arguments with steadfast conviction. Interrupting the counsel, one of the esteemed judges queries the Counsel about Section 3(5) that she mentioned in her arguments. The Counsel reads the relevant section to the judges, but lacks an answer for the application of the section.
11:17	The clerk rings the bell making everyone aware that only 10 miuntes are left.
11:18	Counsel 1 finds herself unable to advance her arguments as the judges persist in posing questions. Despite the Counsel’s efforts to address them, the response provided are deemed inadequate by the bench hindering the progression of the arguments.

11:23	The bench requests Counsel 1 to conclude her arguments. One of the esteemed judges questions the counsel on her arguments and points out the absence of the same in their submissions. The Counsel clarifies the doubts and continues to conclude her arguments.
11:26	The Counsel 1 of Opposite Party successfully completes her arguments.
11:27	Counsel 2 of the opposing party requests permission from the judges to commence her arguments. With notable energy, Counsel 2 initiates her arguments, exhibiting confidence and eloquence. The judges are visibly impressed by her demeanor and the manner in which she presents her arguments.
11:30	The clerk rings the bell making everyone aware that only 10 minutes are left.
11:32	One of the esteemed judges requests Counsel 2 to condense her arguments into three succinct lines using simpler language.
11:35	The judges inquire about the practical application of the counsel’s arguments and inquire about the potential restrictions in the market practices. The counsel adeptly responds to the judges’ queries, leaving a positive impression.
11:37	Members of the Opposite party show admiration for their team mate’s arguments.
11:40	The clerk announces a five minute time limit remaning through a bell.
11:41	Meanwhile the informant party appears apprehensive in light of the responses provided by the opposite party. The Counsel proceeds to present her arguments swiftly, transitioning to the conclusion.
11:43	The judges inquire about the Consumer Protection Act, to which the Counsel’s response appears satisfactory. However, the clerk appears  frustrated as they signal only two minutes remaining. The counsel requests the judges to review the pages of her submission, elucidating the legal rationale behind her arguments.
11:45	With the clerk alerting everyone about the completion of time, the Counsel requests an extention of time. The Counsel swiftly concludes her arguments, prompting the judges to request the Informant Party to present their rebuttals.
11:48	The Informant Party presents strong rebuttals to the arguments of the Opposite Party, garnering satisfaction from the judges. One of the esteemed judges praises the counsel, commending them for their compelling arguments.
11:50	The Opposite Party seeks permission to present their rebuttals. While presenting their rebuttals, the opposite party mentions ‘Locus Standi’. One of the esteemed judges questions the Counsel about the legal maxim which the Counsel is unable to answer. The Counsel seeks apology for the same but the bench refuses to accept the apology for unawareness of legal maxim as a law student.
11:55	The Parties successfully completes their rebuttals.
11:56	The judges offer feedback to the parties. To counsel 1, they emphasize the importance of clarity in applying principles and the necessity of thoroughly examining the application of said principles. They also highlight the requirement for confidence in presentation. To counsel 2, they note the inability to answer questions adequately and emphasize the importance of citing authorities properly. Additionally, they suggest engaging more with the presented papers and advise against speaking too rapidly.
12:00	The ongoing round has been concluded.

 

Preliminary Rounds 2

 

Court Room 1

12:15	The Hon’ble Judges have arrived and the participants seem well prepared for the proceedings which will commence soon.
12:18	The first counsel for the petitioner has approached the dais and has sought permission to collectively address the Hon’ble Judges as “Bench”.
12:21	The counsel seems coherent in her manner of speaking and has a bold voice which reflects her confidence. The counsel has started with the facts concerned with the case and the Hon’ble Judges listen with all their ears on the presentation of facts made by the counsel.
12:24	The bench presents the counsel with a mind-boggling question which shocks the counsel but she channels all her energy to answer the question to the judges’ satisfaction.
12:28	The Hon’ble Judges have asked the counsel where they have mentioned the case law in the memorandum that the counsel has quoted.
12:30	The court clerk rings the bell to apprise the counsel of the time left i.e. 2 minutes. Now there is no time left but the counsel has requested an extension of the time allowed by the Hon’ble Judges to the limit of 60 seconds.
12:33	The counsel sums up her arguments due to the crunch of time. The co-counsel has sought permission to approach the dais which has been allowed.
12:35	The counsel commenced with her part of the argument and she proceeded with a smile on her face reflecting her confidence.
12:38	There is a constant impediment by the Hon’ble Judges in the form of conceptual questions thrown at the face of counsel which seemingly makes uncomfortable and the atmosphere inside the courtroom intriguing.
12:40	The counsel proceeds with another issue concerned and presents her argument with the help of case laws mentioned in the memorandum and tries her best to persuade the Hon’ble Judges. It looks like she succeeded.

12:44	The court clerk apprises the counsel 2 of the time left i.e. 5 minutes and the counsel 2 is again thrown with a question which she tries to answer with logical reasoning coupled with relevant facts.
12:48	The counsel seeks a few more minutes, which the bench graciously grants, seeming satisfied with the arguments advanced by the counsel.
12:51	The counsel for the petitioner has started to recite the prayer and has concluded their part.
12:52	The counsel for the respondent has sought permission to approach the dais which is granted by the Hon’ble Judges. The counsel now has presented to the Hon’ble Judges of the time division.
12:54	There is a series of question which is being asked by the bench to check the integrity of the arguments advanced by the counsel. Further, the court clerk rang the bell to signal the beginning of the remaining 10 minutes.
12:58	It looks like the counsel has lost their rhythm and is quite nervous, taking a sip of water. One of the judges has taken charge and is constantly creating a dire situation for the counsel.
13:01	Meanwhile, the court clerk has rang the bell and the Judges have asked the counsel to sum his contentions. The entire contingent seems nervous, evident from their facial expressions.

13:05	The co-counsel has now approached the dais and continues with the issues concerned. He seems more confident than counsel 1. The court clerk has again rang the bell making us aware of the time left i.e. 10 minutes.
13:09	The co-counsel receives support in the form of a chit supplied by the researcher for the respondent. The Judges have set a threshold concerning the supply of chits to the extent of 3 times and he is left with 2 more opportunities.
13:12	The court clerk has indicated that only 5 minutes remain. The co-counsel is moving further with the zeal of presenting his arguments coherently.
13:16	The Hon’ble Judge has asked the co-counsel about his understanding on “Competitive Prices” and it seems he has a greater clarity on this and speaks without any filler words.
13:18	Now the co-counsel is left with no time but the Hon’ble Judges have granted an extension. Again the co-counsel has been supplied a chit regarding a case law and now he is left with one more opportunity.
13:20	The co-counsel now recites the prayer and is vey well aware of what they want from the Hon’ble bench.
13:22	The counsel 2 for the petitioner has approached the dais for rebuttals and the respondents are listening with utmost sincerity to defend their claims as and when required.
13:24	The counsel for the respondent has approached the dais to defend the claims made by the petitioner’s counsel.
13:26	The proceeding, with this, has come to an end.

Court Room 2

12:19	In the hushed courtroom, the air seems to hold its breath, as the teams wait with anticipation for the next round of verbal sparring to begin.
12:20	The second preliminary round commences with the informant team approaching the dais and explicates the bench with the facts of the case.
12:21	The counsel provides perfectly structured arguments and navigates the intricate steps of legal discourse.
12:23	The bench seeks clarification of an error in the memorandum of the Informant side to which they express their inability to address beforehand.
12:25	The judges are quick to pounce with probing questions. The counsel caught in the crossfire, desperately attempts to keep up with the grilling and relentless onslaught.
12:27	The atmosphere is one of confidence, as the counsel presents his arguments with seamless transitions and compelling rhetoric, despite the thunder of questions.
12:28	The counsel refuses to buckle under the strain of questions demonstrating his advocacy skills and presents persuasive arguments.
12:30	The counsel keeps his voice steady, and his demeanor confident.
12:31	Amidst the smooth delivery of arguments, there is an air of tension looming over the teams.
12:32	The informant team remains undeterred, their determination unwavering, as they stand tall and resolute in their arguments.
12:34	The bench is provided with the compendium by the researcher which they carefully analyze before permitting the counsel to continue his arguments.
12:35	With each point the counsel makes, the opposite team builds upon the foundation of their case, constructing a towering edifice of logic and reason.
12:36	The bench dissatisfied by the act of mere reading by the counsel, directs him to refrain from such a practice. The counsel is reminded of time limit with the first ring of the bell.
12:39	With each passing moment, the dissatisfaction becomes more palpable, as they interrupt the presentation seeking clarification of the arguments put forth.
12:40	The team sensing the growing unease of the bench, with the paucity of time is leaving them flustered, scramble to address any concerns or deficiencies in their case.

12:41	The bench rejects any extension of time, making the co-counsel approach the dais. The coordination of the team is a testament to their preparation coupled with the ability of the co-counsel, to cleverly tackle questions posed by the bench.
12:44	Bombarded with the bullets of questions, the co-counsel loses coherence of his arguments and pauses for a brief moment.
12:46	The co-counsel struggles to regain confidence as his voice falters and arguments become disjointed. Despite the bitter air, the co-counsel composes himself and continues to deliver impassioned pleas in an effort to sway the bench to their side of the argument.
12:48	Amidst the intensity of questions, the informant team wrap up their argument within the time allotted without the need of any extension.

12:50	The opposite team approaches the dais, the counsel’s voice ringing out with confidence and conviction. It is their chance to dismantle the arguments of their adversaries.
12:51	An air of authority and expertise is exuded by the opposite team, as they cite case laws, and analyze legal principles in a refined manner. Presenting her arguments seamlessly, the judges show expressions of contentment.
12:55	With no questions from the bench, it seems the opposite teams have the opportunity to savor their success.
12:56	The courtroom has become a stage of quiet satisfaction. It is a reaffirmation of the counsel’s skill and expertise.
12:58	To gauge the depth of the counsel’s understanding, the judges lean forward with keen interest and request case laws from the counsel.
13:00	The counsel seeks the assistance of the researcher to provide the relevant document.
13:01	The bench reminds the counsel to back her arguments with case laws, to not only demonstrate her knowledge but also apply it effectively in the given case.
13:03	When the judges looked satisfied with the arguments, they posed no questions. Grappling on to the last 2 minutes, the tension in the courtroom mounts as the seconds tick away.
13:05	The sound of the bell serves as sobering reminder that the time has ended to which an extension of 30 seconds is granted by the bench to proceed.
13:06	Managing to wrap up her arguments within the time constraints, the counsel steps down with the regrets of the inability to conclude her arguments.
13:07	The baton is passed to the co-counsel who supports the remaining part of the argument.
13:08	As the co-counsel launches into his portion of the argument, the bench wastes no time in showering him with a barrage of questions.
13:10	Despite the intensity of questioning, the co-counsel remains unfazed and backs up his arguments with contemporary events and case laws.
13:13	The bench attentively fixates its eyes on the co-counsel who proceeds with the symphony of legal reasoning.
13:15	A sense of unease settles over the informant team as they witness their adversaries stride with confidence and determination with the most apt case laws and examples. The judges listen intently and decide not to pose any further questions.
13:17	As their allotted time ends, the opposite team stands together for prayer. They conclude and thereby open the floor for rebuttals.
13:18	The informant team takes the opportunity to rebut the arguments of their opponents ready to dismantle their argument. However, the bench points out the contradiction in the rebuttals made by the speaker.
13:21	The opposite teams offer compelling explanations as a counter to the rebuttals and leave no room for doubt and ambiguity.
13:24	With this, the second preliminary rounds end and a sense of relief washes over the courtroom. It is a moment for the teams to catch their breath and reflect on their whirlwind of arguments.

Court Room 3

12:17	The Participants are waiting enthusiastically for the judges to arrive in the courtroom.
12:18	The Judges entered the courtroom and the energy can be felt palpably among the participants.
12:22	The Counsel from informant side sought permission to approach the dais and further, present the case, marking the beginning of the second round.
12:23	The Speaker started with an booming voice and energetic attitude that rises the temperature in the courtroom. The Speaker immediately draws the judges’ attention to parts of their memorandum.
12:25	In the midst of the presentation of the arguments, the Judges posed a question to which the Speaker presented an answer confidently.
12:26	The Clerk made the courtroom aware of the time as the cases were being cited by the Speaker.
12:28	To answer the further questions posed by the bench, the Speaker cites a the Latin maxim and a page of the memorandum, leaving them with content reply.
12:30	The Speaker is presenting the argument with aggression but while citing the case she paused for a second to rethink her argument.

12:30	The Judges again posed a question while she was presenting the second issue and the Judges wanted her to answer the question about a fundamental aspect of the case.
12:33	The court clerk again indicated the time making the temperature rise to a boiling point. Now the Speaker, with permission, cited another case law to substantiate.
12:35	The time is over and the Speaker sought an extension, which the bench graciously granted.
12:37	The Speaker submitted her arguments and now the second speaker approached the dais to present the arguments. Along with granting the permission to proceed, the judges implore to the counsel to speak louder.

12:39	The Speaker 2 referred to the Competition Act and with passionate energy presented the argument and cited a case. The judges continue to listen attentively without asking any questions yet.
12:41	The Speaker is bombarded with questions to prove his contentions but the same was answered by the Speaker in a persuasive manner.
12:42	The Clerk again pointed out the time that 10 minutes were left but the Speaker seemed not to be wavered by it. The entire courtroom is intently focused on the speaker’s arguments.
12:44	The Judges ask about the market percentage and look satisfied with the answer. The Speaker has now referred to Article 14 of the Constitution and also cited a case.
12:47	The speaker is presenting the argument with passion and looks like he may conclude within time while the courtroom is made aware of time.
12:48	The speaker’s pace is interrupted by a question asked by the judges but the question doesn’t waver him, enabling him to answer it satisfaction.
12:50	The Speaker got confused about the time left and mistakenly asked for an extension of it. Proceeding further, he cited a case to substantiate. Aggressively, the Judges posed a question and the Speaker answered with a hypothetical example, apparently very flustered.
12:52	The time is over and the Speaker seeks permission for an extension of time which was granted by the Judges. The bench required them to provide data to prove the argument and the Speaker looked to his team for assistance.
12:54	The Counsel sought permission to present the prayer and submitted it well within time.
12:56	The Speaker from the Opposite side took the dais and the Judges asked him to brief the facts of the case giving information about the Anti-Poaching Agreement while citing a case.

12:59	The Speaker wants the Judges to refer to Section 3 provided in the memorandum and cites clauses. The Speaker looks to be proving the argument while looking at the wall.
13:00	The Judges asked a question for which the Speaker sought that it could be answered later but still was bombarded with questions and referred to his team to give the relevant document to the Judges.

13:02

The Speaker seems to be presenting the argument under pressure and proceeds to submit his arguments while citing the cases

13:04	The judges while carefully listening to his arguments, were requested by the Speaker to direct their attention to a certain page of the memorandum.
13:05	The Clerk indicated that only 10 minutes were left. The Speaker started to pose another issue and the Judges asked for clarity on the same. The speaker successfully tackled it.
13:07	The Speaker’s teammate provided the Judges with the document for their reference and one of the Judges, in the midst of presentation of the argument, asked another question.
13:09	The Opposition side is constantly providing several document. They want to prove the argument given by the Speaker in any manner. The clerk points out the time, but the speaker looks unaffected by it.
13:11	One of the Judges asked a chain of questions which the speakers tackled somehow with both passion and confusion.
13:13	The second Speaker from the opposite side approached the dais, presented the facts, and continued with the issues. Within seconds of him beginning the speech, the judges threw a question which he tackled with no difficulty.

13:16	The Speaker highlights the arguments through elaboration of the argument and seeks the Judges to refer to Section 25 presented in the Memorandum.
13:18	The Clerk rang the bell warning everyone about the time left and it seemed that the Speaker was flustered by the same. The questioning by the judges added to the confusion; the Speaker answered the questions in a somewhat pressurized manner.
13:22	The speaker asked for a two minute extension, which the bench allowed.
13:24	The Speaker seems to be underconfident due to the paucity of time. In this crisis, the judges posed another question which the speaker is compelled to answer patiently.
13:25	The time is over but still one more minute is provided by the Judges. It feels that they want hear to his arguments to last word.
13:26	The permission to present prayer was granted on his request and he successfully submitted it. Now the Speaker from the informant side has taken to the dais to rebut the arguments presented by the opposite party.
13:28	The Speaker from the informant side requests the Judges to refer to different parts of the memorandum to prove his argument. In this exercise, the time is over but further extension is granted.
13:30	The Speaker from the opposite party approached the dais to answer the questions of the informant. The submissions were made within the allotted time.
13:31	The second round came to a successful ending; the participants await with anticipation for feedback.

Court Room 4

12:18	The participants rise to welcome the judges who promptly take their seats followed by the participants. The participants engage in a final review of their documents as the first speaker from the informant’s side prepares to approach the dais.
12:19	The first speaker delegates the time for their side and draws focus upon the 4 key issues they plan to put forward.

12:21	The speaker begins by explaining the facts of the case by elaborating on specifics that are pertinent to the issues at hand.
12:23	The judges are doubtful of certain contentions made by the speaker and question her on the provisions they are classified under.
12:25	The speaker explains the chain of actions committed by the opposite party that are reason for their supposed liability.
12:28	She carries on by citing a case to support her claims but struggles to name the parties correctly.
12:30	Upon procuring the panel’s permission, the speaker proceeds to the second issue but wavers upon being informed that she has only 2 minutes left.
12:32	When questioned about some amended provisions of the Competition Act, the speaker refers to additional documents to aid her in her explanation but drops the papers in nervous tension before regaining her pace.
12:34	The speaker claims that the actions of the opposite party were unjustified, unfair, and a disproportionate reaction to the issue at hand and provides an appropriate rationale for the same when questioned upon it.
12:36	The researcher on the informant’s team passes chits to the first speaker to provide her additional particulars to assist her.
12:38	The judges take a minute-long pause to reflect upon the statements made before the second speaker takes over.
12:40	The second speaker begins by stating the facts specific to the first issue from where the first speaker left off.
12:42	The speaker organises her speech by dividing her argument into two significant parts and argues fervently within this precise structure.
12:44	The judges continue to listen to the speech silently and with intense concentration as the speaker continues in a comfortable flow.
12:46	The speaker advances effectively by drawing the judges’ attention to some statements in the proposition and statutory provisions to back herself.
12:48	The judges identify some ambiguous zones regarding the statute which the speaker duly clarified.
12:50	The speaker establishes the basis of her arguments using theories of consumer behaviour as the time left in her speech ticks down to two minutes.
12:52	She makes a second submission to the panel and details 3 aspects regarding it. Her confidence peaks as she speaks with conviction and assurance.

12:54	Despite the speaking time coming to an end, the judges allow the speaker to continue and put out questions that she is able to satisfactorily answer.
12:56	The speaker obtains permission to begin their second argument and explains it in a refined manner. She does not falter through the repeated reminders of the end of time.
12:59	The judges permit the speaker to finish detailing all issues albeit in lesser detail due to the scarcity of time but allow her to finish her speech and make the final request to the judges to take into account the issues and arguments raised.
13:01	The courtroom remains in silence for a minute between the speeches of the informant’s side and the opposite party.
13:02	The first speaker from the opposite side begins their speech and swiftly notifies the judges of the points presented in the documents prepared by the opposite party.
13:04	The speaker uses statistical figures to support their points and ease their liability and speaks in a rising tone with intensifying fervour.
13:06	The judges relentlessly questioned the speaker about his allegations which were not supported by authorities to the conviction of the judges.
13:08	The speaker attempts to rectify this error by illustrating cases to support his earlier points of argument.
13:10	He rummages through his papers to find the citation of a case, the finding of which manages to appease the panel’s doubts.
13:12	The speaker moves on to criticise the evidence presented by the informants by claiming that it is not conclusive in any manner and does not necessarily support their claims.
13:14	The judges nod in approval as the speaker’s arguments come together to form a solid foundation supported both by statutes as well as related cases.
13:16	The speaker concludes their speech with the time finishing and hands over his position at the dias to the opposite party’s second speaker.
13:18	She begins by constructing her speech as a comparative analysis between two cases and identifying the similarities between them.
13:19	The speaker utilises grey areas that the proposition was silent about in order to make assumptions in their favour which was duly pointed out by the panel.
13:21	The speaker completes the evaluation on the first case and pleads permission to proceed with the next case. However, this is not granted as the judges put out a question.
13:23	She successfully addresses the same utilizing the comprehensive information researched upon and gathered in the documents prepared.
13:25	With 10 minutes of speaking time remaining, the speaker continued to answer the queries asked by expounding upon the gaps in the established facts and enhancing the same through the lack of sufficient proof.
13:27	She refers to an investigative report to show evidence contrary to the claims of the informant party.
13:30	The judges provide the affirmative regarding the speaker’s effective use of the loopholes present in the case.
13:32	The speaker concludes her speech with a time of 2 minutes remaining and humbly request that the judges rule in their favour.
13:34	The informant party’s speaker briskly takes upon critiquing the opposite party’s arguments. She establishes how the cases cited by the opposite party had facts that were severely different from their case and were hence invalid.
13:36	She went on to elaborate on the degree of difference in these cases and how the opposite party had cited them only out of resemblance of the verdict which was favorable to them and not any meaningful ground of likeness.
13:39	As a response to this, the opposite party presented a minute-long but powerful speech trying to put forward a compelling argument in an attempt to turn the decision in their favor.
13:41	As the last speech of the round ended, the participants exited the courtroom to allow the judges to finalise their decision.

Court Room 5

12:15	Having taken their seats, the Counsels of both parties are all set to defend their respective positions on competitive practices of their clients.
12:17	The arrival of judges stirs up the pent-up nervousness and excitement in the courtroom. The court clerk is clarifying last-minute doubts of the teams before the commencement of court proceedings.
12:20	Counsel 1 of the Informant seeks permission to approach the dais. Having uttered the first phrase of his first leg of argument under issue one, he is met by a question of jurisdiction from the Bench.
12:22	Moving toward the first sub-issue, the Counsel cites a case law to prove his stance on the anti-competitive agreement. A minute waiting to jump to the next, the Counsel is met with questions from the Bench in addition to a time signal.
12:24	Answering the question from the Bench, the Counsel explains how he will be establishing the dominant position of the two companies in question.
12:26	The Bench further questions the Counsel on the existing rules and authorities in Eyzar, acknowledging that European authorities hold only a persuasive value and not definitive.
12:28	The counsel seeks a time extension to put forth his arguments and is granted but a minute to substantiate his claims. This minute is shared by arguments and questions from the Bench.
12:30	The Bench in a rather rhetorical tone asks the Counsel if he would not leave his law firm if given better perks in another company. This was done to question claims on hiring practices adopted by Box Vision and Vortex.
12:32	A Delhi High Court judgement is cited by the Counsel to prove his point. When asked about a Supreme Court judgment on similar lines, the Counsel is unable to recall the year of such passing.
12:34	Citing the DG Observations, the Counsel argues that the companies in question have deprived the expertise of workers through the hiring practices to their competitors.
12:35	Counsel 2 of the Informant approaches the dais and clarifies that he will be representing Mayhem in issue 2 and would further be justifying the petition against Bravo in issue 3.
12:38	The Counsel goes on to substantiate his claim that Falcon has abused its dominant position in the market. A minute into such submission, he is met with questions from the Bench.
12:40	The next few minutes are dominated by a seemingly incorrigible discussion between the Counsel and the Bench on the quality of processors and denial of access to same by the companies in question.
12:42	The Bench seems determined to agree with the market practices of Falcon and Octane countering the Counsel’s claim of its anti-competitive nature, quite to the disadvantage of the Informants.
12:44	Exclusivity clauses are cited by the Counsel to prove the nature of such agreement. He is met with the question on difference between section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
12:46	Hyundai Motors case is cited by the Counsel to substantiate his claims. The Bench questions him on the facts and judgment of the same.
12:47	Section 3(1) is cited by the Counsel, especially in light of the term “possibility” to show how even the possibility of disrupting competition can bring about sanctions under the Competition Act.
12:49	The Bench questions the Counsel on pricing criteria of a product, dissatisfied with the common answer of market forces.

12:51	A time signal from the court clerk and the Bench and Counsel are too engaged in the heated discussion to pay heed to the compulsion of time. The socialist nature of the Indian economy is highlighted by the Bench and the Counsel is strong in his submission to counter the same.
12:53	A European Treaty is quoted by the Counsel but the Bench seeks clarification of its force in the Eyzarian jurisdiction.
12:55	Another time signal from the court clerk and the Bench asks the Counsel to summarize and conclude his submissions. Seeking the opportunity to finally put forth his arguments, the Counsel shows how Falcon and Octane have abused their dominance.
12:57	The Bench questioning the prayer of the Counsel, counters him on the remedy sought and request of enhancement of jurisdiction. A tough day for the Informants indeed.
12:59	Counsel 1 of the Opposite Party seeks permission to approach the dais.
13:00	Referring to page number 6 of the compendium, the Counsel claims that there is no definition of Joint Venture under the Competition Act. The Bench asks the Counsel to cite jurisprudential material to define a Joint Venture.
13:03	Unable to come up with such authority, the Bench asserts that it cannot admit their submission owing to the fact that the Counsel is unable to come up with Eyzarian Authority to substantiate the claims of a joint venture.

13:05	Citing a US Authority, the Counsel is again countered with the question of the lack of Eyzarian authority by the Bench. However, it allows the US Authority.
13:07	A time signal from the court clerk and the Counsel is granted two minutes to put forth his point. Citing the promotion of scientific and technical growth through the actions of the companies, the Counsel discredits the claim on anti-competitive effect.
13:09	Currently being questioned on predatory hiring practices, the Counsel is granted a time extension to prove his claim on irrelevance of intent and relevance of the actual act.
13:12	The counsel proceeds to justify the hiring by Vortex discrediting the claims of the predatory nature of the same.
13:13	Addressing issues 2 and 3, Counsel 2 of the Opposite Party approaches the dais to give his submissions. He begins with an acknowledgement that excessive pricing is anti-competitive in nature.
13:15	Questioned on the market dominance of Falcon, the Counsel is caught in a quagmire of difference between dominance and abuse of dominance.

13:17	The Bench asks the Counsel to read section 19 of the Act to point out the criteria of dominance. The claim that Falcon is not dominant seems to have acted against the arguments of the Counsel.
13:19	Moving on to the next issue, to discredit the allegations against his client, the Counsel delves into the business model of Bravo. He is interrupted by the Bench that questions him on the authority cited.
13:21	Referring to para 31, the Counsel seems to have drawn court attention to a point acting against his submission since the Bench questions him on excessive pricing, consumer harm and exclusive dealing as indulged into by his client.
13:24	The Counsel referring to the compendium cites an article by a Harvard graduate. He is questioned on the credentials of such a person.
13:26	A time signal from the court clerk, the counsel now delves into the intricacies of Bravo as a digital platform and its consumer service.
13:28	2 minutes left to justify his position, the Counsel seeks permission to proceed to issue 2. He directs the court’s attention to the price increase by Falcon as given in the proposition. He is questioned on the justification for 35% increase in prices.
13:30	He is interrupted by the time signal and is subsequently asked to move directly to the prayer. The Bench questions the Counsel on his remedy claims under issue 3.
13:32	The Bench delves into technicalities of the prayer and remedy sought and seems dissatisfied with the answers given. An equally hard day for the Opposite Party.

13:35	Counsel 2 of the informant approaches the Dais for his rebuttals. His arguments are in the nature of rhetorical questions and the Counsel 1 of Opposite Party approaches the dais to prove his point and counter these rebuttals.
13:37	The rebuttals of the Counsel are countered by the Bench with its indulgence in the definition of “group”. The Counsel seems to have appropriately satisfied the Bench’s concerns.
13:39	A grilling session of endless debate is juxtaposed with the ominous silence in the courtroom at present. The Counsels of both parties have their hearts racing against the time as they await the decision of the Bench.
13:41	With an exchange of “it was good” among themselves, the Bench now proceeds to give feedback to the Counsels on their arguments, compendiums and authorities cited.

Court Room 6

12:17	The participants are on the edge of their seats, as they wait for the bench to enter the room. As they furiously flip through their memorial and compendium, the Court Clerk announces the rules of the court and informs the time-stamps for the round.
12:24	The judges enter the room and take their places. The Court Clerk provides them with the compendiums of both the parties. The Bench and the Court Clerk holds a small discussion about the rules and time constraints.
12:29	The Preliminary round 2 starts. Counsel 1 for the Informant comes forth with the bench’s permission. The bench asks him to cover the facts of the case within 30 seconds, so as to not waste any time for arguments.
12:31	The bench asks breakdown of issues and how it would be dealt by the Counsels of the Informant Party. The Counsel obliges and provides a brief overview of his issues and arguments.
12:33	Moving on to the issue 1, the Counsel swiftly cites cases and explains how the same are relevant for the case as hand. He informs that foreign cases have persuasive value.
12:34	Citing the Pepsi Cola Case, the Counsel explains the relevance. Question comes up by the bench regarding the said case and the relation of the same to Indian Contract Act and Competition Act. The Counsel answers the same.
12:36	The bench questions the Counsel. With relevant cases cited, the Counsel deflects the ongoing question-assault by the bench.
12:38	A to-and-fro occurs on numbers regarding the present case. The share value is being inquired about by the bench.
12:39	The Court Clerk signifies that 2 minutes are left for the arguments of Counsel 1. The bench asks if only the first issue has been dealt with yet by the Counsel.
12:41	“Healthy Competition” becomes the topic of discussion as the bench corrects the Counsel on the interpretation of the said phrase. The time allotted comes to an end, as signaled by the Court Clerk. However, the bench continues asking question and seeks a case for the ongoing discussion. The Informant party does not have the same and apologizes.
12:43	The bench moves to the concept of “Predatory Hiring.” The Counsel’s confidence waivers as he attempts to answer the question.
12:45	With a 2-minute extension provided the bench asks the Counsel to stick to the core issues.
12:46	However, the bench continues their questioning, and seems unsatisfied as the bell rings motioning end of the allotted time.
12:47	The Counsel 2 takes over the dais and waits as the bench continues an internal discussion.
12:49	The Bench asks the Opposite Party to make submission with respect to the first issue before the Informant Party deals with the other issues.
12:50	Counsel 1 for Opposite Party approaches the dais and starts his submissions. He informs the sub-issues. The Counsel asserts that the dispute 1 does not come within the purview of Competition Law and instead comes under the Labour Law. He questions the jurisdiction of CCE and cites cases from his compendium regarding the same.

12:52	The cited authority is questioned by the Bench, as they ask for justification for the assertion that the dispute does not come under Competition Law.
12:54	As the first half of the allotted time for Counsel 1 of the Opposite Party draws to an end, he quickly submits his remarks to the bench, and cites relevant authority.
12:55	Further the Counsel asserts that there is no predatory hiring present in this case. The bench seems dissatisfied with the arguments of the Counsel.
12:57	A furious round of questioning takes place as the judges are not yet convinced with the arguments present. Issue 1 and issue 2 are merged here by the Counsel to ensure understanding and more cohesive arguments.
12:59	With a 2-minute extension provided, the Counsel struggles to rationalize his arguments for the bench. The bench asks for cases regarding the stance of the Counsel, which is swiftly provided to them.
13:02	The basics of the case is being questioned to understand the stance of the Counsel of the Opposite Party. Discussion regarding ancillary aspect of the agreement is taking place.
13:03	Counsel 2 of the Informant side takes her place at the dais, and starts her submissions on issue 2.
13:04	She briefly covers the basics of issue 2, by providing facts of the case. She continues as she delves into the issue at hand.
13:06	The bench struggles to handle all the provided material, as they search for the moot proposition in the horde of documents on their table.

13:08	The DG Report is being discussed and the Counsel 2 of the Informant provides the bench with relevant case laws justifying her stance. Before she could move onto the next point, the bench starts their questioning.
13:10	She points out the intricacies of the case, and calmly points out the reasonable pricing practices and predatory hiring practice of the Opposite Party, i.e., Falcon.
13:12	Consistency of the dominant share is being discussed as the Counsel holds that the market is dynamic, even though the share has consistency.
13:14	Predatory pricing test is being elucidated upon by the Counsel, by citing an authority, on request of the bench. However, the bench questions relevancy of the cited authority. The bench asserts that the Google v. CCI case of 2019 would have been the correct authority for the argument of Counsel 2 of the Informant Party.

13:17

As time flies out, the bench realises that the Counsel has not covered the last issue and asks her to summarise quickly and move on to the next issue. The Court Clerk rings the bell as 2-minutes are only left of the allotted time.

13:18	The Counsel moves on to issue 3 taking cognizance of the bench’s advise. She covers the background of the issue before delving into the arguments. The time allotted is over, however, the bench allows an extension.
13:20	The earnest face of the Counsel while justifying her stance does not change the questioning look that the bench possesses regarding her arguments.
13:21	The Counsel takes up a real-life example of Netflix to rationalize her point. The bench request for a case law to be swayed towards the line of argument of the Counsel. The Counsel provides them quickly.
13:23	The bench questions the relevancy of the authorities and asks the Counsel to provide case laws which prima facie supports the Counsel’s arguments. As she supplies a case of Google, and draws a similarity between Bravo and Google.
13:25	However, the bench does not seem convinced. The time constraint ensures a completion of the arguments of the Informant Party.
13:26	Counsel 1 of the Opposite Part approaches the dais again, covering the rest of his arguments within the allotted time. He starts his submission on issue 3. Opposing the claim of Informant party, the Opposite Party holds that the agreement is one of a vertical nature and not horizontal.
13:28	The Counsel brings to the forefront 2 aspects where he asserts that the Informant Party has misled the court about. As he lays out the points, the bench starts questioning him.
13:31	The Counsel asserts that Falcon holds dominant position in the market. Further he provides that Octane is not the market leader, and therefore is not even the dominant player in the market.
13:32	The Court Clerk motions that only 5 minutes are left for the Counsel to cover his arguments. The Counsel further states that there was no use of the dominant position is the present case.
13:34	He states that the Informant party concurs on the point that their products were marked below the average variable cost and hence were predatory in nature. He continues to justify his stance.
13:37	As the next issue is being dealt with by Counsel 1, the time gets over, and the Court Clerk rings the bell.

13:39	“Adverse effect” and its factual application in the present case is being questioned by the bench. The Counsel answers the same and concludes. Counsel 2 of the Opposite Party approaches the dais and waits to start her arguments on issue 4. The bench appears to be in a deep discussion regarding the case.
13:42	Counsel 2 starts her submissions, and deals with issue 4. She asserts that Bravo is not in a dominant position in the market and that its popularity does not make it immune to the affect of the competitive forces in the market. She cites relevant authority for the same.
13:43	The Court Clerk rings the bell indicating 5 minutes left. The bench starts questioning the Counsel 2, regarding Bravo and the data regarding the market.

13:46	The counsel ansers, citing foreign and national judgements. She cites the DPDP Act which starts a discussion whether the Act has been notified or not. The Counsel submits that the Act has been passed by both the houses, yet not yet notified.
13:49	The arguments come back to the dominant position of Bravo, and it appears that the argument is moving in circles. The bench prompts the Counsel to clarify the stance of the Opposite part regarding “interoperability of data”. As the counsel clears up the doubt of the bench, the bench questions the pricing practices of the Opposite Party.
13:51	The Court Clerk signifies that the time allotted has come to an end. The questioning by the bench continues, as the Counsel ardently answers their probing questions.
13:53	As the submissions end, Counsel for the Informant takes her place at the dais for the rebuttal. She points out the specific instances from the submissions of the Opposite Party and provides her submission on the same, referring to the memorial submitted.
13:56	The Counsel for the Opposite party now appoaches the dais and begins her sur-rebuttals. She asserts that the Informant Party has misrepresented valuable facts of the case in their written submissions. However, the bench does not appear convinced with this line of argument.

13:58

The rebuttals are over and the rounds come to an end. The bench provides valuable feedback to the participants.

Court Room 7

12:20	The participants are waiting for judges they are yet to come, their patience is quite appreciable.
12:27	The wait for judges is testing their skills. There is anxiety about their performance.
12:32	The bench is now present. The informant party seeks permission to present their argument. Permission to proceed given by the judges.
12:35	The facts are highlighted by the counsel. She claims that the bench has jurisdiction to hear the argument made by her and her co-counsels.
12:37	The judges ask to cite case laws to substantiate her arguments. Further they also question how the agreement between two entities are anti-competitive.
12:39	The counsel is not able to convince the judges. Continuous questioning by judges makes her a bit hasty.
12:42	The Counsel has not been able to present her facts according to the judge’s expectation as it seems prima facie. Finally the judges have got the essence of the facts.
12:43	With just two minutes left. she has ramped up her speed to cover her arguments thoroughly.
12:45	The questions have not yet ended. The counsel takes time to establish authority of her arguments.
12:46	She explains Predatory Hiring and Employee Pulling, as asked by the judges. Now, the Co-counsel begins with her arguments.
12:48	Counsel informs about the aspects she will delve into during her argument.

12:52	The judges ask how there is dominant position of entity in the market. She takes a lot time to answer the questions. She fumbles a bit and guides the judges to refer a particular document. As the judges find the base of arguments they continues with their question.
12:54	As the argument continues, the judges have questions with regards to anti-competitive practices of entity in the market. The counsel is not able to convince the respective judges with the evidence mentioned in her document.
12:56	She defines predatory pricing, but she is not able to establish the dominance of entity in the market. Finally she answers the question but judges are not still convinced with the evidence produced by counsel.
13:00	There is too much pressure in the courtroom. But the counsel is trying to show that she is not much impacted by the continuous questions of judges.
13:02	As she goes further with her argument, the bench asks the counsel to prove the arguments with established precedents.

13:04	With just two minutes left, she tries to make everything in favour of her by presenting more convincing facts.
13:05	As time gets over the judges seems not to be very convinced. Counsel pleads to make more facts to substantiate her arguments. She further pleads that the entities have abused their dominant position.
13:08	The Counsel’s contention is that she pleads to court and not to the commission.
13:10	Opposite party begins with their argument. They begin by saying that the entities are not entered into an anti-poaching agreement.
13:13	The judges ask to substantiate the argument with relevant information and not directly rebutt the argument of the informant party.
13:14	The judges ask questions about the details of the subject matter of the present case. The counsel substantiates his arguments by referring to the compendium provided.

13:16	10 minutes left, the counsel seems not much worried about the questions thrown at him. He smoothly tries to support his facts. Judges still have question about relevant subject matter.
13:19	The judges are not much convinced and ask counsel to support his argument. The judges try to make atmosphere more intense.
13:21	The counsel is not aware of the facts of the case cited, therefore the judges are not much convinced.
13:23	With not much time less Counsel strives to support his claims by providing relevant arguments. The judges are not ready to presume the arguments made by counsel they are demanding more established precedents.
13:25	As time gets over the counsel seeks for extra time to conclude his argument.
13:26	Co-counsel approaches to dais. He further moves with his issue as the judges do not need any clarification regarding issues
13:30	Counsel fumbles a bit to guide the Judges, but he succeeds. He continues with arguments. Judges questions made the counsel think more critically. The judges seem not to be much convinced by the argument whether both the processors target different market bases or not.
13:33	The judges have made the counsel bit nervous. The counsel seems to contradict the statements mentioned in moot proposition and the argument made by him.
13:35	With just 5 minutes left, the counsel cites some provisions to win the trust of judges. Courtroom is testing real advocacy skills of the parties in the case.

13:37	The counsel could not understand the question of the judges. And the judges have succeeded to make the counsel think about the argument he is making.
13:39	Counsel moves to next issue, as there is not much time left he speeds up with his argument. In between, Counsel gets an extension of a couple of minutes.

13:41	The counsel is not able to convince the judges as there is no supporting elements in his argument as per the judges. He also could not provide satisfactory evidence even in the compendium also.
13:44	Counsel submits that the entities are not indulged in abuse of dominance and they also did not enter in poaching practices.
13:46	Rebuttals by informant is that, there are competitive practices by entities. The entities also has dominant position as they have increased the prices of processors and in toto has harmed the market environment. They also abused dominant position without providing substantial reasons.
13:49	Opposite party says cost has been increased due to upgrade in the processors specifications.

13:50

Round comes to a finish.

Court Room 8

12:31	The Judges have arrived. There is aroma of anxiousness and nervousness in the air as preliminary round 2 is about to commence. Stay tuned for the latest updates about the competition.
12:35	The Speaker gives brief about time allotments and seeks permission to give a brief of facts. He subsequently proceeds to present facts.
12:38	The speaker draws attention of the bench to certain provisions of the Act and supplements the argument with legal precedents.
12:41	The speaker is interrupted by Judges to seek clarification with respect to key issues. The speaker substantiates the point but the judges seem unsatisfied and put forth some more question.
12:43	With the pressing of buzzers by Court Clerks, the speaker is in hurry as the speaker tries to quickly complete the argument.
12:46	The speaker is continuously interrupted by the Bench, facing a series of question one after the other. The Bench seems unsatisfied with the answers of the speaker.
12:50	The clock is ticking and there is anxiousness on the face of the speaker who has not been able to complete his arguments due to the flow of questions by the Bench.

12:52	The Speaker seems confused, searching the authorities through the materials. Co-counsel helps him and he sucessfully states the authorities. The speaker seeks extension of time and is granted the same.
12:55	The speaker quickly tries to complete his arguments simultaneously facing series of questions.
12:58	The speaker tries to substantiate his claim by stating cases but the Bench seems unsatisfied and ask questions with respect to the Judgement. The speaker seems anxious with his inability to give satisfactory answers.

1:02	There is aroma of grilling filled in the air as the speaker is facing questions one after the other.
1:05	Speaker 2 seeks permission to approach the dais and states the structure of his arguments.
1:08	The speaker puts forth his arguments and is interrupted by the Bench to seek clarification with respect to a key point in his argument.
1:11	The speaker cites cases to strengthen his arguments. The Bench rejects the case stating the case has been partially overruled by the apex court. The speaker quickly provides another case.
1:14	The speaker states problems from the point of view of the consumers. The Bench asks question regarding Dominant position in the market.
1:16	The Bench asks the speaker to explain factors in Section 4 of the Act. The speaker is facing series of questions with respect to this point. The Bench seems unsatified with the answers and seek further clarification.

1:19	The Court clerk alerts about the time with the buzzor. The Speaker seeks extension of time and the Bench grants the same.
1:21	The speaker seems to have forgotten to state the Prayer. He is reminded for the same by the Bench and quickly states the prayer.
1:21	The Counsel from opposite party seeks permission to approach the dais and states his time allottments. He subsequently states the arguments. The Bench asks the Speaker about the current status about the agreement.
1:24	The counsel is questioned about the date of filing of information. The Researcher helps him answer the question.
1:27	The Ladyship asks question regarding the agreement. The speaker tries to answer the question with reference to the compendium submitted. The Bench asks questions related to the information provided therein.
1:30	The speaker draws attention of the Bench to para 19 of the moot proposition. The Bench asks question with regard to para 22 of the same.
1:31	With only 5 minutes left, the Counsel rushes to complete his argument while subsequently facing question by the Bench.

1:34	The Bench seems unsatisfied by the arguments and the speaker is being grilled by the Bench. The speaker tries to substantiate his argument with graphs provided in compendium.
1:37	The Bench extends 1 minute allowing the speaker to explain the key points regarding the case. The Bench asks the speaker question with respect to SPDI Act as stated by the speaker.
1:41	The Bench asks the speaker about the concept of “Interoperability.” The speaker seems aware about the concept, the Bench asks questions related to the concept.
1:44	The Ladyship asks the speaker about the responsibility towards the mass in general. There is heated interrogation going on, with the speaker being continuously grilled by the Bench.
1:45	The speaker 2 of the opposite party seeks permission to approach the dais and subsequently seeks permission to proceed with the arguments.
1:48	The speaker confidently puts forth his arguments and draws attention of the Bench to para 1 of Investigation Report and page 109 of compendium so submitted.

1:51	The speaker refers to the moot proposition and the compendium to substantiate his arguments. The Bench asks question about sector involved in case so cited by the speaker.
1:53	The Bench asks question to the speaker regarding overheating. The speaker seems unable to give satisfactory answers to the questions of the Bench.
1:57	There is heated interrogation taking place with the Bench posing one question after the other. The speakers’ face is filled with anxiousness due to the paucity of time.

2:00	The speaker is provided extension of 2 minutes to quickly complete his arguments. Speaker is struggling to complete his arguments while simultaneously facing questions by the Bench.
2:04	Time is over, indicates the Court Clerk. The speaker quickly concludes his arguments simultaneously stating the prayer.
2:06	Counsel from the other team approaches the dais to answer questions posed by the Ladyship with respect to the prayer.
2:08	The Counsel states and substantiates three rebuttals.
2:10	The Counsel from opposite party confidently answers the questions so posed by citing relevant provisions.
2:12	The Preliminary Round 2 has been concluded.

Court Room 9

12:20	The ambiance within the courtroom is rife with palpable tension as the anxious attendees eagerly anticipates the imminent arrival of the judges. Each individual present appears engrossed in reflection, their hearts pulsating with a mixture of apprehensive anticipation and fervent excitement.
12:28	As the judges make their entrance, a charged atmosphere electrifies the courtroom, evident in the flurry of activity as participants diligently shift through their papers. The courtroom is abuzz with anticipation as the judges take their seats.
12:30	As the judges take their seats and the proceedings begin, a hush falls over the courtroom. Speaker 1 from the informant side steps forward confidently and begins to passionately present their case. Speaker 1 of the Informant side commences her submissions with the statement of jurisdiction.
12:32	The judges are peppering the counsel with questions, testing the strength of their arguments. It’s fascinating to witness the back-and-forth between the judges and counsel as they navigate complex legal terrain
12:38	The judges are seeking clarification on a crucial point raised by the petitioner’s counsel and ask for the specific citation for the case mentioned by the speaker. The speaker confidently cites the case present in his submissions and continues to support his arguments.
12:40	The judges’ questions are prompting counsel to delve deeper into the nuances of their arguments.
12:41	With the court master notifying the judges and the counsels of the remaining two-minutes, the speaker continues stressing on his point.
12:43	The counsels seeks extra time to conclude his point and the judges allow which leads the counsel to swiftly transition to the conclusion.
12:44	Speaker 2 from the informant side steps up, takes up the dias, and enthusiastically begins into his remarks. He tries to substantiate the arguments raised by Speaker 1 and presents facts to support his arguments.
12:46	The judges are peppering the counsel with questions, testing the strength of their arguments. They are stressing on the facts presented by the counsel and are questioning the sources of arguments advanced by them.

12:48	The judges’ line of questioning is shedding new light on the complexities of the case. There is a short lived silence in the courtroom ,however the speaker apologies and resumes with his third issue.
12:53	The speaker continues employing persuasive rhetoric to sway the judges in their favour.
12:57	The courtmaster informs the counsel that they have exhausted their time.
12:58	The judge intrupts the counsel to raise another grilling question which the speaker answers and asks for another minute to conclude his arguments and present the prayer of their submission.
13:00	The opposing party asks for permission to approach the dias and begin their argument, painting a clear picture of the issues and facts related to their case.
13:02	The defending counsel is employing a strategic approach, methodically dismantling the petitioner’s case. The defending counsel’s tenacity and determination are evident in their vigorous defence of their client’s position.
13:04	The speaker deftly resolves the point of controversy while navigating the complexities of the issue. She presents compelling cases that astound the bench with the accuracy of a surgeon.
13:06	The intricacies of the case are becoming more apparent as a result of the judges’ line of inquiry.
13:09	Observing the back and forth between the speaker and judges as they negotiate tricky legal issues is interesting. The judges and counsels are engaged in a wit-war over differing legal interpretations.
13:11	The courtmaster informs the counsels that only one minute is left and the speaker nods and continues to confidenlty conclude her argument paving the way for her teammate to take the dias
13:13	Speaker 2 representing the Opposite Party approaches the podium. He delivers his finely articulated arguments with such fluency and elegance that it seems effortless, masking the intricate legal matters being addressed. He quotes the Raghwan committee and the judges seem impressed by the depth of research demonstrated by opposite sides
13:15	As the counsel bears the weight of the continues questioning by the judges, he confronts each query directly, adeptly incorporating pertinent legal precedents and compelling reasoning to bolster his stance.
13:18	. The judges are offering constructive criticism aimed at helping the opposite sides refine their legal arguments.
13:23	The defending counsel’s composure under pressure is a testament to their professionalism and poise.
13:24	An increse in the pitch can be noticed ,as the courtmaster informs the room that only 5 minutes are left. The speaker tries to increase his speed and hastly starts to stress on his arguments.

13:29	The speaker concludes his arguments and seeks the permisson to present the prayer. However, the judges interupt the speaker to clarify one of his statement which the speaker confidently clarifies.
13:30	The informant side steps forward for rebuttal, and the speaker’s voice resonates through the courtroom with commanding authority. Their arguments are met with scrutiny from the bench, which highlights a weakness in their critique.
13:34	The speaker calls the oppostion’s argument factually incorrect,based out of thin air and calls them irrelevant.
13:36	The representative from the opposing counsel strides toward the dais with notable assurance, articulating how despite the informant side’s assertion of factual inaccuracy in their arguments, they failed to substantiate their claims with any corroborative evidence.
13:37	The courtroom is fillled with silence as judges are carefully weighing each argument put forth by the counsel.The judges are deliberating intensely, weighing the merits of each side’s arguments
13:41	The feedback from the judges is of immense value, offering invaluable insights that will significantly influence the development of counsel’s future arguments.
13:43	The judges along with providing careful insights appreciated the informant side for their facts and research as well as rightly appreciated the opposite counsel for their persuassive arguments and confidence. The counsel of both the sides are eager to implement the judges’ suggestions and refine their advocacy skills.

13:45

After carefully pointing out flaws and strength of both the counsels, the judges conclude and wishes both the counsel their best, and which that the second preliminary round concludes.

Court Room 10

12:18	The participants await the commencement of the moot court proceedings as the Judges get ready and familiarize themselves with the participants.
12:20	The Judges start the proceedings. Speaker 1 of the first counsel approach the dias confidently and begin with a loud and clear voice.
12:21	The Judges clear the time expectation of the individual Speakers of the Counsel.
12:22	The judges seem to ruffle through the material so as to be up to speed to the Speaker’s summary of facts.
12:24	Speaker 1 continues on to commence her arguments. The Speaker is confident and tends to speak with her hands. The Judges seem to be keeping up with her arguments.
12:25	The Speaker is stopped with a question by the Judge, which seems to throw her off her momentum. The Court Clerk notifies the five minute with the buzzer mark that seems to have made the Speaker nervous.
12:26	The Speaker ruffles through her materials and begin to reiterate the facts. The Judges seem impatient and asks her to move forward with her arguments instead. The Speaker takes a brief break to refer to her notes and commences answering. The Judges seem unsatisfied.
12:28	The Court Clerk notifies the 2 minute mark. The Speaker hastily tries to conclude her arguments.
12:29	The Speaker and Judges engage in a series of questions. The Speaker is passed a note by her co counsel. She concludes her arguments as the court clerk notifies that her time is over.
12:31	Speaker 2 of the counsel approach the dias and begins her arguements confidently. The Judges seem pleased with her stance and arguments.
12:32	The Judges listen very carefully and seem to be pleased with her arguments. The researcher passes a note to the Speaker, which she seems to include in her arguments.
12:35	The Judge interrupts the Speaker to enquire about the relief. The Speaker encourages to refer to the moot problem, and confidently move forward with her arguments.
12:36	The Judges seem pleased with the Speaker’s arguments as opposed to that of the previous Speaker. The Judges test the Speaker further by continuing the line of questioning regard the same.
12:37	The counsel seeks permission to proceed with her arguments after answering the Judges’ questioning, but leaves the Judges’ slightly unsatisfied.
12:39	The Speaker is handed a note by her co-counsel, which she seems to keep aside and prioritise her line of arguments first.
12:40	The Speaker is interrupted by the Judges with a question. The Speaker turns to her co-counsel who hands her materials and notes. The Speaker continues her answer nervously. The Judges are attentive but dissatisfied.
12:41	The Speaker continues her arguments with the citation of a relevant case law and proceeds to plead her case with its help.
12:44	The Court Clerk notifies the 2 minutes left mark, as the Speaker only just begins her arguments regarding her second issues. She continues to hastily refer to annexures and moot problem. The Judges listen to her carefully, however do not bother to refer to the annexures mentioned anymore.

12:47	The Speaker seems to ignore the ‘time over’ buzzer and attempts to hastily conclude her arguments as her co-counsel seem to be extremely stressed.
12:47	The Judges stop her midway and ask her a question. The Speaker is confident in her stance and seems to be satisfying the Judge. The Court Clerk reminds the Judge about the time, however the Judges allow the counsel to continue with their conclusion and the prayer.
12:50	The Speaker of the opposite counsel approach the dias and begins with absolute confidence and impressive delivery.
12:52	The Judges follow the Speaker. The Speaker is very clear with his arguments, and places them in front of the Bench impressively.
12:53	The Judge interrupts with a question regarding an apparent irony in his arguments by referencing to the moot problem. The Speaker attempts to answer the same, however prompts the Judge into asking various follow up questions. It is unclear whether the Judges are pleased as they listen to him carefully.
12:55	The Judge continues by enquiring the Counsel yes or no questions, and demand a reasoning. The Counsel loses his confident momentum briefly, but gets back to his arguments soon.

12:59	The Judges seem disatisfied with the argument and engage in questioning regarding the practicality and future projections. The counsel refers to the problem as well as his arguments to answer the question. There seem to be no signs of nervousness from the Speaker or the counsel as a whole.
13:02	The Judges seem extremely disatisfied as he asks a lengthy question with reference to the legitimacy of arguments.
13:03	The Court Clerk notifies the 5 minute mark that pushes the Speaker to be hasty with his arguments.
13:05	The Judges engage in further questioning that makes the Opposite Counsel stressed about the lack of time for the Speaker to complete his arguements.
13:06	The Judge encourages the Speaker to take his time and form sentences that are concise and to the point in reference to his issue.
13:08	The Judge allows 5 extra minutes to the counsel. This leaves the team momentarily pleased.
13:09	The environment gets tense as the Judges refer to legislations and the moot problem to pose a question. The Speaker presents illustrations and hypotheticals to support his arguments.
13:11	The Judges ask for a particular judgement in the argument. The Counsel reluctantly notify that they do not posess the judgement’s ratio and facts. This leaves the Judges unsatisfied, but encourage the Speaker to continue.
13:13	The Judge engages in further questioning as he finds contradictions in the Speaker’s arguements. The Counsel answers the questions, however denies having adequate information to legimitise the same.
13:16	The Judge remains unsatisfied, and denies the Speakers’ request for further time to continue his arguments, and demanded it be done in 10 seconds with a single line of argument.
13:17	The Speaker 1 leaves the dias as the second Speaker approaches the dias and begins his judgement. The Judge ecourage the Speaker to be concise with his arguments.
13:19	The Judges patiently listen to the Speaker, who seems to be nervous but puts forward his arguments with a direct eye contact.
13:20	An interruption by the Judges makes the Speaker stop briefly in his tracks. He, however regains composure, and refers to annexures to put forth his arguments.

13:23	The Court Clerk buzzes the five minute warning, as the Judges continue to carefully listen to the Speaker. The Judges nod in agreement, seemingly pleased.
13:24	The Judges and the Speaker engage in questioning regarding the legitimacy of judgements and government bodies that edge at controversiality. The Judges break into a laugh at a controversial comment made by the Speaker, thereby allowing him to continue.
13:29	The Judges refer to the issues that they believe are an irony in his argument. The Speaker replies with logic and confidence, leading to the Judges being slightly dissatisfied.
13:31	Expressing continued dissatisfaction, he interrupts the Counsel during his prayer proclamation to further ask questions regarding his inconsistencies in statements. However they move on to the prayer soon.
13:33	The First Counsel express interest regarding bringing forth rebuttals. The Judges allow it, however advise the counsels to be brief and to the point.
13:35	The Judges seem to be agreeing to the First Counsel, as he smiles and nods in absolute agreement. The Opposite Counsel seem to be preparing to bring their points forward. The First Counsel continue her line of questioning with a clear line of argument, appropriate citations and logic.
13:37	The Speaker of the opposite counsel approach the dias to clear the first counsel’s questions, and begins with a clear stance by referencing to cases and arguments that he had already seemingly put forth.

13:39	The First Counsel seem to be taking notes and slightly disatisfied.
13:39	The Judges seem to be agreeing to the Informant Counsel, as he smiles and nods in absolute agreement. The Opposite Counsel seem to be preparing to bring their points forward. The Speaker from the informant side continues her line of questioning with a clear line of argument, appropriate citations and logic.
13:40	The Opposite Counsel answers the questions, however the Judges are eager for the Speaker to be hasty with his arguments.
13:43	The Judges request the Participants to wait for their concluding remarks.
13:44	With the concluding remarks of the judges, the session draws to a close, as they express the difficulty they subdued marking due to the excellent performance of both the parties..

Court Room 11

12:19	The judges have arrived. The participants greet the judges.
12:21	The counsel 01 takes her position on the podium as the preliminary round is about to begin
12:23	The counsel 01 introduces her team and takes permission from the judges to present her arguments. the counsel briefed the issues infront of the judges.
12:25	The counsel 01 introduces her arguments by referring to Section 4 of the Competition Act regarding the dominant position. She stated that Facon is in dominant position and explained further intricacies regarding the law. the judges asks how only being in a dominant position leads to anti-competitive practices in the market and asks for the evidence for proving the same
12:27	The counsel seeks to answer the question by relying on moot memorial and states that a judgment which explains the meaning of essential activities and explains the abuse of dominance in the market.
12:30	One of the esteemed judges questioned the counsel regarding the IPR laws. He asks the counsel to prove whether falcon has abused the position or not. the court clerk alerted for the time. The counsel is finding it difficult to convince the judges. the judges grilled the counsel regarding the concept of objective justification.
12:33	One of the esteemed judges asks the counsel for certain judgments to substantiate her arguments. The counsel refers to certain judgements mentioned in the memorial. The judges asked about predatory pricing. the counsel was able to explain the concept.
12:36	The counsel seeks permission to go further with the arguments. The counsel seeks to explain the appreciable adverse effect on competition due to the agreement. the counsel relies upon a case to substantiate her arguments.
12:38	The judges grilled the counsel regarding the time period of the agreement. The counsel is having a hard time to convince the judges while the court clerk informs about the time.
12:40	The counsel seeks to present her second argument. One of the esteemed judges asked about the anti-competitive practices. the counsel elucidates the arguments by giving an example which is questioned by judges on the basis that 6 months of restraint may not be unjustifiable.
12:43	The counsel apologizes for the miscommunication. She further tries to explain how the agreement affects the employment but the judges seem unconvinced and further delve into the intricacies of laws and facts.

12:45	The judges asks the counsel the counsel to conclude her arguments. The counsel summarises her arguments by stating the Falcon has abused the dominant position and requests her counsel to proceed further with the arguments.
12:47	Counsel 02 takes his position on the podium and introduces him. He with the permission of judges explains the arguments.
12:49	The counsel seeks to present his arguments in a three-pronged rationale. The counsel relies on a case to explain the relevant market.
12:51	The counsel argues that the services provided are not able to satisfy consumers. The esteemed judges questions about the Consumer Protection Act and talks about the benefits of competitors of bravo.
12:55	The counsel then continues to explain the questions asked by judges but is finding it difficult to convince the judges.
12:57	The esteemed judges asks the counsel to summarise his arguments as only 1 minute is left. The counsel humbly summarises the arguments as the counsel for opposite party takes her position before the dias.
12:59	The counsel for the opposite party introduces her before the dias and starts to present her arguments. The counsel explains how the behaviour can not be termed as anti competitive. One of the esteemed judges questions that the behaviour is presumed to be anti competitive per se. The judges asked whether the terms quoted by counsel is mentioned in it which the counsel denies.

13:01	The counsel contends the second issue where the judges questions about the restraint to act as per section 27 of the act and is considered void. The counsel attempts to answer that agreement is not void and relies on competition commission case where it was held that if an agreement is made for reasonable time then it will not be considered void.
13:05	The judges said any agreement can not be made which is against the Indian Contract Act. The judges seem to be disappointed by the fact that the counsel is not able to prove the agreement as ‘not void’. The court clerk alerts about the time.
13:07	The judges counter-interrogate the counsel by providing an illustrative example and inquire as to whether the restriction in question is to be deemed as anti-competitive. Subsequently, the counsel proceeds to encapsulate her arguments, albeit the esteemed judges encounter difficulty in attaining a definitive understanding of the legal validity of the agreement.
13:10	The counsel attempts to convince the judges and requests her co-counsel to present his arguments. The co-counsel commits a mistake while addressing the dias. The counsel seeks apologies and delves further into the arguments.
13:13	The counsel acknowledges Falcon’s dominant position and endeavors to elucidate the challenges faced by the company. However, during this discourse, one of the judges raises a query regarding the perceived unreasonable increase in the price of processors. The judge posits that such behavior may constitute an abuse of Falcon’s dominant position by means of eliminating competition.

13:17	The counsel seeks to explain the criteria for acquiring the control and contends that since all the conditions are not fulfilled it will not be considered abuse of dominance.
13:19	The judges request clarification regarding the guidelines outlined by the Competition Commission of India, to which the counsel is unable to provide a comprehensive response. Subsequently, one of the judges seeks illustrative examples, prompting the counsel to assert that despite Falcon’s dominance, the presence of substitutes within the market prevents the firm from exerting complete control over it.
13:22	The counsel furnishes the judges with a copy of a pertinent judgment, prompting scrutiny of the intent of the involved parties by the judicial panel. As time dwindles, the judges request the counsel to provide a concise summary of the arguments presented. In the final moments, one of the judges queries the counsel regarding the pricing strategy of the services in question.
13:25	Upon perusing the act and judgments presented by the counsel, the judges inquire about the relevance of references to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and U.S. Antitrust laws within the Indian context, to which the counsel is unable to provide a satisfactory explanation. Subsequently, the judges express their disapproval towards the researchers for their failure to furnish pertinent materials to aid the counsel in addressing such queries.
13:29	The judges request the counsel to succinctly summarize the arguments and extend additional time for this purpose. The counsel promptly complies, offering a condensed overview of the presented arguments. However, as the allocated time draws to a close, the judges issue a reminder of the imminent conclusion.
13:30	The counsel for informants presents the rebuttals while the counsel for opposite party presents their rebuttals. The judges asks the parties for some time to give feedback. With this,The judges request the counsel to provide a concise summary of the arguments and grant additional time for this purpose. The counsel promptly complies, offering a condensed overview of the presented arguments. However, as the allocated time nears its end, the judges issue a reminder of the impending conclusion. the ongoing round is successfully completed.

Court Room 12

12:15	The participants and judges have arrived in the courtroom .
12:19	The counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to approach dias. Providing the facts of the case in brief and specifies the time division between both the speakers.
12:21 PM	The counsel for petitioner is addressing the first issue and advancing her arguments.
12:23 PM	The panel of judges are seeking clarifications with regards to the facts and asked the counsel to present it in brief.
12:26 PM	The bench has started asking questions from the counsel in regards to arguments presented by her under first issue. The counsel is answering the queries of judges.
12:29 PM	However the judges are not satisfied and are asking further questions. The consel for petitioner is explaining the relevant clauses of statute she has cited in her argument.
12:31 PM	The counsel from petitioner’s behalf continues with her arguments , trying to satisfy the judges however they seem unsatisfied and asked counsel to proceed with the second issue.
12:33 PM	The participants from respondent’s side are listening eagerly to arguments advanced by petitioner’s.
12:36 PM	The panel of judges are seeking clarity on certain technical issues mentioned by speaker 1 on the petitioner’s side. They seem satisfied with her response however the line of questioning continues. The bench asked speaker to sumarrise her arguments and some other doubts with regards to market share and consumer choices are advanced by the panel and counsel is trying her level best to address their doubts by referring to relevent pages of her written submission.
12:39 PM	The court clerk rang the bell signifying that time allotted to speaker 1 was over. Speaker 2 representing petitioner’s side approaches the dias and provides the panel of judges with brief structure of arguments he will be presenting. The bench gives him the permission to proceed with further issues.
12:41 PM	The court clerk rang the bell signifying the time left for speaker 2 to present his argument.
12:43 PM	The counsel is describing various principles based on which he is further advancing his arguments. One of the judges on the panel is seeking further clarifications from counsel on the technicalities presented by him.
12:46 PM	The counsel proceed further with the second prong of his argument. At the same time the court clerk rang the bell for reminding time left for further submission. The respondent’s side is listening to the arguments eagerly. As of now the judges seems satisfied with the line of arguments advanced .

12:49 PM	The counsel is advancing his prayer before the panel of judges and with this the argument from informant side comes to an end. The counsel representing respondents seeks permission to approach the dias.
12:51 PM	The speaker 1 on opposite side’s behalf has started adressing the allegations reaised by informant. The speaker is advancing her arguments confidently explaining the details of non compete clause and citing relevant case authories. As of now the judges seems to be listening to her arguments eagerly and seems satisfied with it.
12:54 PM	The counsel argues explaining the virtual reality and issue intertwining with intellectual property Rights. The judges are seeking clarification on certain matter and counsel has asked the bench to refer to relevant portion of written submission to adress those concer. The bench asked the speaker to read out the relevant provisions and is seeking further clarifications on unfair trade practices.
12:57 PM	The counsel seems unfazed with barrage of questions coming her way from the bench and tries her best to show the merits of her argument.However the bench seems unsatisfied with her response .The court clerk rang the bell to remind speaker of the time constraints present for advancing her arguments.
1:00 PM	The counsel seeks permission from the bench to move on to the next issue. Permission granted by the judges, asking counsel to adress a specific concern between the parties.
1:03 PM	The panel of judges is seeking clarification on factual grounds , however the speaker is running out of time as the court clerk rings the bell again. The speaker 1 tries her best to provide clarity to judges on the said issue . However the line of questioning continues.The speaker seems flabbergested.
1:06 PM	Time is over for the speaker 1 from the side of opposite party due to which she prays for extension of time so that she can summarise her arguments. Permission granted by the bench and they keep asking more question. The counsel is nervous to adress the concerns as she is running out of time.
1:09 PM	The line of questioning with regards to ‘Research and Development’ of the products continues . The bench dismisses the speaker 1 from the side of opposite party. The second speaker from the same seeks permission to approch the dias . Permission being granted the counsel proceeds with further issues however before she could delve deeper into it , the judges fire more questions before her and the speaker 2 of opposite party trying her best to provide them more clarity on the issues present before the bench.

1:12 PM	The panel of judges have certain contentions on specific points advanced by counsel while advancing her arguments.The bench asked her to highlight specific provisions of the issue adressed but claimed that these arguments are based on assumptions not on factual grounds. Speaker 2 from the side of opposite party tries her level best to show the merits of her assumptions and arguments.
1:15 PM	The counsel is providing clarity on the fact that informant seeks subscription fee which was already existing in the marketplace . however the bench has doubts with regards to this and seek further clarification from the speaker 2.
1:18 PM	The counsel moves forward with the second prong of the argument. The court clerk rings the bell reminding courtroom of the time constraints.
1:21 PM	The speaker asks the bench for permission to summarise her arguments due to paucity of time as once again reminded by the court clerk. The judges seems satisfied with the arguments as of now and grants permission to opposite party to proceed with prayer. The councel advances her prayer. The informant approaches the dias to rebutt the argument of opposite party on five grounds.The first one being on the ground of jurisdiction.
1:24 PM	The further rebuttal from informant’s side adressed the issue of data beach done by opposite party . The judges seeked certain clarifications and the informant summarised their rebuttal.The opposite party approached the dias to provide sub rebuttal .
13:27	The counsel of opposite parties are adressing the necessary concern and summarised their arguments.The arguments finished and the judges asks participants to wait outside saying they will provide feedback at a later point of time. The judges are discussing and evaluating the participants.The participants from both the side seems a bit nervous for the results.
13:30	The participants re- enter the courtroom to seek feedback from the judges. Feedback session starts .The panel asks them to sit comfortably. The judges are pointing out the grammatical errors in written subbmission of one of the parties and lack of referencing to their respective memorials seems to be recurring issue with both the parties as pointed out by the judges. Apart from this the panel applauded the outstanding composure and confidence of speakers. Wishing them best for their future endaveours the judges are exiting the courtroom.

Court Room 13

12:20	The second round begins and the anticipation and the tension in the room skyrockets. Both teams are submitting their compendiums to the bench.
12:22	The counsel from the informants proceeds to the dais and begins with her arguments. The speaker begins by stating the jurisdiction of the case.
12:24	The counsel continues her submissions by listing out the four issues of the case. The counsel also provides the structure of arguments that would be followed. by both the speakers.
12:25	The speaker begins with her submissions by stating the sub-issues that she would cover. The speaker continues her arguments with a calm demeanour.
12:27	The judges begin with their grilling and the counsel directs the judges to a particular paragraph in the moot proposition. The judges however intervene and ask another follow-up question that the counsel continues to justify.
12:29	The first bell rings- however, the judges continue their questioning. The counsel confidently stands her ground with references to the moot proposition.
12:31	The bench continue with their follow up questions while the counsel provides cases and references to subsantiate her argument.
12:33	The counsel confidently continues answering the questions from the first argument with the help of certain illustrations and examples.
12:34	The bench finally seems satisfied with the answers as the counsel proceeds with the arguments. The next bell for the speaker rings.
12:35	The counsel now proceeds to the next issue with the permission of the bench. The counsel’s flow of arguments, however, is immediately stopped by the bench with questions pertaining to the argument.
12:37	The bench seems satisfied with the answer but soon enough follows up with another question which the counsel answers as the next bell also rings.
12:39	The grilling ends and the counsel proceeds with her arguments. However, the final bell rings which leads to the counsel being granted an extension of two minutes.
12:41	The bench poses another question and the bell for the extension time also rings. However, both the bench and counsel seem unbothered by this.
12:43	The bench’s grilling ends and the counsel summarises her arguments. The co-counsel now approaches the dais.
12:45	The counsel begins with his submissions on the third issue. The counsel confidently continues his arguments and the first bell rings.

12:48	The judges begin with their questioning and the counsel creates an illustration to better explain his argument. The bench, however, seems dissatisfied and has asked for judicial precedents to justify their submissions which the counsel could not provide.
12:50	The counsel proceeds with his arguments and the bench has now asked for the facts of a case cited by the counsel in hs arguments. The researcher proactively provides the speaker with information pertinent to the question.
12:51	The judges point out how the particular case is not pertinent and may not be applicable during which the next bell rings . The counsel’s inability to answer leads to the judges asking him to move to the next issue.

12:55	The counsel seems to fumble with his arguments as the bench poses a question to clarify a flaw in the arguments. The allotted time for the speaker is over.
12:57	The grilling continues and the counsel points a paragraph in the moot proposition to exlain his arguments. The court clerks ring the bell again to signify the completion of time.

1:00	The 1 minute extension is up, yet the the grilling is not complete. The judges seem dissatisified and the counsel finishes his submission and the team rises for the prayer.
1:02	The counsel from the opposite party approaches the dais and specifies the time division between both counsels. The counsel then begins with her submission on the first issue.
1:04	The bench begins with the questions which the counsel initially answers confidently. However, a question on the flaws of the arguments makes the speaker underconfident.
1:06	The counsel, unable to answer, moves to the next issue. The bench also asks a question regarding the authority of a citation which the counsel fails to answer.
1:08	The first bell rings and the next question is thrown at the counsel. The counsel cites a case to substantiate her argument which, however, is met with criticisms. The counsel proceeds to the next issue.

1:14	The judges start with another round of questioning which the counsel is unable to answer.
1:17	The co-counsel approaches the dais and provides a clear structure of the submissions. The counsel confidently begins with his arguments, citing pertinent cases and references.

1:19	The judges asked a question on the existence of other alternatives based on the arguments provided by the speaker.
1:21	The counsel proceeds with his arguments; however, he is stopped by the judge with a question.”

1:26	The counsel is stopped by the judges for reading rather than arguing his case. The counsel apologizes and continues with his arguments.

1:29	The counsel proceeds with his case however the bench asks for the facts of the case again. The counsel, this time, was able to precisely elaborate on the facts. The bench questioned if the above case was pertinent to which the counsel affirmed stating a particular set of parameters.
1:31	The bench however quickly pointed out that the following deductions were not pertinent leading to the counsel fumbling.
1:33	The counsel tried to justify his arguments which was immediately refused by the bench with another slew of questions. With the bell ringing indicating the last five minutes, the grilling continues and the counsel answers with references to the proposition.
1:36	The counsel answers the question with certain references and the time for the speaker is over. The judges ask another question that led to the counsel fumbling. However, the counsel quickly recovered and continued his arguments.
1:37	The counsel finished his submissions and the team rises to present the prayer.
1:38	The informant counsel approaches the dais for the rebuttal. The counsel confidently flags the loopholes present in the opposite party’s arguments. The time is up and the request for an extension was denied.
1:40	The opposite party’s counsel approaches the dais, addresses one of the contentions brought up by the informant’s side, and completes his submission.
1:42	The judges ask the participants to leave the room as they complete the scoring of the teams.
1:48	The second preliminary round is complete and the judges provide feedback to the teams.

Court Room 14

12:22	The honorable judges have arrived and the nervous participants are ready to begin with their arguments.
12:23	The Informant side comes up to the dais after seeking permission from the bench. Speaker 01 begins her speech confidently.
12:26	The judges seem to be engrossed in the argument as they listen keenly. The counsel continues and the energetic approach of the speaker charges up the entire courtroom.
12:29	The counsel seems well-versed with her arguments and the informant side seems relieved with the flow of the proceedings hitherto.
12:31	The honorable judge throws a question the counsel’s way. The counsel takes it up readily and without breaking the flow of her argument, she answers the question. The bench is satisfied with her answer, and she continues with her arguments.
12:34	The counsel halts as the judges discuss something amongst themselves. The bench signals the counsel to continue with her speech. The counsel obliges.
12:37	The honorable bench inquires of the counsel regarding some points stated by her. She listens attentively and clarifies the informant’s stance. The bench seems satisfied and asks the counsel to proceed.

12:40	The court clerk alerts the counsel that she has run out of time. The counsel seeks for an extension and the bench permits the counsel to quickly wind up her arguments.
12:42	Speaker 01 concludes her speech with the same confidence and poise with which she began, if not more, as the opposition takes nervous glances towards the dais as it seems.

12:45	The honorable bench is putting forward a series of questions to the speaker 01, who continues to eloquently answer them all. The looks on the opposite counsels’ faces appears to be what one would call as ruffled, to say the least, in this courtroom’s environment.
12:47	Speaker 2 from the informant side has come up to the dais and begun his argument after receiving the bench’s permission to proceed. He is equally confident in his argument, but with a calmer approach than the former energetic one showcased by his co-counsel.
12:50	The learned counsel moves to the second issue, after he has made sure that the honorable bench is satisfied with his arguments for the first issue. He continues to display the same clarity and composure as before.
12:54	The bench is flooding the counsel with questions but the counsel doesn’t lose his footing and stands firm on his ground. He answers all the questions without a hitch.
12:56	The court clerk indicates at the remaining 2 minutes of the allotted time for the counsel’s speech. The counter-questioning continues.
12:58	The time’s up but the judges have more questions and the counsel still has to conclude his speech, so the bench grants him another 2 minutes. It is to be seen if the counsel can utilize these 2 minutes in his favour and finish off his speech with the same eloquency.

13:01	The opposition counsel approaches the dais and launches into his argument with the permission of the bench. He appears confident but it is left to be seen whether it will be enough to keep up with the confidence and energy showcased by the informant side and impress the bench.
13:05	The counsel is done with his first argument and seeks permission from the bench to carry on with the second argument. The honorable judge asks him to clarify certain aspects submitted in the documents. The counsel takes a look at it and states that he will be taking that up at a later stage of his argument. if the bench allows. The honorable bench agrees, and he moves forward.
13:09	The court clerk rings the bell signifying the passing of time. The judges discuss something amongst themselves, and the counsel falls silent on that. The bench urges him to keep going with his argument.
13:12	The speaker appears to be a little flustered when the judges interrupt him to clarify certain sub-arguments. He tries his best to answer and the judges seem somewhat satisfied as they give him a nod to proceed.
13:14	The court clerk rings the bell yet again, signaling the lapse of the allotted time. The bench grants an extension to the counsel. It’s hard to be certain, but the opposition side team appears to be a little upset with the flow of proceedings.
13:17	Here comes the court clerk’s ring of the bell again, indicating at the remaining 2 minutes of the extended time.

13:22	The counsel is trying to conclude his speech rather uncertainly; it seems his confidence has come down a notch. The bench raises more questions for the counsel as time continues to run out.
13:24	The extended time is up yet again but the judges still don’t look satisfied with the opposition side, and thus comes another extension of time to the opposition side. The judges continue to throw a series of questions and the counsel tries to keep up, but it does not look like he is succeeding at it so much.
13:28	The counsel continues to speak as the court clerk rings the bell again and again. his team seems tensed at this point with the current flow of the proceedings.
13:31	The speaker 01 is still at his argument, unable to wrap it up after multiple extensions one after the other. The judges finally direct him to conclude his speech.

13:32	The speaker 01 finally takes his seat and the speaker 02 comes up to the dais. The court clerk informs her that she only has 8 minutes allotted to her for the speech as a consequence of the multiple extensions provided to her co-counsel. She nods in affirmative that she has understood and addresses the bench that she will be dealing with the last issue in these 8 minutes.
13:35	After the underconfident and confusing show by her co-counsel, the speaker 02 still seems to be in high spirits and holds her grounds firmly. Never too late to turn things around it seems.
13:38	The counsel puts forward her argument with clarity and precision. The honorable bench appears to be on board so far, as she is not interrupted in between her arguments.
13:40	The court clerk rings the bell, indicating the end of the allotted time. The bench grants an extension to allow the counsel to conclude her argument.
13:42	The informant side comes up for the rebuttal. The counsel tells the bench the rebuttals for the second and third issues. She almost finishes in time, with an extension of 10 seconds granted to her.
13:44	The opposition side comes to the dais for the rebuttal and successfully puts it forward in time.
13:47	The court clerk informs of the end of the proceedings and the honorable judges congratulate the participants. The judges proceed to provide the teams with feedback.

13:50

The teams exit the courtroom as told by the court clerk so that the judges can discuss the scoring. This marks the end of the second Preliminary Round.

Court Room 15

12:28	The Judges for the 2nd Preliminary rounds enter the courtroom as both the teams arise with nervous excitement.
12:30	The Counsel from team A asks permission to approach the podium. The Permission is granted.
12:32	Speaker 1 quickly states the facts of the case and is asked by the Hon’ble judges to move directly to the arguments section.
12:34	Speaker 1 commands the attention of the room with their confindent tone and eloquent delivery of relevant information. The Speaker also provides the bench with provisions backing their arguments.
12:36	The Judges halt the flow of the Speaker as they ask them to clarify the agreements between their client and the respondent. The Speaker does so in an eased manner, seeming to know the circumstances behind the agreement like the back of their hand.

12:38	As the Speaker continues with their issue, a flaw in their argument is pointed out by the bench, accusing the clients of having seemingly shrugged off their responsibilities. The time to respond seems to be running out as the court clerk notifies the remaining time to be 5 minutes.
12:40	The Judges ask the Speaker to provide the relevant citations if any. The speaker responds to the request but is unable to provide the exact citations; the judges seem to be displeased .
12:42	The Speaker notified about the paucity of time, moves on to their final issue. The flow of the argument is resumed as the Speaker quickly present the remainder of his arguments.
12:44	Speaker 1 calls upon their Co-counsel for further argumentation. The Speaker 2 approaches the dias.

12:48	The Speaker 2 begins their argument in a confident manner, addressing case laws from the US for substantiation. To the same, the Panel asks about the applicabilty of the provisions of US law in the matters of the present jurisdiction.
12:50	The Speaker on being asked the same, seems to be ready for this question as they cite the relevant equivalent case law from the current jurisdiction. They further back this up by arguing that, as the field of Competition Law is relatively new, due importance is given to cases from the US and UK.

12:53	Without interrupting the flow, the Speaker asks the Panel permission to move on to their next issue. The same is granted. The court clerk also rings the bell signifying the remaining time to be 10 minutes.
12:55	The Panel seems to be impressed with the well thought out arguments provided by the Speaker 2, as they provide a 3 fold argument in support of their issue.
12:58	The Speaker’s arguments seem to be well supported by relevant provisions and case laws, and her arguments continue to go on uninterrupted. Acknowledging the paucity of time, the speaker now rushes through her arguments.
13:00	The Panel poses a tricky question to the Speaker regarding their stance, but the Counsel is unfazed as they answer in a clear and concise manner while referring to the exact paragraphs from their memorial.
13:02	As the court clerk signifies the end of time, Speaker 2 asks for an extension of a minute to conclude their arguments. The extension doesn’t seem to help the Counsel’s case as they seem to ask scathing questions regarding their arguments even to the last second.
13:04	As Team A wraps up their argument, Speaker 1 from Team B asks permission to approach the dais. The same is quickly granted.
13:06	The Bench immediately latches on to a lack of clarity of the counsel’s stance concerning jurisdiction. Speaker 1 is flustered but on being assisted by his co-counsel is able to answer the query proposed.
13:08	The Speaker1 tries to proceed with their arguments but are halted again questioning the bindingness of a DG report on the bench. The Speaker clarifies that the information was present only to show the relevance of the same with the market.
13:11	The Speaker stumbles in their flow of arguments, as the court clerk signals that only 5 minutes are left. The Co-counsel’s repeated assistance does not pose a good look for the Opposition. The prayer is made by the Speaker 1 to not entertain the requests made by the Appellants. He further calls upon his Co-counsel to present further arguments.

13:13	Speaker 2 asks permission from the bench to approach the dais. The permission is granted. Further permission was asked to address the bench as their Lordships. The same is also granted.
13:16	The issue proposed by the Speaker 2 begins, and seems to be going well with the flow of the arguments.
13:18	The Speaker is interrupted by the Hon’ble Judges as they are asked to provide some examples concerning certain major aspects of the client’s conduct. In response, the speaker mentions the condition of the market after Covid-19.
13:21	The Judges are not impressed by the reasoning provided as it does not seem to be relevant to currrent circumstances but asks the speaker to continue with their arguments.

13:26	Paucity of time is notified by the court clerk as only 5 minutes remain for the rest of the issues. The speaker hurridly moves on to the final issue.
13:28	Speaker 2 argues against the existence of dominance by their clients in the market, saying that their share of market does not seem to indicate so. Furthermore, the increase in prices is justified due to the fact that their is a increase in the quality of their products.
13:29	Satisfied, the panel asks the Speaker to move on to the prayer. The Prayer is given and the teams are now given 3 minutes for rebutals.
13:33	Both teams, having given their rebuttals, are asked to leave the courtroom as the 2nd preliminary round of the Moot Court competition comes to an end.

Court Room 16

12:20

Participants’ flustered faces are on the show as they await the judges to start the session. Shuffling papers, focused minds revising the laws and the cases as an attempt to go about the proceedings with minimal mistakes

12:27	The judges seem to be dissatisfied as they interrogate the speaker regarding her submission of jurisdiction. The speaker grows a little flustered but manages to gain her composure back and goes forward, explaining her position on the case.
12:31	The discourse between the bench and the speaker seems to be filled with a lot of misunderstandings leading to a series of intense questions being posed to the counsel.
12:33	Unchallenged up until now, the speaker maintains her confidence and elaborates further on her stance regarding the jurisdiction.
12:36	With skillful precision, the counsel formulates persuasive arguments; however, the to and fro with the bench and the counsel begins again. The bench keeps referring to the memo to identify the lacunas in their arguments.

12:38	The court master alerts the courtroom meanwhile the expression on the judge’s face lay neutral, difficult to analyse for the speaker on whose favour the proceedings are being swayed
12:41	With the sheer persistence of the counsel, she puts in consistent efforts for the judges to acknowledge her arguments and she grows assertive while explaining her stance at which the judges seem content with.
12:43	As the court master rings the bell, the speaker gets a hint and hastily moves forward, starting to conclude her points.
12:46	The judges point out certain deficiencies in the speaker’s argument, leading her to provide explanations rooted in logic and an eloquent understanding of the case.

12:51

Speaker 2 takes up the dais and manages to be assertive in terms of weaving the legal explanation. The confidence is however short-lived as the bench started engaging in questions leaving the speaker to give an exhaustive reasoning for his stance.

12:56	The argument about the “benefits of gaming” is put forward and enjoys a positive response from the bench. However, the eloquence of the argument shortly wanes once the court master makes the slipping time known in the courtroom.
12:57	The speaker asks for 2 more minutes to conclude his points, which is granted by the judge. The speaker knows how crucial this extra time is, and he manages to effectively summarize the argument.

13:01	As the speaker goes further with her argument, the bench, in a daunting tone, asks her to look into the bare act of competition law.
13:02	However, the speaker deals with the question with elegance and stays firm in her arguments meanwhile the judges can be seen giving a nod to the arguments
13:04	The counsel shortly faces the brunt of grilling, the bench asks her to provide an insight on a particular area to which the speaker although a little nervous assures the judges that she will clear this doubt in the rebuttal rounds.

13:10	Undaunted by the judges’ inquiries the counsel persists and remains resolute, responding to each inquiry with eloquence.
13:11	As the time alert makes its presence felt, the counsel wastes no time in requesting an extension. The counsel with an understanding that time is slipping away from her hand manages to remain assertive throughout.

13:14	The co-counsel of the opposite party comes forward,complementing the same assertiveness and confidence shown by his teammates.
13:16	The counsel’s argument was so compelling that the judges expressed agreement through nods and careful review of the memo. Their demeanor suggested contentment as they attentively absorbed the counsel’s well-prepared arguments.
13:21	The counsel maintains consistency with his fluent flow in both reasoning and logic.
13:22	As the counsel is near the end of his submission, the room grows quiet with only his loud and clear voice taking dominance in the room. The judges and the other participants pay close attention to his closing remarks.
13:25	In order to gauge the extent of the expertise, the judges commence their interrogation after listening to the counsel attentively,
13:27	The counsel gracefully embraces to answer the bench’s inquiries and with the courtroom master ringing the bell, he shortly wraps up his arguments and leaves the dais, seeming content with his presentation.
13:31	A speaker from the informant’s party seeks permission to step up to the dais and with only a few minutes left, he concludes his argument in a cohesive manner leaving the judges content.
13:34	As the speaker approaches the dais, the layers within the arguments begin to unfold with the passage of time, presenting a stage of nuanced and complex arguments in the courtroom.

13:37	As the time alerts surface back, the counsel asks for a minute more to which the bench draws the line of not going beyond the extra minute being provided.
13:40	The opposing party delivers a complete and cohesive argument, bringing the preliminary round to a close.

Court Room 17

12:33	The courtroom was experiencing a delay before the proceedings even began, attributing to a medical emergency within one of the competing teams. As everyone awaited the resolution of the situation, the start of the case was further postponed, adding an air of uncertainty to the proceedings.
12:37	The panel and one of the contesting team arrives. Awaiting the arrival of the other team the court clerk briefs the participants in order to save the time.
12:41	The other team arises and after a considerable delay, we now commence with today’s proceedings. The panel without any further delay dives straight in, the counsel from the informant’s side seeks permission to approach the dais, followed by a quick nod from the panel.
12:44	After closely analysing the memorial submitted, the judges seek clarification from the counsel. The counsel’s eloquent clarification is enough to make the judges satisfied for the time being. The counsel seems confident with her arguments and doesn’t seize any opportunity to make a sharp eye connection with the judges.

12:47	The court clerk signals about the time paucity, while the counsel paces up her arguments trying to tackle the questions by the judges as briefly and accurately as possible. Subsequently, while answering she takes help of case laws and the judges seem impressed with her research as they take a pause on the questions as they can observe the technical clarity of the counsel.
12:50	With all eyes fixated on her, she confidently steps to deliberate her arguments before the attentive judges. Each point is articulated with precision, her words are carrying the wieght of conviction as she navigates through the complexities of the case. Subsequently, the court clerk signals about the remaining two minutes.
12:54	As the judges asks questions, each answer is delivered with confidence and clarity making the courtroom fall into hushed anticipation while waiting to see how the proceedings will unfold.
12:57	The court clerk signals that the there is no time left, however, the judges keeps on questioning her while giving the counsel ample time to present her arguments as they are interlinked with the questions asked by the judges.
1:00	The arguments still moves forward while showcasing an absolute disregard to the court clerk’s constant reminder of the completion of time limit.
1:03	As the time stretches beyond the allotted limit, the counsel remains unfazed, her eloquence undiminished. With each question posed by the judges, she takes her time to craft thoughtful responses, knowing that time is no longer a constraint. Remarkably, even the judges seem unconcerned by the extended duration, fully engrossed in the unfolding discourse within the courtroom.
1:06	The counsel seeks 30 seconds to finally conclude her arguments which is duly granted by the judges. However, the courtroom fell into complete silence when posed with a trick question by the judge, the counsel seeked help of her teammate to tackle the tough situation.
1:09	The discussion kept on to move forward while crossing multiple time extensions as the judges are not satisfied with the counsels response. Subsequently, the judges continue on an endeavour to seek all the answers while completely disregarding the time allotted.

1:11	The judges finally gives a nod to the counsel, while the counselhands the case over to the co-counsel form the informants side to continue with the arguments.
1:13	The co-counsel presents his arguments boisterously while encaptivating the judges in his flow of arguments which majorly consisted of relevant material facts.
1:16	The court clerk signals the court that only ten minutes are remaining, although going by the set precedent, the co-counsel does not hasten his arguments and focuses on providing clarifications to the judges.
1:20	The co-counsel manages to give satisfactory answers to the judges hence not leading to a long series of follow-up questions that tends to absorb most of the allotted time.
1:24	The court clerk signals the court that 5 minutes are left, while the co-counsel goes on to conclude his arguments in a manner which is very straight-forward without delving on matters that has already been dealt with. Although, the judges try to trap him through their questionnaire but his diplomatic answers helps him pave the way for a strong case for his party.
1:29	The court clerk signals the court that the there is no time left. The co-counsel asks for an extension of 3 minutes to conclude his arguments while the judges generously grants him 5 minutes maybe with an intention to put forth further questions.
1:32	The judges seem satisfied and impressed with the set of arguments posed by the co-counsel while giving them ample time to explain the facts of the case, the co-counsel with the help of on-spot illustration showcases how the informant side’s arguments makes sense.

1:37	Despite being bombarded with questions from both sides by the judges, the co-counsel maintains a cool-headed demeanor. Unperturbed by the flurry of inquiries, he skillfully navigates the courtroom, delivering arguments that are both descriptive and simple, ensuring clarity without sacrificing depth. His composure under pressure serves as a testament to his expertise, leaving a lasting impression on all those present in the courtroom.
1:40	The co-counsel further asks for a 30 second extension to list the final issue at hand, the judges however hesitant agrees to the same considering that this is the last submission of the informant’s side of argument. The courtroom falls into a moment of hushed silence as the informant’s side offers their prayer to the judges.
1:44	The counsel from the respondents side seeks permission to approach the dais, the judges considering the over-extension of time for the informant’s side hastily nods the counsel. Subsequently, the judges keenly delves into the submitted memorial in search of gaps and loopholes that they can find in the counsel’s arguments.
1:47	The court clerk signals that only 5 minutes are left which has no effect to the atmosphere of the court since their leniency to time has been established.
1:50	The judges goes on to question the counsel to which she provides eloquent answers with references made to case laws and statutes. However, judges seem somewhat dissatisfied with the response and goes on to ask follow-up questions. While answering one of the follow-up question, the counsel asserts that the scope of question goes beyond the facts provided in the moot proposition.

1:51	As the court clerk directs the court that the time is over, the counsel seeks three minutes to conclude her arguments while directing the judges to refer to their respective memorial. The judges willingly provide the asked extension as they do not seem satisfied with the answers provided by the counsel.
1:55	The judges finally seems satisfied by the clarification provided by the counsel and gives her a nod with a slight smile as the counsel concludes her arguments.
1:58	The co-counsel from the respondents side seeks permission to approach the dais, she is granted the same. Subsequently, she bases certain points which would act as a foundation to her further arguments.
2:01	The judges doesn’t break the flow of the co-counsel and lets her list out all the arguments while they gear up to grill the counsel. The counsel takes help of the relevant authority to support their arguments while judges have their eyes glued to the co-counsel’s eloquent arguments.

2:04	The co-counsel seeks permission to move further if the judges do not have any questions, the judges actively responds seeking some clarifications. While the court clerk gets blatantly ignored by everyone when signaling to the court that 10 minutes are left.
2:07	The judges advises the co-counsel to not get affected by the time constraint while asserting her argument. She goes on to list the arguments while the judges contests one of the arguments and seeks clarification from the co-counsel. The co-counsels is unswayed by the barrage of questions and keeps a cool-headed demeanor.
2:10	However, the cool-headed demeanor is not helping her tackle the questions and the judges seem clearly dissatisfied with the line of answering provided by the co-counsel. The co-counsel seems stuck while her teammates turns the pages of the memorial unable to provide a note to the co-counsel.
2:13	The judges seek further clarifications on the facts of the case after closely following the arguments of the co-counsel. Meanwhile, the court clerk signals that the time is over having absolutely no effect in the court deliberations.
2:16	Finally, the co-counsel’s teammates come in clutch while passing forward a note to the dais. Subsequently, as the court clerk again signals the end of the allotted time limit, the co-counsel seeks 30 seconds extension from the judges which is obviously provided.
2:19	The judges still somewhat dissatisfied with the arguments, seeks an answer while posing a situational question towards her. The confident co-counsel duly directs the judges to their memorial for reference while answering the question. The judge finally gives a satisfactory nod to the co-counsel.
2:22	The Organising Committee graces the court with their presence and sneekily signals the judges to cut the arguments short, the judges respond affirmatively.
2:24	The judges directs both the sides that they would be providing each party 2 minutes for the rebuttal before the counsel for the informant’s side seeks permission to approach the dais, they agree to the same. The judges closely hears the rebuttal without seeking any clarification and for the first time completing within the allotted time limit.
2:27	The counsel for the respondents side seeks permission to approach the dais while the judges gives a nod. The counsel being aware of the over-extension goes on to elaborate her rebuttal in full pace and without interruption as the judges seem very satisfied with bith responses.
2:30	The judges asks both the parties to wait outside the court while they deliberate and fill the scoresheets. The scoresheets are duly submitted to the court clerk.
2:31	The session finally concludes with no time left for feedback.

Court Room 18

12:15	The air in the courtroom is carrying a melancholic overtune, as I sit patiently & alone waiting for the teams to arrive.
12:17	Finally, the spell is broken with the arrival of the hon’ble judges, later followed by the respective teams.
12:30	The buzzer goes off, marking the commencement of the proceedings of this case. The first counsel begins by stating the facts of the case , which is not met favourably by the judges, who instead direct the counsel to proceed to their statements & opinions.
12:33	The judges interrupting the first counsel, find some discrepancy in the arguments made by the them, which seemingly invites some anxiousness on the faces of the counsel.
12:35	The judges continue to pose concrete questions to the first counsel, which shakes the first counsel’s vigour, as they are unable to respond accurately to the judges questions.
12:40	The judges still unsatisfied by the contentions, allow the first counsel to move onto their next issue. The first counsel attempting to dodge the questions posed by the judges, find the atmosphere exceedingly against them.
12:43	The walls of the courtroom, now solely hearing the voice of the bench, can spell ‘disaster’ for the first counsel, as the judges prevent the counsel to proceed without adequately establishing their facts first.

12:45	Pitfalls’ is the theme of the first counsel’s contentions, as they encounter dissatisfied expressions on the judges’ face and helplessly try to mitigate their position.
12:48	The judges sensing more and more confusion, attempt to assist the first counsel by explaining the relevant terms to them. Yet, this room is echoing only with their words, with the counsel putting an abysmal front.
12:50	The bench now receiving an eeri silence from the first counsel, move on to other issues for the counsel to argue upon.
12:54	Finally, the co-counsel comes to rescue their case, as some substitution could perhaps fix their already worrisome position.
12:57	The first counsel can finally breath some much needed air, as their submissions are not met with any interruption from the bench as of now, although the pesky buzzer is putting up some competition.
1:00	The judges sighing, interrupt the first counsel with several issues in the arguments made by the first counsel, which is not adequately responded to by the first counsel, later inviting the ire of the judges, as the counsel continues to dodge the questions posed by the bench.
1:04	The judge burying his face in his palms, finds the first counsels contentions increasingly inadequate and irrelevant to the facts of the case.

1:07	The first counsel now shifting strategy, attempts to stress on the same issues again, by repeating their submissions. This attempt however, doesn’t seem to deter the expressions of the judges.
1:10	The first counsel now out of time, deeply requests the bench for an extension of 3 minutes, which is not granted initially but later allowed with some reluctance. After concluding their arguments, the counsel thanks the bench for their time.
1:14	The opposite counsel now approaching the bench, commences their arguments briefly and are encountered with a question from the bench, demanding the relevance of the cases cited by the opposite counsel , which the opposite counsel find difficult to state.
1:20	The bench refusing the applicability of the cases cited, the facts stated and the submissions made by the opposite counsel, seems to be like a repeat of the barrage faced by the first counsel.
1:22	The bench continues to find several loopholes in the submissions made by the opposite counsel, with a certain expression of anger on their faces, as they find the issues put up by the counsel, increasingly inconsistent.

1:26	Moving onto the next issue, the opposite counsel is unable to adequately define the terms mentioned in their arguments and attempt to dodge the questions posed by the bench by stating it be outside the preview of the moot prop. This again, seems to be unfavourable to their current position.
1:31	The co-counsel of the oppositie party substituting the former teamate, makes a kneecapping mistake, as they commence their argument with their ‘prayer’ for the case, without mentioning their opinions and facts.

1:34	The opposite party stating the absence of their researcher, find their position increasingly to be a solitary one. Nevertheless, they continue to state their contentions which too is not met favourably with the judges, who demand some proof or evidence behind the opinions made.
1:37	The opposite counsel echoing “I beg your pardon” finds it ever difficult to convince the bench as to the findings made by them.
1:41	The buzzer goes off, marking the end of the submissions made by the opposite counsel who request for an extention of time, which is sadly rejected.
1:43	The first counsel now commences its brief rebuttals, which are luckily not met with any interruptions from the bench. After concluding their rebuttals, they thank the Hon’ble bench for their time.
1:45	The bench now requests the opposite counsel to make their rebuttals, who after a quick decision, refuse the prospect. The bench now requests all the participants to exit the courtroom.

Court Room 19

12:21	The Judges have arrived. The court clerks have provided the memorandum to the panel and the teams are all set to deliver.
12:24	The informant counsel approaches the dais and seeks permission to directly proceed to the facts. The panel at the very beginning has started questioning the counsel about the facts which the counsel elucidates confidently.
12:27	The counsel quotes to relevant authority. The panel here carefully hears to the facts and again counters with a question. The counsel with her tireless effort manages to put forth her contentions with utmost confidence which is building a positive confidence to the informants.
12:32	The panel counters the counsel to which counsel 01 replies that it will be dealt with in upcoming points. Let’s see if the counsel manages to recall and clarify the panel within the stipulated time.
12:35	The Informant consel 01 seeks the permission of the Panel to move further with the next issue while the clerk reminds them about the time paucity.
12:36	The Informant counsel 01’s impressive approach towards the argument has heated up a bit of temperature among the Respondents.
12:38	On pouring questions put forth by the panel, Informant counsel 01 replies with the same statement of “mentioning it in her further argument” but will the counsel be able to really satisfy as only 2 minutes are left or is the counsel cleverly trying to escape the questions raised by the Panel.

12:41	As the time is up, Informant Counsel 01 is yet to draw a chain of relations to support her arguments.
12:43	Informant counsel 01 concludes. Informant Co-counsel has approached the dais and further briefs the case to the panel.
12:45	Co-counsel explains the submission by citing relevant authorities. The panel goes through the memorandum and counter-questions on every sentence of the Co-counsel and seems to satisfy themselves.
12:49	As the time ticks, it takes the attention of the panel as well as the participants.
12:50	The Panel doesn’t seem to be satisfied and counter questions the co-counsel. Co-counsel tries to maintain his tone of voice and cites relevant cases.
12:52	The co-counsel also answers the questions put forth by the panel by saying that the informants will mention it in their next submission.
12:54	The panel counter-questions the word used by the Co-counsel, and as the time is up, the co-counsel didn’t bother to clarify to the panel and moves forward to sum up the argument.
12:56	The panel doesn’t spare the co-counsel and furthers with the grilling. The co-counsel concludes and leaves the dias on the permission of the panel .

12:57	The Respondent co-counsel has appeared before the panel and approaches the dais. Respondents at the very beginning itself has asked for a 3 minutes rebuttal which was agreed to by the panel.
1:00	The Respondent co-counsel elucidates the facts and issues and the panel counter-questions. The Respondent tries to understand the questions poured by the Panel but is seen to unable to understand the questions of the panel and doesn’t comment to it. The Respondent teammates are also trying to cope up with the intense questoining and noting down the points.
1:04	After citing few cases the Respondent co-counsel asks the permission of the panel to move further but as the panel is not at all satisfied with the contentions made, they pose even more questions.
1:05	With two minutes remaining and the co-counsel loosing their flow rushes through the contentions.

1:07	As times up, the co-counsel approaches the panel to provide five extra minutes but the panel agrees only to the extent of two minutes.
1:08	The co-counsel tries to escape the questions by saying that it has not been mentioned in the moot proposition to which the panel counters and cites the arose question from the memorandum.
1:09	Panel asks the co-counsel to conclude.
1:10	Respondent counsel 01 now approaches the Dais and out of nervousness he clashes with Counsel 02 in front of the Panel. A clumsy impression.
1:12	Respondent Counsel 01 attempts to enforce his contentions with a bold voice and seems to be in a rush or he is cleverly trying to manage the limited time.

1:14	The anxiousness has been turned up for the Respondents as the panel doesn’t seem to be satisfied. The panel cross-questions by citing the report mentioned in the memorendum.
1:16	Respondent counsel 01 is strategically attempting to satisfy the panel by raising his voice a bit and expressing boldly.
1:20	The grilling continues, the counsel 01 again attempts to enforce contentions by quoting cases and seeking that they are not guilty.
1:27	The Respondant counsel 01 seeks for extra minutes but the panel rejects and asks to conclude the submmission.
1:29	Time warning has been given by the courtclerks and the panel again asks to sum up but the counsel 01 seems ignorant and continues. The panel is pissed off and asks the counsel to end.
1:30	Finally the respondent rise to submit the prayer.
1:31	The informant co-counsel approaches the dais and highlights the authority of the memorandum while drawing flaws in the Respondent’s arguments.
1:33	The floor is now open for the rebuttals and the fierce round of arguments has begun. The respondents are seen to be in an anxious zone.
1:35	The Respondent counsel 01 furiously rebuts and asks the panel to refer to the memorandum to strengthen the statement.
1:37	The panel still seems highly dissatisfied and the Respondent counsel 01 concludes.
1:39	The Preliminary round 2 has come to an end. The Panel asks the Participants to wait outside the courtroom for a minute.
1:44	The panel calls the teams inside the courtroom for feedback. The panel personally interacts with each of the team and graciously enlightened the competitiveness the panel was trying to build up. The panel mentions about the decorum and presentation which the participants has to take care of. The panel concludes by giving heartfelt note with some tips.

Court Room 20

12:14 PM	With a minute left for the commencement of the second preliminary round, anticipation and enthusiasm closes on in the courtroom as the ones present in the courtroom await the initiation of the heated proceedings. The counsels of the opposite party and one esteemed judge from the bench are present in the courtroom.
12:18 PM	The long wait for the beginning of the proceedings continues as the court clerks enter the courtroom and brief the counsels on matters essential to the upcoming proceedings.
12:21 PM	Within a short while, the counsels of the informant and the other esteemed judge of the bench arrive at the courtroom.
12:23 PM	The counsel of both the parties to the case brush themselves up with their extensive preparations in the lead up to the commencement of the proceedings.
12:24 PM	In the midst of the tense state of affairs, one of the esteemed judges of the bench graciously lightens the mood by saying, “Sorry there, I am having coffee but am not able to offer it to you.” She then exits the courtroom for a split-second to put her cup of coffee outside the courtroom.
12:25 PM	Finally, the proceedings begin as the first counsel from the informant side approaches the dais and lays the foundations of her arguments by citing legal provisions of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 and stresses on the prevalance of the competition laws over the general civil laws.
12:27 PM	The counsel, keeping her calm and poise, seeks the bench’s permission to move on to the second issue. With that, the court clerk raises the “10 minutes left placard” The bench seems to be absorbed into the contentions of the counsel as no question is made to the counsel three minutes into the proceedings. Undeterred, the counsel highlights the sub-issues that she shall be tackling.
12:29 PM	The counsel relies on the relevant authorities to establish the relevant market in her case and allege the anti-competitive nature of the agreement between the firms Box Vision and Vortex.
12:31 PM	A moment of confusion takes place in the courtroom as the memorials present on the pedestal before the bench seem to have been mixed up. The confusion seems to have been caused by a printing mistake which the bench deems as “a grave mistake.”
12:32 PM	The bench directs the counsel to outline the roadmap structure of the speech, and the counsel complies with the direction. The counsel then takes the attention of the judges to certain portions of their memorial’s arguments advanced questions.
12:34 PM	With utmost smoothness in her speech, the counsel likens the employee pooling agreement with horizontal agreements, which are per se unlawful. The bench seeks clarity on the term “horizontal agreement”. Finally, the first question is fired at the counsel as the bench asks the counsel about the effect of the alleged anti-competitive agreement on the interests of her client and the locus standi she has.
12:35 PM	The bench, that had earlier appeared to have been quite absorbed into the counsel’s speech, begins with its round of cross-questioning and asks the counsel for the DG’s report.
12:37 PM	With barely any time left, the counsel substantiates her contentions. She soon runs out of time but is granted an extension by the bench. Having been granted the extension, the counsel proceeds with the last issue she shall be dealing with.
12:38 PM	The counsel continues to substantiate her arguments by citing authorities such as the Samsher Kataria case. The bench asks the counsel what was held in the said case, and the counsel answers the question with a show of confidence.
12:39 PM	Upon the expiry of the extension granted to the counsel, her co-counsel takes the stage as she approaches the dais.
12:40 PM	The counsel commences her contentions on the issue of the price alteration orchestrated by one of the parties to the alleged anti-competitive agreement in question. The counsel seems to fumble to an extent as she struggles locate the authorities quoted in her memorial.
12:42 PM	The counsel deliberates on the anti-competitive behavior exhibited by one of the firms on the basis of their market power and market share. With that, she is left with a modicum of ten minutes to conclude her speech as the court clerk raises the placard.
12:43 PM	Within four minutes of her speech, the bench fires a question at the counsel asking for the requirements of Section 3 in relation to anti-competitive agreements, and remarks the counsel has posed a grave allegation against a prominent firm.
12:44 PM	The counsel answers the question posed by the bench and asks if the bench were satisfied with the reply. Getting an answer in the affirmative, the counsel proceeds with her argumentation. She draws the attention of the bench to a particular para of the memorial.
12:46 PM	The counsel then proceeds to the subsequent issue dealing with exclusive pricing and data deletion by one of the stakeholder firms. However, she is interrupted by the bench as the bench asks her to summarize the previous issue. In a cheerful display of humor, one of the judges on the bench says, “This ladyship has a short-term memory, so please summarize the contentions of the previous issue.”
12:47 PM	Once the counsel begins with the summarization of the previous issue, the bench fires another question at the counsel. With barely five minutes left, the counsel struggles to find the relevant authorities in her memorial yet again. She confesses her confusion with regards to the matters she is required to address.
12:48 PM	The bench deals with the counsel with utmost patience and graciousness and allows her to take her time.
12:49 PM	As the counsel steadies and begins to address the matters, the bench begins with another round of questions.
12:50 PM	The counsel seeks the bench’s consent to move on to the subsequent issue. With that, the court clerk raises the “2 minutes left placard” marking the paucity of time the counsel grapples with,
12:51 PM	The co-counsel approaches the dais to aid the counsel. Upon seeking the necessary aid, the counsel proceeds and cites certain authorities to substantiate her claims. She draws the attention of the bench to the compendium. However, the bench asks the counsel for the citation of the said case, which the counsel struggles to provide. The co-counsel comes to the aid of the counsel yet again. With that, she runs out of her time but is granted an extension by the bench.
12:53 PM	The bench questions the counsel and asks for the source of the assertions made by the counsel. The counsel replies that the said assertions were stated in the DG Report.
12:54 PM	Upon the conclusion of her speech, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to proceed with the prayer. For a brief while, the co-counsel and researcher seem to have forgotten to stand up while the prayer is being read and are prompted by the counsel to do so.

12:57 PM	Once the prayer is read by the counsel, the bench questions the counsels on the jurisdiction and strictly urges them to use their words carefully highlighting the errors in their usage of words. The bench then asks the researcher for his stance on the issue and tests the team’s legal accumen by providing them with a fact situation and seeking his answer to it.
12:58 PM	The bench asks the counsel for the act that deals with cheque-bounce issues and relentlessly quizzes them on the matter. The counsels and the researcher make their best efforts to satisfactorily answer the bench but do not appear to succeed for a while.
1:00 PM	Finally, after dedicated attempts, the counsels are able to satisfy the bench with their answers. On an appreciative note, the bench says, “very good” thereby expressing its approval.
1:01 PM	With the conclusion of the arguments of the informant’s counsels, the first counsel from the opposing party approaches the dais and begins with her contentions.
1:03 PM	Exhibiting poise and calm, the counsel claims the non-compete agreement between the firms Box Vision and Vortex was not anti-competitive and violative of section 3 of the Indian Competition Act, 2002.

1:04 PM	The counsel continues to stress on the reasonability and consequent enforceability of the non-compete agreement in question. Three minutes into her speech, she remains spared by the bench as the bench does not fire any question at her just yet.
1:06 PM	Subsequently, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to proceed with the next issue related to the predatory pricing aspect. To substantiate her claims, the counsel states the Competition Commission of India’s defintion of abuse of dominance.
1:08 PM	The bench asks the counsel to explain her assertions and contentions, and urges her to refrain from reading any associated information from her memorial.
1:09 PM	Showing dissatiscation with the counsel’s explanation, the bench asks where the issue of abuse of dominance comes into picture. The counsel keeps her calm while answering the question posed by the bench.
1:10 PM	The bench questions the counsel on one of the cases cited in her memorial but finds itself satisified soon after thereby not requiring any response from the counsel. The counsel is allowed to proceed with her argumentation.
1:12 PM	With merely five minutes left to conclude her speech, the counsel firmly establishes the innocence of her clients and denies the violation of any competition law by her clients.
1:14 PM	Maintaining her characteristic composure, the counsel denies the allegations of predatory pricing imposed on her clients. She then seeks the bench’s permission to let her co-counsel take the stage. A few seconds later, the co-counsel approaches the dais and commences her contentions.
1:15 PM	Just one minute into her speech, the counsel fumbles while making her contentions as stammers come to manifest themselves in her voice. The pace of her speech appears remarkably slow, thereby hinting at her nervousness.
1:17 PM	The counsel reiterates her co-counsel’s claims on the reasonability of the conduct of the firms she represents. She relies on various authorities and argues that Bravo, one of the firms she represents, lacks a dominant position in the market.
1:19 PM	Moving ahead with her contentions, the counsel highlights the adherance of Bravo’s conduct to the provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly to the Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined in the Indian Constitution’s Article 19. With that, the court clerk raises the “5 minutes left” placard.
1:21 PM	The counsel sails through her contentions and concludes that her clients had not been involved in any anti-competitive acts. Interestingly, she remains spared by the bench for an extensive duration as the bench does not fire any question at her.
1:23 PM	Finally, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to proceed with the prayer and upon being allowed by the bench to proceed, she reads out her prayer. However, the bench does not seem to be done with its questioning as it has a question in store for the co-counsel even before the completion of the prayer. The counsel for whom the question was meant approaches the dais and attempts to satisfactorily answer the bench.

1:25 PM	Not adequately satisfied, the bench poses a follow-up question to the counsel. Additionally, the bench directs the counsels of the informant to answer the same question. Thus, the question seems relevant to the case of both the sides. The counsel of the informant proceeds with answering the question.
1:27 PM	To answer the question directed at her, the counsel of the opposing party (to whom the question had originally been posed) takes the bench’s attention to the factual matrix and presents her stance. The bench reaffirms the counsel’s answer saying, “That is correct.”
1:28 PM	The counsel of the informant seeks the bench’s permission to proceed with the rebuttals. But before that, the bench asks the researcher for his input on the issue which he is unable to provide. The bench assures the team that the researcher’s failure to provide inputs would not lead to any deduction in their collective marks. The gentleness of the bench is apparent throughout the course of the proceedings.
1:29 PM	The counsel of the informant proceeds with her rebuttals and vehemently declares that the arguments made by the counsels of the opposing party lack any legal backing. Further, she contradicts their contentions in an effort to cement her side’s case.
1:31 PM	Undeterred and bold, the counsel does not relent in assaulting the contentions of the opposite party’s counsels and ceaselessly rebuts the said contentions.
1:32 PM	The counsel of the opposite party takes the stage and begins to defend her side from the plethora of rebuttals fired at the opposite party by the counsel of the informant.
1:34 PM	With a clear resolve and resoluteness in her demeanor, the counsel denies all the allegations imposed on the firms she represents (especially Bravo) by the counsel of the informant. Additionally, she cites the DG Report to establish that there was no instance of abuse of dominant position on part of her clients, the firms she represents.
1:36 PM	The counsel of the informant seeks the bench’s permission to make on final argument, and is granted that permission. With a concise sentence, the counsel makes her final argument.
1:37 PM	The bench then proceeds with the feedback session and strongly advises the counsels of both the sides to be clear with the facts and issues of their case. The bench stresses on the importance of not mixing up with the particulars of the case. Even so, the bench recognizes the quality preparations made by all the counsels.
1:38 PM	One of the most notable suggestions made by the bench revolves around keeping up with the latest current affairs in the legal field and the necessity of citing recent judgments instead of the age old ones. Further, the bench emphasizes the importance of being acquainted with the decisions of the courts of superior jurisdiction.
1:40 PM	In a final word of encouragement and show of graciousness, the bench urges the counsels to move forward and not let any fumbling or mishap deter them. Citing their own personal experiences to motivate the counsels, the bench ensures the spirits of the counsels stay up. The bench then wishes the best to the counsels and even to the volunteers from the Organizing Committee.

1:42 PM	Finally, the bench expresses its hopes of seeing the counsels compete in the upcoming rounds of the competition. The counsels have a heartfelt interaction with the bench on a personal level, as the bench gives bestows some highly informed guidance upon them. With that, the second preliminary round of the first Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition too comes to a close.
1:45 PM	Subsequently, the bench signs the score-sheet and hands it over to the court clerks. The bench appears to have been especially pleased by its experience of judging the illustrious moot court competition’s preliminary rounds. In a heartfelt display of camaraderie, the judges comprising the bench exchange pleasantries between themselves before taking their leave from the courtroom.

 

Quarter Final Rounds

Court Room 1

15:41	The judges enter the room, and the participants sharply take a breath. As the judges take a few minutes to peruse the moot proposition and other relevant documents, the participants try to calm their nerves and go through their arguments one last time. The Court Clerk ensures that the court rules are known to everyone.
15:45	The round starts. Counsel 1 from the Informant side takes permission to approach the dais.

15:48

Counsel 1 briefs the bench with the facts of the case. The bench asks the Counsel to explain the very basics- VR games, its ancilliary and anti-competition in layman terms. The counsel obliges, and cites relevant sections of different Acts for better understanding.

15:54	The bench questions how foreign statutes and case laws can be applied in national cases. There occurs a quick round of questioning on the same, and the Counsel struggles to justify his stance.
15:56	Taking a second, the Counsel regains his composure and answers the pressing inquiries of the bench. His voice exudes confidence as he presents his arguments.
15:58	The Counsel states facts and gives the reasoning for the same. Matters of anti-competition are taken up where the bench does not relent and continues grilling the Counsel with regard to the same.
16:00	The topic of dicussion revolves around Anti-poaching agreements, where the Counsel explains the concept and asserts various way how the same is anti-competitive.
16:03	The Court Clerk denotes the 5-minute mark with the ringing of the bell. The bench continues to ask questions regarding anti-poaching agreements. The Counsel swiftly refers the compendium and answers the question.

16:04	The bench seems dissatisfied as the Counsel has not cited relevant legal material yet. The bench continues asking questions regarding the anti-poaching agreement of the Informant Party.
16:06	The Counsel struggles to answer the questions put forth. There appears to be a lack of understanding about the question.
16:07	The bell rings signifying end of the allotted time. The bench allows a 5-minute extension to Counsel 1.
16:08	The bench and the Counsel refer to the moot proposition, as the topic of the question shifts to employee-pooling agreement. The bench refers to their experience, and questions the Counsel.
16:11	The bench asks question on provision 2 and 3 of the Act and its degree of effect on the consumers. The Counsel proceeds to answer using an example. The bench follows up with another question.
16:13	The extended time also ends, and another extension is granted to the Counsel. The counsel continues with his submissions.
16:15	The report of the DG as given in the moot proposition is referred to, as the counsel points out the pre and post-agreement differences in the quantum-graph shares.

16:20

A fourth extension is provided to the counsel. The bench seems to be enjoying grilling the Counsel as there has been no break in the continuous stream of questions that they pose.

16:20	A fourth extension is provided to the counsel. The bench seems to be enjoying grilling the Counsel as there has been no break in the continuous stream of questions that they pose.
16:22	The bell rings again. The Court Clerk is instructed to let the questioning continue without interruptions of the bell ringing.
16:24	The bench asks Counsel 1 to step back due to paucity of time. Although they do not seem convinced with the arguments presented by the Counsel, the Counsel takes his seat.
16:25	Counsel 2 approaches the dais and directly delves into the facts of the Case B, before submitting his arguments.
16:27	The Counsel starts his arguments, and refers to the DG report. Within a minute, the bench starts probing into the case of the Informant Party and asks a technical question.
16:29	The Counsel’s voice waivers, and his face shows nervousness. The Counsel tries to regain conviction in his voice.

16:31	He expands on competitive pricing. A case of DG is cited by the Counsel. However, when asked the facts of the said case, the counsel does not appear to have knowledge of the same. The bench questions their ability to rely on the said case without knowing the facts of the case.
16:33	Unfair pricing arguments are now put forth as the bench flips through the compendium of the Informant Party. Another question is posed, which id thoroughly answered.
16:34	The bench tries to solicit answers on various points of the case, however, the Counsel seems to have lost his mooting headspace and takes a moment to regain his composure.

16:36	The bench keeps on asking questions. However, the remarks submitted in respect to them does not seem to persuade them of the informant Party’s case. The Counsel seems to be in trouble with the 3-judge bench continuously asking questions on various aspects.
16:38	The Counsel takes up the next issue. In the course of his submission, the bench takes up the issue and asks pertinent questions to gauge the understanding of the Counsel with regards to the case and the laws having a stake in the same.
16:39	The bench refers to the Theatre Association Case and asks if the Counsel can shed any light on how and why the customers can move against the said platforms.
16:40	Time ends and the Counsel wraps up his arguments. He reads the Informant Party’s prayers for the bench. However, the bench continues to ask questions regarding the dominant position, and its lawfulness.
16:42	The bench gets confused between the different memorials. The Court Clerk leaves the room to understand the confusion and how the rounds are to be affected.
16:44	The bench keeps on questioning the Informant Party on the case, while the issue with the memorials get sorted.
16:45	The Court Clerk has provided the bench with memorials of the wrong side. The issue has been rectified.
16:47	The Counsel for Opposite party approaches the dais and gives a brief introduction. The bench questions the counsel on the aspect of division of issues. A meagre reason is given to the bench for the same who laugh it off.
16:49	The counsel starts her submissions.
16:51	The issue of hiring practices is being taken up by the Counsel. She asserts that the dominance of her client has not been used in the present case.

16:52

The counsel takes her time in submitting her arguments, and speaks in a slow and steady pace. With a slight smile on her face, she explains dominance and the companies which have it in the present case.

16:55

The bench questions the Counsel on various provisions of the Act. The Counsel seems to lack understanding for the question. The bench gives a small sigh of exasperation, as they explain the question.

16:56	The Counsel is asked to refer the bare act. Persuing the same, she requests the bench to gauge her understanding of the question posed.
16:58	A continuous to-and-fro occurs regarding the dominant position of the companies. Assumptions are taken regarding dominance.
16:59	The counsel clarifies that the claim of the Opposite party would be that whether dominance is present or not, the argument would be that dominance is not used in the present case. She cites precedants of Indian and foreign jurisdictions to support her stance.
17:00	The timer rings signifying remaining 10 minutes of allotted time for counsel 1 of the Opposite Party.

17:02	The Counsel outlines the arguments to be put forth by the Opposite Party. First the “employee-pooling agreement” is being taken up by counsel.
17:03	The bench has a slight smile on their faces. They question the Counsel on some aspects of competition law and employee-pooling agreements.
17:05	The answer of the counsel does not satisfy the bench. They show indifference and let go of the question asked.

17:06	5 minutes left on the timer for the counsel to submit her remarks, the counsel concludes the present issue and moves on to the next issue.
17:07	Before she could delve into the facts, the bench poses a question. The counsel proceeds to answer the question with poise and confidence. Her answer urges the bench to ask more questions.
17:09	The bench holds a quick discussion amongst themselves. The Counsel moves on to the next issue with 2 minutes left on the clock.
17:10	The time is over. The counsel seeks for an extension and the bench provides the same.

17:11	With an extra two minutes on her hand, the counsel increases the pace of her voice, to conclude her arguments quickly. She proceeds to submit how they have not used their dominance, assuming they had dominance in the market.
17:13	The extension time has elapsed. The Counsel quickly summarises her arguments and answers the question posed by the bench.
17:14	Counsel 1 steps back as Counsel 2 approaches the dais from the Opposite Party. He lays down an outline of his issue and the arguments to be submitted by him.

17:16	First of the three submissions have started. He refers to Competition Act while submitting his argument on relevant markets.
17:18	As the bench questions the Counsel, the bench asks for the amended act. As the Opposite party does not have the same, the Informant party provides the bench with the amended act.
17:19	The pace of the court seems slow, after the participants and judges have had a relaxing afternoon.
17:22	The bench poses questions on wide-relative services to which the counsel answers with a case law. The facts of the case are asked and duly answered.
17:24	The bench seeks information on revenue sharing agreements, and the Counsel provides an answer for the same.
17:25	However, the bench does not let him complete and asks another question. The Counsel asnwers the same and elucidates on the difference between data operatibility and data interoperatibility.

17:26	The bench differentiates between the questions and the examples given, as to give a clearer understanding of the question.
17:28	The bench is dissatisfied as the Counsel has been unabel to substantiate his answer properly. As the bench explains another question, co-counsel comes by the dais to provide a note to the speaking Counsel.
17:30	The bench does not give any rest to the Counsel and bombards him with questions. A short discussion is taken up about the cases around the world, currently sub-judice.
17:31	The bench asks the Counsel if he would like to go back and understand the technicalities of the case. As the allotted time ends, a request for a 5-minute extension is refused. The bench provides a 2-minute extension instead.
17:32	The Counsel tries to complete his remaining submissions within the two minutes. Before the Counsel can read out the prayer, the bench poses another question.
17:33	The Counsel asnwers the same using an example. The bench further questions him, to which he refers the moot proposition to answer the enquiries. As the time runs out, the prayer is not read out.
17:34	Counsel from the Informant side approaches the dais for rebuttals.

17:37	He profousely rebuts various points of the submissions made by the Opposite Party. His booming voice echoes around the court, as he confidently puts forth his arguments.
17:38	The counsel for the Opposite party proceeds towards the dais for rebuttal arguments.

17:40	Her calm voice fills the room as she gracefully puts forth her remarks pointing out the flaw in the arguments of the Informant Party. She cites the CCI v. Air India case to provide precedent to her arguments.
17:42	The rounds have ended, and the bench requests the participants to step outside for a few minutes as they discuss the performance of the parties.

Court Room 2

15:36 PM	The passion for the heated and immensely intellectually simulating quarter finals of the first Justice Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition builds up at the courtroom as the esteemed judges comprising the bench arrive at the venue.
15:39 PM	In a moment of cheerful levity, a few participants, who had qualified for the quarter finals, enter the courtroom and have a brief light-hearted discussion with the bench.
15:42 PM	The wait for the commencement of the much anticipated quarter finals nears its end as the contesting teams representing the informant and the opposite party enter the courtroom. Confidence, enthusiasm, and energy are clearly visible on every counsel’s face as the counsels brace themselves up for setting the stage ablaze with their skillfully crafted arguments and contentions.
15:46 PM	In the lead up to the initiation of the proceedings of the quarter finals, the bench inquires about the compendiums of the teams contesting in the quarter finals. In the meanwhile, the bench and the counsels are briefed by the court clerk on matters essential to the upcoming proceedings.
15:48 PM	An aura of eagerness and anticipation fills the courtroom as the counsels and the bench await the commencement of the proceedings.

15:49 PM	Finally, the counsel of the informant approaches the dais and begins with her speech thereby putting an end to the prolonged wait. The counsel proceeds to lay down the roadmap of her speech.
15:51 PM	The bench requests the counsel to provide it with a brief summary of the facts of the case. The counsel exhibits a calm and confident demeanor as she lays down the facts of the case in remarkably clear terms. Additionally, the counsel also states the issues that shall be dealt with by the counsels of the informant.
15:52 PM	The moment the counsel proceeds with her contentions on the first issue upon receiving the bench’s permission to do so, the bench fires a question at her. She seems to have satisfactorily answered the question as no cross-questioning follows.
15:54 PM	To strengthen her contentions, the counsel cites relevant precedents from jurisdictions as diverse as the USA, the UK, and India. In that moment, another question is fired at her by the bench. While she is in the course of answering the question, she is faced with a follow-up question posed by the bench.

15:55 PM	The round of cross-questioning orchestrated by the bench appears to be relentless as yet another cross-question is directed at the counsel.
15:57 PM	With the composure and confidence that seems to have come to define her, the counsel proceeds with her contentions. However, she is faced with yet another challenging round of cross-questioning orchestrated by the bench. The bench questions her on the primary goal of an enterprise.
15:59 PM	Even though the counsel makes her best effort to satisfy the bench, the bench does not seem pleased with her answer and directs her to proceed further ahead.

16:00 PM	The calm with which the counsel deals with the relentless grilling orchestrated by the bench is clearly apparent, as the counsel proceeds with her contentions on the relevant issues of the case. Such grace and composure in the face of high adversity is undoubtedly commendable.
16:02 PM	Yet, the bench seems to have a flair of firing a multitude of questions in quick succession as another series of questions is directed at the counsel. Even so, the counsel strives to satisfactorily answer the bench.
16:03 PM	Inspite of the counsel’s sincere efforts, the bench does not seem pleased and questions the accuracy and authority of the DG Report cited by the counsel. The round of questioning and cross-questioning appears to be never-ending as the onslaught of questions goes on.
16:05 PM	However, the counsel does not seem to be deterred by the continuous interruptions and haggling by the bench as she respectfully disagrees with some of the assertions made by the bench.
16:06 PM	With barely a few minutes left to conclude her speech, the counsel addresses the bench’s questions and queries with a remarkable clarity in her voice. Yet, the bench utilizes statistics to question the correctness and accuracy of her claims.

16:09 PM	The counsel seeks the bench’s permission to summarize her arguments on the first issue and proceed with the subsequent issue. The bench, which does not seem pleased by her argumentation, asks her if she agrees that the firms, whom she had accused of exhibiting anti-competitive behavior, were actually facilitating healthy competition. The counsel respectfully denies the said assertion made by the bench.
16:11 PM	Yet again, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to summarize the first issue and move on to the subsequent issues. The permission is granted, as she continues with her argumentation.
16:13 PM	The court clerks ring the bell for the third time thereby signifying that the counsel is left with barely two minutes to culminate her contentions. Even in the face of such paucity of time, the bench does not stop firing questions at the counsel.
16:14 PM	The bench asks the counsel to cite case laws in support of her contentions. As her time comes to an end, she requests the bench for an extension. The bench vehemently states that she had precariously divided her time in anticipation of an extension from the bench. In spite of that, she is granted with an extension of one minute allowing her to continue with her speech.
16:16 PM	A final question is posed by the bench, which the counsel is unable to answer because of the expiry of the extension granted to her. Following her departure from the dais, the co-counsel takes the stage.

16:17 PM	With a composed demeanor, the counsel proceeds with his contentions and goes on to quote certain important findings from the DG Report.
16:19 PM	The counsel proceeds with his contentions and as he does so, everyone present in the courtroom seems to be paying rapt attention to his speech. It appears as if the bench were looking for an opportunity to pose a question and fire it at the counsel.
16:20 PM	Speaking with remarkable eloquence, the counsel smoothly addresses a query made by the bench and proceeds with his arguments. However within a short while, the bench fires a question at the counsel and refutes the logicality of his arguments.

16:24 PM

Even before the counsel is able to take the opportunity of arguing further, the bench asks him for a case wherein revenue sharing was seen as an abuse of dominance. Yet, the counsel does not seem to lose his calm in spite of the bench’s unforgiving grilling as he substantiates his claims further.

16:25 PM	In a genuine attempt to satisfy the bench, the counsel cites relevant authorities and case laws to support his contentions. He goes on to address the issue of data portability which one of the judges of the bench had raised concerns about.
16:27 PM	To build on his contentions on the issue of data portability, the counsel quotes provisions from the GDPR and cites additional case laws to substantiate his claims.
16:28 PM	The counsel is faced by another question from the bench and to answer that, he quotes the findings of an important report. With precious little time left, the counsel cites one final case law before concluding his argumentation.
16:30 PM	Finally, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to read out the prayer and is allowed to do so. The contentions of the informant’s side thereby culminate with the reading out of the prayer.
16:31 PM	The first counsel of the opposite party approaches the dais and takes the stage. The counsel lays down the division of issues between her and her co-counsel, and highlights the time durations she and her co-counsel shall require to present their case.

16:32 PM	The bench urges the counsel to skip the statement of facts and proceed with the issues of the case. A remarkable degree of confidence is visible in the counsel’s demeanor as she proceeds with her arguments on the issue. She seeks the support of various authorities like judgments delivered by the Competition Commission of India to substantiate her claims.
16:34 PM	Within three minutes into her speech, the bench begins with its relentless firing of questions as successive questions are fired at the counsel.
16:38 PM	The bench shows no mercy and leniency in grilling the counsel and shows persistent dissatisfaction in spite of her best efforts. The counsel seems to have a hard time in addressing the bench’s queries.

16:40 PM

The bench accuses the counsel of misguiding the bench and thereby catches the counsel off-guard. The counsel tries to keep her cool while proceeding with her contentions and trying to continually enjoy the pleasure of the bench.

16:44 PM

The bench rebukes the counsel yet again and accuses her of fooling the bench for a second time. The bench seems to be in no mood of buying any of the counsel’s defenses. Further, the bench vehemently asks the counsel not to quote her own assumptions but cite facts from the proposition.

16:47 PM	After spending a gruelling time on arguing the first issue, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to advance to the subsequent issue and is allowed to do so. In spite of the severe reprimand by the bench while the counsel was arguing on the first issue, her confidence seems unwavering as she proceeds with the subsequent issue.
16:49 PM	The bench poses yet another question and the counsel expresses her inability to answer the same. Subsequently, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to proceed with her contentions.
16:50 PM	While citing relevant authorities to substantiate her contentions, the counsel faces the bench’s rebuke yet another time as the bench firmly asks her if she were supposed to cite cases that had not been mentioned in the memorial. In a remarkable show of disapproval, the bench urges the counsel to be mindful of the rules of the competition.
16:51 PM	Subsequently, the counsel runs out of her time but is granted an extension by the bench. She goes on to cite authorities like the Manjit Singh case to add substance to her argumentation. Even in the face of severe time crunch, the bench’s ceaseless questioning does not come to a halt as questions after questions are fired at the counsel.
16:53 PM	The bell is rung by the court clerk another time thereby marking the expiry of the extension granted to the counsel. However, the counsel, who is not done answering the bench’s queries, goes on with her speech.

16:54 PM	Taking note of the expiry of the time allotted to the counsel, the bench asks the counsel to summarize her position on the issue. The counsel obliges and quotes one last defense in her favor.
16:55 PM	Thereafter, the co-counsel of the opposite party approaches the dais and seeks the bench’s permission to outline the statement of facts. However, on being asked to skip the facts, she moves on to the issues of the case.
16:56 PM	The counsel confidently proceeds with her arguments but halts in the middle to seek assistance from her team. The assistance is provided in the form of a document handed over to the counsel by her team.
16:58 PM	To substantiate her contentions, the counsel quotes a number of authorities in the form of various legal provisions from important legislations. She seems to be enjoying a smooth run as the bench is yet to fire a question at her.
17:00 PM	Spared by the bench five minutes into her speech, the counsel concludes her arguments on the issue she had been dealing with. But just then, she faces her first question which is fired by the bench.

17:01 PM	Upon satisfactorily answering the question posed by the bench, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to proceed with the subsequent issue and is granted the said permission. With poise, she seamlessly moves on with her contentions.
17:03 PM	Further, the counsel draws the bench’s attention to the much-cited DG Report to substantiate her claims and assertions. Soon after, she deals with yet another question directed at her by the bench.
17:05 PM	The hard to please bench interestingly appears to be satisfied with the counsel’s argumentation and allows her to proceed with her contentions. Such expression of satisfaction is certainly in contrast to the bench’s previous dealings with the counsels.

17:07 PM	Having contented the bench another time, the counsel begins to address the issue of predatory pricing. The bench asks her to cite relevant cases to substantiate her claims. She finds herself in a sour spot when the bench questions her act of not citing the Jio case in her contentions and asks if it was a case not worth including.
17:08 PM	In the face of such intense securitization by the bench, the counsel shows signs of fumbling. However, within the flick of a wand, she regains her composure and moves ahead with her speech.

17:10 PM	The bell is rang again by the court clerk marking the paucity of time which the counsel grapples with. Going on with her contentions, the counsel draws the attention of the bench to a particular section of her memorial and cites a case law in her support.
17:13 PM	Showing calmness and composure, the counsel defends her client’s use of pricing policies for expanding their business and denies all allegations of anti-competitive behavior.
17:14 PM	The rigorous bench shows some unprecedented humor when it asks the counsel if she were in a rush. Not waiting for the counsel’s reply, the bench answers its own question with a cheerful grin saying, “Understandable, since only two minutes are left.”

17:15 PM

The counsel runs out of her time but is granted a minute long extension by the bench to summarize her arguments. She continues to face questions from the bench but makes her best efforts to satisfactorily answer them.

17:16 PM	The bench questions the counsel’s knowledge on revenue-sharing agreements and asks her about the Motorola and Erikson cases. The counsel seems to fumble in answering the question prompting the bench to ask if she is aware of the definition of consumer under the Indian Competition Act, 2002.
17:18 PM	The previously unscathed confidence of the counsel seems to shaken as the bench ceaselessly grills her on the definition of consumer under the Indian Competition Act, 2002. Occasional moments of silence grip the courtroom at brief intervals as the counsel struggles to give a satisfactory answer to the bench.
17:19 PM	In the event of the counsel’s failure to correctly define consumer in the light of the Indian Competition Act, 2002, the bench itself reads out the definition of consumer. The bench then asks the counsel for authorities to substantiate her claims.
17:20 PM	Unable to cite any required authority, the counsel requests the bench to allow her to summarize her argumentation. The bench fires another question at her and asks her whether she knows a single case wherein a revenue sharing agreement was considered pro-competitive.
17:22 PM	The counsel frantically tries to summarize her contentions and satisfactorily address the bench’s queries. Even so, the bench points out the contradictions in her speech and asks her to move on to the prayer instead.
17:23 PM	In compliance with the directions given by the bench, the counsel begins to read out the prayer and is joined by her co-counsel and researcher, who stand up in their places.

17:24 PM	The counsel of the informant seeks the bench’s permission to proceed with the rebuttals and approaches the dais. With her characteristic poise, the counsel attempts to refute the contentions made by the counsels of the opposite party. In the meantime, the court clerk rings the bell marking the modicum of time left with her.
17:26 PM	Finally, the counsel of the informant concludes with her rebuttals and thereby allows the counsel of the opposite party to take the stage for responding to the rebuttals.
17:27 PM	With a show of firmness, the counsel denies all accusations of anti-competitive behavior on part of her clients. She further deliberates on the aspect of data portability to substantiate her claims and assertions.
17:29 PM	In conclusion, the counsel vehemently states that her clients’ conduct was pro-competitive and not anti-competitive in nature. The bench asks her a question, which she is able to satisfactorily answer.
17:30 PM	The counsels take their leave from the courtroom as the judges indulge in intense discussions on the final outcome of the heated proceedings of the quarter-finals. Those present in the room i.e., the members of the Organizing Committee feel considerable excitement as they witness the discussion on the results taking place among the members of the bench. The bench has not been easy in scoring the counsels, it seems.
17:33 PM	The bench continues with its tense discussions on the performance of the counsels and the scores they have received from each member of the bench. The courtroom finds itself consumed by a massive magnitude of suspense and anticipation as the finalization of results is underway.

17:36 PM

Finally, after the closure of a tense round of discussions, the bench asks the court clerks to call the teams into the room one by one. Once the team enters the courtroom, the bench proceeds with the feedback session providing the counsels with valuable feedback and stressing on the importance of creativity.

17:37 PM

Even so, the bench shows graciousness and assures the counsels its aim was not to criticise them. The bench gives out an uplifting collective laugh thereby breaking the air of tension that had previously gripped the courtroom. The bench continues to provide the counsels with constructive feedback and encourages them to utilize authorities to their advantage and know the facts inside out. In spite of everything, the bench appreciates the counsels’ confidence and admits that they kept their calm in spite of the obstacles the bench tried to erect in their path.

17:40 PM

One of the most fundamental advice given by the bench revolves around the necessity of convincing the bench and not completing the arguments, as convincing the bench shall be the prime aim of the counsel. The bench urges the counsels to not be disheartened in case of their inability to cover all the issues and tells them facing the relentless grilling with composure is an achievement in itself. The team takes its leave once the bench wishes all of the members well.

17:42 PM

Following the first team’s departure from the courtroom, the second team enters the courtroom and receives quality feedback from the bench. The bench graciously highlights the scopes of improvement in the performance of the counsel. Recognizing the counsel’s grasp on their issues and the effort they had put in their research, the bench reiterates its fundamental advice that focus should be on convincing the bench and not completing all the issues.

17:50 PM	The extensive feedback session reaches its concluding stage as the bench graciously advises the counsels to not be disheartened and not to lose hope. Finally upon the closure of the feedback session, the contesting team takes its leave from the courtroom as suspense on the ultimate outcome of the intense quarter-finals is maintained.
17:53 PM	The judges constituting the bench exchange final pleasantries as they too take their leave from the courtroom. With this, the quarter-finals of the first Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition see their conclusion.

Court Room 3

15:45	The esteemed judges have arrived and the participants wait with nervous excitement as the proceedings begin.
15:48	The proceedings began as the informant party approached the dais, and Speaker 01 requested permission to start. He began by outlining the division of responsibilities, stating that he would address Case A while the co-counsel would handle Cases B and C.
15:51	The counsel begins with his submissions, unfazed by the interruptions of the bench. He seems to be at ease, but the judge asks him to just state the relevant facts and move on to the next part of his submission. The counsel obliges.
15:55	The court clerk alerts the counsel that 5 minutes have passed by. The counsel continues with his argument. But the judge interrupts him again. Despite being taken aback by the interruption, the counsel manages to maintain his composure and does not buckle under the pressure.
15:59	The counsel tries to move forward but the judge cuts him off in between yet again. He asks the counsel another set of questions and as soon as the counsel answers them, he again puts forward another series of questions. Time is slipping away, adding to the pressure of the moment..
16:02	As the co-counsel approaches the dais and presents a document to Speaker 01, the court clerk rings the bell, signaling the last couple of minutes of the allotted time. The counsel appears slightly hurried, but the judge continues to press on, not letting the counsel off the hook.
16:05	With the court clerk’s ringing of the bell, time is up. The bench instructs the counsel to answer just one more question within 30 seconds and wrap up. The counsel does his best to comply, but whether his efforts have been successful or not, only time will tell.

16:07	After Speaker 01 retreats to the Informant party’s table, the Counsel from the Opposition party approaches the dais. He informs the bench that he will address the first and third issues, while his co-counsel will handle the second.
16:08	Not a minute into his speech, the counsel has been interrupted by the bench. He seems collected and does not lose his footing, if anything, he holds his ground firmer with this chain of questions being thrown at him.
16:11	The bench points out the fallacy in the counsel’s argument. He apologizes and moves ahead. The bench keeps questioning him repeatedly, not giving him a chance to move ahead with this structured argument the way he had planned it to.
16:14	The Informant team is hard at work, scribbling on their notepads. Do they see a way out of these never-ending questions? Only time will tell. The inquiry continues.

16:17	The counsel, having waded his way through the flood of questions, finally moves ahead with his argument. It’s hard to say what the judges are thinking, as their faces are well-masked.
16:19	The Informant team is making notes, possibly scrutinizing the Opposition party’s argument to gain an edge.

16:21	The judges had been sitting silently, listening keenly to the counsel’s argument. Finally, one of them breaks the silence and poses a question to the counsel. As this happens, the court clerk rings the bell, signaling the remaining couple of minutes of the allotted time.
16:23	The Opposition party members look a bit tensed, evident through the co-counsel’s tight jaw. The air is full of stress as Speaker 01 finishes and retires to his seat and the counsel from the Informant side comes up again to the dais.

16:27	The Informant counsel continues to speak, the bench intently listening to the arguments being put forward. Speaker 01 thanks the bench and asks for permission to allow his co-counsel to begin with her argument, covering the next part of the overall argument.
16:28	Speaker 02 approaches the dais to begin but the Opposition party asks the panel to let them address the rebuttals put forward so far. The bench allows and the Informant party comes up for countering the rebuttals.
16:31	The Opposition finishes their counter-arguments to the rebuttals without a hitch and moves back to his seat. The Informant party counsel comes up to put forward the remaining half of their argument.
16:33	Speaker 02 starts reciting the well-versed arguments and moves ahead smoothly with confidence, strongly keeping up with the series of questions posed by the bench. She is explaining everything as if she was expecting these questions and was ready for them.

16:37

The counsel moves to the next part of the argument, the Essential Facilities Doctrine, providing an example of a U.S.-based case. The panel immediately begins asking questions, one after another, without giving her time to answer them immediately. Instead, they pile up the questions for her to address all at once.

16:40

One would expect the Speaker to be rattled by this but she is not, she still manages to keep a firm grip on her argument. However, the panel is dissatisfied with the answers and even seems to be agitated about it. The co-counsel approaches the dais and keeps a piece of document in front of the counsel. The counsel now reframes her answer and argument accordingly. Quick thinking by the Informant party!

16:43	The honorable panel is relentless, continuing to pose questions and piling them on the counsel. With the clock ticking fast, the crucial question remains: will the counsel be able to wrap up as per her plan, or will she fall short of her goal? Only time will tell.
16:46	Speaker 02 is moving ahead with the same energy with which she began, seemingly unfazed by the never-ending questioning.
16:49	Despite the counsel’s confident demeanor, the bench is still not completely satisfied and continues with the inquiry. The Opposition party counsel is sitting calmly, no nervous glances, no anxious fidgeting or tapping. Are they seeing some fallacies to gain an advantage over the Informant party counsel?
16:54	The counsel, though not showing any signs of fatigue, concludes her speech. The counsel from the Opposition party then approaches the dais and seeks permission from the bench to proceed. The bench grants permission, and he begins his argument.

16:58

The panel hurls a number of questions at the counsel which he answers to, but stutters a little. The panel appears satisfied though, so he moves forward with his argument.

17:00	The court clerk rings the bell, signaling that time is running out and the counsel still has much ground to cover. However, it appears that the judges are undeterred as they continue to barrage the counsel with questions. The tension in the courtroom is palpable, evident from the expressions on the faces of the Opposition team members.”
17:04	The Informant party counsels appear happy. Could it be that they have caught something in Speaker 02’s argument that they can use to their advantage?

17:07	The panel continues with the inquiry, the counsel seems like he has been thrown off his game a little. The honorable judge points out to the counsel that he is moving in circles and he needs to come to the point instead. The Informant party again appears to be glad about something as they scribble down on notepads.
17:09	The court clerk rings the bell, signifying the end of the allotted time, but the questioning doesn’t stop and neither does the counsel. Guess that counts for granting of an extension.

17:12

The panel is engrossed in the counsel’s argument and poses a final question before the counsel, he attempts to answer but stammers more than what he speaks. The co-counsel approaches the dais to provide the counsel with some document, probably to help him wrap it up better. But this does not satisfy the honorable judges.

17:15	Time’s up but the counsel is speaking. However, the panel halts his speech referring to the time constraint. The Informant party approaches the dais for rebuttal, the panel informs them that the time for the rebuttal has been reduced to 2 minutes, the counsel obliges and launches into her well-prepared rebuttal. Still showcasing the same assertive attitude.
17:18	The Informant counsel is done and the Opposition counsel comes forward to the dais. He hurriedly goes over the rebuttals, lacking a bit of clarity. On top of that, he goes silent for a few seconds as he gets confused.

17:22

The Informant counsel once again approaches the dais to address Case C. However, the judges bombard her with questions all at once, preventing her from moving forward with her argument as she tries to answer them first.

17:26	The counsel attempts to continue with her argument but the bench keeps coming at her with questions, she tries to answer them all but the time is slipping out of her hands. Will she finish her argument or satisfy the counsel with her answers?
17:30	Despite the time being up and extended twice, the court clerk continues to ring the bell repeatedly. However, the bench is so engrossed in the counsel’s argument that they are unwilling to stop her without receiving a satisfactory answer.
17:34	The Informant counsel wraps up finally. Whether the panel was satisfied or dissatisfied with the argument, cannot be said. Now the Opposition counsel approaches the dais.
17:37	The Opposition counsel launches into his final part of the argument but soon enough, the panel cuts him off. The judges are asking a chain of questions, not giving him the time to think. Will he survive this or buckle under the pressure? Yet to be seen.

17:40	The counsel has a firm footing so far, despite the slippery slope the line of questioning is proving to be. The court clerk signals the end of the allotted time. The panel poses a final question to the counsel and grants him 30 seconds to answer it.
17:42	The Informant Counsel approaches the dais for rebuttal and successfully finishes in time. The Opposition counsel comes forward for the same and similarly finishes in time.

17:43	With anticipation building up and anxiety sneaking in, the participants go out of the courtroom with their team members as the honorable panel discusses the scores amongst themselves. The Quarter-final round nears its end.
17:48	The participants re-enter the courtroom, and the honorable judges provide them with feedback.

17:53

The feedback session has reached its conclusion phase as the teams thank the honorable panel for the feedback. With that, the Quarter-final round comes to an end.

Court Room 4

15:50	The judges and participants have arrived and await the commencement of the proceedings. The judges keenly look forward to listening to the participants’ speeches.
15:51	The judges request the first speaker of the informants’ side to state the time plan of their speeches. The first speaker responds that the counsel will take up the facts of the case along with the first issue, leaving the second and third issue to the co-counsel and second speaker.

15:53

The judge requests a clarification regarding the facts of the case which the speaker explains utilising a related statute.

15:54

The judges take up a warm yet professional demeanour in the quarter-finals round, keeping the participants at ease during their speeches.

15:56	As the speaker begins to delve into the details of the first issue, the panel begins to raise questions regarding the validity of her claims and why she argues that the opposition party is liable.
15:58	Upon identifying a gap in the speaker’s reasoning, the judges persistently question her upon it.

16:00	Striving to answer the questions posed to her, the speaker cites several cases and explains the same. However, the judges requested that she not refer to cases that have not been cited in the documents presented as it creates hurdles when it comes to verification of the cases.
16:02	The panel calls for the speaker to refer to some provisions of a statute as they believe she may have applied them incorrectly, but she appropriately addresses the same.
16:05	The speaker states her final points concerning the first issue. When the judges had no more concerns to address, the dais was taken up by the second speaker.

16:07	The second speaker sets her speech in motion by tackling the second issue. She cites a case but the judges critique it claiming that the case must address the “how” and not just the “what” to be relevant to the matter at hand.
16:09:00	The speaker acknowledges the point raised and rectifies the same in the remaining arguments made in relation to the second issue.
16:11	The panel seeks clarifications regarding the definitions of terminologies referred to by the speaker which she explains with a supporting statute.
16:13	The judge recognises an inconsistency between the definitions and arguments employed by the speaker. She manages to suitably explain the conundrum to the satisfaction of the panel.
16:15	With the permission of the panel, the speaker proceeded to the third and last issue since the judges had no further concerns to raise regarding the previous arguments within the speech.

16:15	With the permission of the panel, the speaker proceeded to the third and last issue since the judges had no further concerns to raise regarding the previous arguments within the speech.
16:17	When attending to the third issue, the judges asked that the speaker be more precise regarding the arguments as she seemed confused in some scenarios.
16:19	The judges scrutinized the speaker’s reference to the contract act in connection to the agreement in the case and examined the form of the said contract as well.
16:21	The speaker addresses this concern by stating a clarification given within their document thus reinforcing that the nature of the argument was as she argued earlier.

16:23	The panel further requests that the speaker provide some court order to justify her case, which she competently complies with.
16:25	The question of fairness behind the speaker’s claims was raised by the bench. The speaker contested this idea by providing a justifiable reasoning which was duly accepted by the judges.
16:27	The facts of a case law applicable to the current case was examined but the exercise did not favour the speaker’s arguments.

16:29	The speaker proceeds with another contention by elaborating on the rights and welfare of consumers which the panel closely listens to and accepts as her speaking time comes to an end.
16:31	Taking up an extension of 2 minutes, the speaker discusses statistical information about consumer responses in a study.
16:33	The informants rise in prayer and request a ruling in their favour on the basis of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

16:35	After a brief break of 2 minutes, the panel approves the continuation of the speeches beginning with the first speaker of the opposite party.
16:37	The opposite party’s initial speaker delineates the time plan that will be followed by his side and states his case.
16:39	To resolve a doubt raised by the panel, the speaker took the support of certain facts. However, the judges explain that they are unable to follow the connection between the facts and the parallel argument.

16:41	Despite not seeming entirely convinced by the answers given and the provisions referred to, the panel granted the speaker permission to carry on with his speech.
16:43	Aimed at backing their arguments, the speaker zealously elucidated on various facts and figures.
16:45	The panel stated in response that arguments in the courtroom were to be backed by at least one provision and case each instead of arguing simply based on facts.
16:47	Although the error in the manner of argument was admitted by the speaker, he did not make the recommended change and the judges repeated their stance regarding the expected structure of the arguments.
16:48	With only 5 minutes left for his speech, the speaker makes the stipulated correction and cites a case referred in a document provided by the opposing party.
16:50	The judge works along with the scenario set up by the speaker and criticizes that even doing so does not appropriately justify the claims made.

16:52

After repeated blunders on the part of the speaker, he is forced to take the assistance of his team’s researcher to cite a few cases that he was previously unaware of and thus unable to elaborate on.

16:54

As the time ticks to a close, the speaker obtains an additional minute to wrap up his speech and leaves the subsequent issues to be covered by his co-counsel, the second speaker of the opposite party.

16:56	The co-counsel of the opposite party begins their speech by declaring the various markets relevant to the problem.
16:57	On a light-hearted note, the panel enquires the court clerk about the post-lunch provision of tea for the judges.
16:59	The speaker picks up her speech from where it was left off and takes the help of a study to understand the nature of the market as per the problem.
17:01	She continued to ardently advocate the opposite party’s viewpoint with no sign of stopping.
17:03	The panel kindly requested that the speaker slow their pace to enable to judges to follow along the arguments presented and understand them thoroughly. They also asked the speaker to address the judges clearly and communicate her points to convince the judges and not anyone else.
17:05	The speaker sincerely apologized for the oversight and proceeded with the arguments in a calmer tone.

17:07	The speaker names a case to support their viewpoint but the judges explain how in reality the facts of the case actually back the informants’ point in contrast to their own.
17:09	The opposite party calls upon their researcher once again to back their arguments with more relevant cases as the judges brought to the participants’ attention that the speaker was making emotional arguments instead of relying on precedents.

17:11

After responding to all the doubts raised by the judges, the speaker furthers the following arguments.

17:13	To support this next argument, the speaker relies on a case law and details its facts and explains significance in her arguments.
17:15	However, the judges appeal to the speaker’s conscience and question her about whether or not her client’s action could be deemed fair or non-arbitrary.
17:17	The speaker concedes this point but attempts to frame a defence for these actions by delving into more intricate details to justify that these actions were in fact acceptable.
17:19	Upon the expiration of the speaker’s time limit, she secures the judges’ approval to take an additional minute.
17:21	The judges dismissed the cases cited by the speaker during this duration claiming that they were not relating to the principles of competition law and were thus irrelevant.

17:23	Before permitting the speaker to conclude her speech, the judges put forth a final question. The speaker was unable to give a fitting response, her reason being the proposition’s silence on the issue. The prayer of the opposite side is skipped over due to the time crunch.
17:25	The informant’s side speaker approaches the dais but is faced with a challenging question even before she begins her speech.
17:27	Due to the inability of the speaker to answer the question, the judges directly addressed the researchers of both teams and asked them to discern the answer from the proposition.

17:29	The judges point out yet another discrepancy in the speaker’s arguments that left her surprised, compelling her to admit the same.
17:31	The short rebuttal speech of the informants’ side was concluded with a summary of their arguments and the podium was instantly taken over by the opposite party’s speaker.
17:33	The opposite party’s speaker concluded with a hasty speech which received little to no opposition from the judges. The participants were then ushered out of the courtroom to allow the judges to discuss their decision.

 

DAY 3

Semifinal Rounds

Court Room 1

10:30 AM

With barely any time left for the much-awaited semi-finals of the first Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition, an air of thrill and passion consumes the courtroom as the contesting teams await the arrival of the esteemed bench with utmost eagerness. Intense and focused preparation appear to be going on among the team members of both teams as they brace themselves up for rocking the courtroom with their well-crated arguments and zealous discussions.

10:34 AM

The wait for the arrival of the esteemed judges goes on. Yet, in spite of the wait, the enthusiasm filling the courtroom shows no signs of dampening and remains at its zenith. The teams effectively utilize the time to prepare themselves for the soon-to-commence, heated, and power-packed semi-finals.

10:38

Finally, the wait culminates with the arrival of the esteemed bench that shall be presiding over the semi-finals. The air of excitement and tension that has long gripped the courtroom intensifies as the proceedings near their commencement.

10:42 AM

As the esteemed bench takes its place on the pedestal, a focused yet visibly cheerful conversation unfolds among the judges constituting the bench as they deliberate on certain essential aspects before commencing the proceedings. Simultaneously, the court clerks interact with the bench as the bench is briefed on some vital procedural details of the unfolding semi-final rounds.

10:46 AM	The intense wait comes to a close as the counsel of the informant approaches the dais and begins with her argumentation. With remarkable eloquence, she divides the issues between herself and her co-counsel. Following that, she contextualizes her speech with the factual details of the case.
10:48 AM	Maintaining her poise and calm, the counsel goes on to cement her contentions accusing the firms Box Vision and Vortex of anti-competitiveness with the aid of relevant authorities including legal provisions from the Indian Competition Act, 2002.
10:50 AM	Within four minutes into her speech, the counsel is faced with the first question fired at her by the bench. Yet, with remarkable composure, she answers the question and cites authorities from jurisdictions as diverse as India and the USA to substantiate her answer.
10:51 AM	Even so, the bench continues with its round of questioning and cross-questioning. The counsel is quizzed on the defintion of relevant markets, which she provides with clarity and precision. The bench further questions her on the specifics of the cases she had previously cited, and she makes her best efforts to address the queries.
10:53 AM	The relentless round of questioning and cross-questioning goes on as the bench fires questions on market access and predatory hiring practices on her. However, she remains undeterred and responds to the questions with notable confidence.
10:56 AM	The bench continues with grilling the counsel and quizzes her on the grammar employed in the legislative provisions. Even though, she confesses her inability to recall the exact case law in support of her arguments, she assures the bench that her subsequent arguments shall address their queries. She receives the bench’s consent to proceed.
10:58 AM	With the aim of assessing the counsel’s grasp on the legislative provisions of the Indian Competition Act, 2002, the bench asks the counsel under what section and clause of the Act are no-poaching or non-compete arguments mentioned. She fumbles for a while as she requests for a brief duration of time to respond to the question. The bench graciously allows her to take her time.

11:00 AM	As the counsel proceeds, she finds additional questions being fired at her by the bench. The bench appears to be keen on testing her clarity on the contents of the Competition Act, 2002. With her characteristic poise, the counsel succeeds in satsifacorily replying to the bench’s questions.
11:03 AM	With the aim of substantiating her contentions on predatory hiring, the counsel draws the bench’s attention to the relevant sections of her memorial. The bench appears content with her arguments as it allows her to proceed with her second fundamental argument.
11:05 AM	Soon after, the court clerk raises the “5 minutes left” placard signifying the precious little amount of time the counsel is left with.

11:07 AM	The bench proceeds to grill the counsel on her basics of the Competition Act and asks her for cases to lend support to her arguments. She cites various authorities that laid the foundation of the Competition Act, 2002 and appears to satisfy the bench with her response. She is further quizzed on whether the DG Report can be questioned, and she satisfactorily answers that question as well.
11:10 AM	Within minutes, the court clerk rings the bell and raises the “time over” placard. Yet, the bench’s questioning continues as the counsel is granted an extension to respond to the questions. While the bench appears to disagree with her arguments, she strives to maintain her composure and lay down her contentions in a clearer language.

11:14 AM

Upon the culmination of the counsel’s speech, the co-counsel takes on the baton as he approaches the dais and begins with his speech. He guides the bench through the relevant legal provisions to lend support to his assertions.

11:16 AM	Within hardly two minutes into his speech, the counsel finds himself being fired at with a question from the bench. He cites relevant case laws to build on his claims and answer the question. When the bench asks him fto make a specific reference to the memo wherein the said case has been cited, he expresses his inability to do the needful. However, the bench allows him to proceed.
11:19 AM	Citing various cases, the counsel deliberates on the importance of considering aspects other than the market share to ascertain the dominant position of a market enterprise. Declaring that Bravo, the firm accused of anti-competitive behavior, exercised dominance over consumers, the counsel concludes his first submission. The bench permits him to proceed with his second submission.
11:21 AM	While the counsel cites cases from foreign jurisprudence to substantiate his contentions on the issue of excessive pricing, the bench asks him to cite cases from Indian jurisprudence. Even though the counsel is able to cite a number of cases in response, the bench demands a recent case from him. He continues to be grilled on the issue of unfair pricing by one of the judges until the said judge allows him to proceed. However, he does not find any respite from the relentless grilling as another judge takes the baton and begins questioning him on the issue.

11:25 AM

The round of questioning goes on for a while until finally, the counsel is allowed to move ahead with his submission. In that moment, the court clerk raises the “5 minutes left” placard signalling the modicum of time he is left with.

11:28 AM	In spite of the paucity of time the counsel finds himself grappling with, the bench does not cease its round of questioning and cross-questioning as the judges collectively continue to quiz the counsel. The counsel makes his best efforts to establish the show of unfairness on part of the accused enterprises, but the bench tells him that his argument should be strong enough to satisfactorily establish any abuse of dominance.
11:30 AM	The bench questions the counsel on the utilization of the test of reasonability. While the counsel attempts to answer the question with a couple of case laws, he runs out of time. The bench grants him a minute long extension.
11:32 AM	A short while later, the bench asks him one final question of a theoretical nature. The question bestows the opportunity of proceeding with the prayer upon him. However, the bench does not appear satisfy with his prayer and declares that the counsels’ prayer shall be of no help to them. The counsel deals with a series of questions even as he reads out his prayer and makes his best attempts to please the bench. The bench highlights a critical omission the counsels of the informants had made in their memorial, but assures them that their submissions have been understood by it.
11:35 AM	Upon the closure of the contentions by the counsels of the informant, the counsel of the opposite party approaches the dais and begins with his contentions. With confidence apparent in his demeanor, the counsel establishes the innocence of his client.

11:35 AM	Upon the closure of the contentions by the counsels of the informant, the counsel of the opposite party approaches the dais and begins with his contentions. With confidence apparent in his demeanor, the counsel establishes the innocence of his client.
11:36 AM	However, barely a minute into his speech, the bench fires the counsel with a question. The counsel seems to have satisfactorily answer the question, and is thus allowed to proceed with his argumentation. He seeks the aid of various case laws from the Indian jurisprudence to substantiate his claims.

11:37 AM	The bench’s questioning continues as the counsel endeavors to appease the bench with his response. In the meanwhile, the bench asks him to state the relevant facts that may support his claims. He guides the bench to a particular section of the moot proposition and utilizes it to strengthen his contentions.
11:41 AM	The counsel quotes the market shares of the enterprises involved in the present case to deny the dominant position attributed to his clients. He draws the attention of the bench to yet another case to cement his claims and argue that his clients had not done anything which could have an adverse effect on market competition.

11:43 AM

While the counsel relies on the Preamble and legal provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, the bench begins to quiz him on fundamentals.

11:46 AM

Subsequently, the bench questions the counsel on the role of market share in ascertaining dominance and the misuse of such dominance on the part of a market enterprise. His teammate comes to his aid as she passes on a document to him, and he utilizes the said document to address the bench’s question.

11:48 AM

As the counsel moves further with his contentions and builds on his claims, the court clerk raises the “5 minutes left” placard signalling the impending end of his time at the dais. His confidence and calmness remain unwavered in the face of the questions hurled at him by the bench.

11:50 AM

In conclusion of his argumentation, the counsel vehemently denies the abuse of dominance on the part of his clients and stresses on the absence of any anti-competitiveness in the non-compete agreement in question. Furthermore, the counsel refutes all the allegations of predatory hiring prices imposed on the makret enterprises he represents.

11:53 AM	The bench continues its onslaught of questions, and the counsel strives to provide satisfactory answers to the questions. Within a brief while, his time at the dais comes to an end but he is allowed to summarize his submissions. As he seeks the bench’s permission to pass on the microphone to his co-counsel, the bench directs one final question at him.
11:55 AM	After a rigorous and intense spell of questioning, the bench finally allows the counsel to let his co-counsel take the floor. Subsequently, the co-counsel approaches the dais and begins with her contentions on the second issue.
11:58 AM	Relying on the details specified in the moot proposition, the counsel establishes the dynamic nature of relevant markets with the view of substantiating her claims.

12:00 PM

For the first five minutes of her speech, the counsel enjoys a smooth undisturbed run as the bench is yet to shower a considerable number of questions upon her.

12:02 PM

To underscore the relevance of market share in ascertaining the dominace which a market enterprise may exercise in the market arena, the counsel cites relevant cases decided by the Supreme Court.

12:03 PM

Finally, the bench commences its onslaught of questioning and quizzing by directing a bunch of questions and cross-questions at her. However, with a composed demeanor, the counsel goes on to respond to the questions posed by the bench.

12:06 PM

In continuation of her argumentation, the counsel cites a landmark case dealing with predatory pricing with the purpose of proving the innocenece of the firms she represents. Subsequently, the bench quizzes her on exclusive arguments and asks her if she is aware of any foreign case that deemed exclusivity beyond a certain period of time as anti-competitive. Unable to answer, the counsel pleads ignorance and is allowed by the bench to proceed.

12:10 PM

While the counsel cites a case decided by the Supreme Court to refute the accusations of anti-competiveness imposed on her clients, the bench tells her the said case is under investigation. However, she is able to provide a sound response to the bench’s statement and is allowed to proceed.

12:14 PM	As the counsel addresses the bench’s questions and cross-questions, the court clerk raises the “five minutes placard” signalling at the impending culmination of her time at the dais. In this backdrop, the counsel cites the DG Report to answer the questions posed by the bench and address its queries.
12:15 PM	The bench, content with her argumentation, permits her to proceed with her submissions on thee third issue. As she deliberates on the issue, she is met with yet another question directed at her by the bench.

12:17 PM

The moment the court clerk raises the “2 minutes left” placard, the counsel requests for an extension of additional two minutes so as to allow her to summarize her arguments on the issue. The consent is granted by the bench. As she goes on with the summarization of her arguments, she faces further questions fired at her by the bench.

12:20 PM	The bench vehemently refutes the claims related to a landmark case made by the counsel. As the bench attacks the accuracy of her claims, she keeps her cool and addresses the bench’s queries.
12:21 PM	In an unexpected moment, the counsel asks the bench if she could pose a question to them. The bench seems amused by the unusual request by the counsel but nevertheless, grants its consent to her. When her time duration expires, she is granted a minute long extension by the bench.

12:23 PM	In the last few seconds available to her, the counsel cites a case having facts similar to the present case. The bench quizzes her on the similarity between the facts of the said case and the facts of the present case, and she successfully responds to the question.
12:24 PM	As she runs out of her time yet agan, the bench allows her to proceed with the prayer. While the bench contends that an essential detail is missing from the prayer, the counsel states it has already been addressed. The bench agrees with the counsel and allows her to take her place once again.
12:26 PM	The counsel of the informant approaches the dais for a second time to rebut the contentions of the counsels of the opposite party. While the bench allows her to pose only one question, the court clerk efficiently clarifies the rules about the rebuttals stating that the counsel could take the stage for four minutes. Thus, the bench opens the floor to the counsel of the informant for four minutes.

12:29 PM	As the counsel of the informant takes her leave from the dais after laying down her rebuttals, the counsel of the opposite party approaches the dais and defends her position and the opposite party’s contentions. She relies on of the cases the counsels of the opposite party had previously stated to prove her contentions.
12:31 PM	The bench questions the counsel of the opposite party as well on her awareness of one of the guidance issued by the Competition Commission. Just like the counsel of the informant, she too is unable to respond to the question. The bench then allows her to proceed.

12:32 PM

While the counsel enforces her contentions by reiterating various aspects that play a critical role in ascertaining the abuse of dominance on part of a market enterprise, the bench directs additional questions at her. Upon responding to the questions, the counsel seeks the bench’s consent to rest her case and is allowed to do so.

12:33 PM

As the bench begins with scoring the teams on the basis of their performance in the semi-finals, both the contesting teams humbly request the judges to provide them with valuable feedback upon the finalization of the results. The bench graciously agrees to honor the requests. All the competitiors and the members of the Organizing Committee take their leave from the courtroom as the judges commence their deliberations on the results.

12:48 PM	After a prolonged wait, the members of the Organizing Committee and the counsels of the informant are allowed to re-enter the courtroom. The feebdack session begins as the bench commends the oratory skills of and handling of questions by the counsels of the informant. Providing the counsels with constructive feedback, the bench highlights the lack of international jurisprudence cited by the counsels. A cheerful and heartfelt interaction unfolds between the bench and the counsels as the bench graciously encourages the counsel to consider opting for the avenue of litigation and compliments them for their composure in the face of adversity.
12:54 PM	As the bench wishes the counsels the best, the counsels request the bench to enlighten them with the essentialities they shall be mindful of if they were to qualify for the finals. In a sincere display of mentorship, the bench provides the counsels with the requisite guidance.
12:55 PM	Once the counsels of the informant depart from the courtroom, the counsels of the opposite party enter the courtroom and receive constructive feedback from the bench. The bench maintains its encouraging and enlightening demeanor while providing the counsels with informed and valuabel feedback. Upon the culmination of the feedback session, the semi-finals of the first Hidayatullah International Moot Court Comepetition also draw to a close. The excitement and anticipation for the eagerly awaited finals reach their crescendo!

Court Room 2

10:29 AM

Big books, big bundles and big people – the silence before the courtroom storm speaks volumes in its quietude as both parties eagerly await the arrival of the judges.

10:39 AM

Silence intensifies, glances are exchanged, shuffling of sheets comes to a nervous stop – the judges have arrived at last! The court clerks are clarifying end minute doubts of the teams and reiterating rules to them.

10:41	Counsel 1 of the Informant seeks permission to approach the dais. He further seeks permission to refer to the bench collectively as lordships.
10:44	The Counsel having sought permission to advance his arguments under issue 1, is interrupted by a question from the bench on jurisdiction. The Counsel cites Section 19 to answer the same.

10:45

The Counsel explains a horizontal agreement and its anti-competitive nature. He is questioned on the binding nature of the case.

10:47	Referring to the proposition, he highlights the collective dominance of the companies in question.
10:50	The Counsel advances arguments relating to the  employee pooling agreement of the two companies.
10:52	The Bench questions the Counsel on the long-term impact of this agreement which the Counsel, to the satisfaction of the Bench, answers with great eloquence and articulation.

10:54	Having been questioned on the non-perpetual nature of the non-compete clause, the Counsel cites a US Authority to show how a negative clause in the agreement is impermissible.
10:57	The Counsel has quoted the Indian Contract Act so as to invite a plethora of questions on applicability from the Bench.
10:59	A time signal from the court clerk, the Counsel has successfully sought a time extension from the Bench to continue his submission on the non-compete clause.
11:01	Bringing attention to a particular paragraph of the moot proposition, the Counsel brings into notice the predatory hiring practices of the companies in question.

11:05	Having exceeded his time, the Counsel summarizes his arguments and requests the Bench to impose an appropriate penalty on the companies in question.
11:07	Having succinctly advanced his submission, Counsel 1 makes way for Counsel 2 to articulate the position of Informants on issues 2 and 3.

11:09	Arguing on the abuse of dominant position by enterprises, Falcon and Octane, the Counsel goes on to prove the anti-competitive practices of these enterprises in terms of their excessive pricing policies.
11:11	Currently summarizing the first leg of his submission, the Counsel concludes his submission to the satisfaction of the bench.

11:13

Bringing into notice the exclusive dealing clause of the agreement, the Counsel is being questioned on the adverse impact of such a clause.

11:15

Referring to the investigation report of the DG as given in the proposition, the Counsel is arguing on the pricing of the consoles and highlighting the predatory pricing of the enterprises in question.

11:17	The Bench and the Counsel are deeply engaged in the discussion surrounding the relevant market of Hex-7 and Hex-8, with the Bench trying to understand the relation between the pricing of both.
11:19	Noting the limitation on consumer choice imposed by the processor provider in question, the Counsel guides the Bench to submissions given in the proposition so as to substantiate his points through the exisiting facts.
11:22	A time signal has been sent out by the court clerk, but the Bench and the Counsel are way deeply engaged in their discussion on predatory pricing and relevant market so as to succumb to such time pressures.
11:24	Having been asked to cite a precedent so as to enable them to pass an order in favour of the Informants, the Bench is determined to get the most out of the Counsel’s submissions and form their decision accordingly.
11:27	Another time signal from the court clerk accompanied by a chit from the co-counsel, Counsel 2 is currently justifying how a hike in price by the sole processor provider amounts to an unfair and anti-competitive practice in the market.
11:29	Quick to catch up on the advice of the Bench to go slow, the Counsel has moved to the third issue involving an enterprise named Bravo.
11:31	Referring to the proposition and noting how the enterprise has been substantially increasing its subscription fee, the Counsel submits that Bravo is abusing its dominant position in the market in addition to causing user harm.
11:33	The Bench seeks clarification on the presence of other competitors so as to understand their role and reason in providing relief to the Informants.

11:35	The Counsel places reliance on the DG report,
11:36	The Bench seeks the view of the Counsel on the binding nature of the previous decisions of its earlier judgment. The Counsel, having misunderstood the question, constantly brings into notice how Eyzarian laws are parie-materia with those of India. The Bench seems dissatisfied with such submission.

11:39

Counsel 1 of the Respondent approaches the dais and quickly summarizes the arguments of the submission.

11:54

A time signal has been sent out by the court clerk. The Counsel summaries her submissions under issue 1 to state that such an employee-pooling agreement did not have any adverse effect on the market.

12:11

Counsel 2 of the Respondent approaches the dais with a pre-determined responsibility to clarify the definition of predatory pricing.

12:13	Apparently nervous in her contention, the Counsel stutters through her submission on excessive pricing. She then moves on to her part of the issue on the abuse of the dominant position by Falcon.
12:16	The Counsel submits that market dominance must be established on the basis of relevant market.

12:26

Citing a CCE-decided case, the Counsel established the correct criteria for alleging market dominance proving the non-dominance of her client.

12:46

The Bench seems dissatisfied with the submission of the Counsel.

12:47

After two hours of heated deliberation and one-sided justifications, the courtroom proceedings have now come to an end. The Parties have left the courtroom with the judges to decide the matter in accordance with principles of justice, equity and good conscience, mixed with a tinge of discretion.

Final Round

University Auditorium

14:24 PM	With merely minutes left for the commencement of the eagerly awaited finals of the 1st Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition, excitement and anticipation grips the auditorium, which shall witness one of the most breathtaking rounds of mooting.
14:28 PM	The ticking of the clock only intensifies as the finalist teams arrive at the venue of the much anticipated finals.
14:31 PM	Following the arrival of the finalists, the audience that had been awaiting the finals with bated breath begin to fill the auditorium and occupy their seats. The longing with which they await the commencement of the finals can hardly be overstated.
14:34 PM	In the run-up to the commencement of the finals, the finalist teams appear to be indulged in a dedicated round of preparations as they ready themselves for the heat and intensity of the bench. The sheer commitment of the adept mooters to set the stage ablaze with their arguments and contentions is apparent.
14:45 PM	The extensive duration of waiting finally culminated with the arrival of the esteemed bench, as the judges constituting the bench took their places on the dais.
14:47 PM	Initiating the proceedings of the finals, the counsel of the informant approaches the podium, seeks permission to address the bench as members of the Hon’ble Commission and lays down the division of issues between him and his co-counsel, and the allocation of time. Subsequently, with the consent of the bench to establish the facts of the case, he proceeds with a brief perusal.
14:49 PM	The clarity of thought and confidence in demeanor with which the counsel proceeds with his speech is especially remarkable. He then seeks the bench’s permission to present his contentions on the first issue and proceeds with his arguments.

14:50 PM	Skillfully employing the legal provisions of the Competition Act, the counsel eloquently contends his case and effectively substantiates his claims. He further draws the attention of the bench to certain sections of the memorial and the proposition to build on his argumentation. The bench attentively listens, no questions thrown yet.
14:52 PM	The bench appears to be immersed in the speech of the counsel as he relies on foreign jurisprudence and international precedents to lend support to his contentions.

14:53 PM	The smooth flow of the counsel’s speech is interrupted within hardly six minutes into his speech, with an intense round of questioning directed at him by the bench. Undeterred, he confidently answers the questions posed to him and cites a number of precedents to support his arguments. The moment one member of the bench seems to be satisfied with his response, another members follows up to test his knowledge.
14:55 PM	With ten minutes left to conclude his contentions, the counsel finds himself dealing with questions on whether the issue of dominance and anti-competitiveness were being overstretched. Yet, the poise with which he responds to the questions posed by the bench is remarkable.
14:56 PM	The counsel is further quizzed on the entities and the relevant markets that were being impacted by the agreement in question, which had been deemed anti-competitive. Retaining the composure which has come to define him, the counsel skillfully addresses the queries of the bench.
14:57 PM	It looks like the counsel is receiving some assistance in the form of chits from his teammates.

14:58 PM

Despite a brief episode of mild fumbling, the counsel makes his best efforts to satisfactorily respond to the queries of the bench.

15:01 PM

With a confident and calm demeanor, the counsel cites various authorities including precedents and the DG’s reports to strengthen his contentions accusing the market enterprises of abusing their dominance. The bench at this point, questions the entire reasoning of entertaining such a case, since they fail to see any harmful impact. The counsel tackles this trick question with much unwavering confidence in his arguments.

15:03 PM

The bench appears to be satisfied with the counsel’s responses to the questions posed by it, and allows him to proceed with his argumentations. Relying on a multitude of precedents, legal provisions, and various sections of the moot proposition, the counsel skillfully substantiates his claims.

15:05 PM	As his time at the podium draws close, the counsel seeks an extension of five minutes from the bench. The bench asks him to state the ultimate victim of the alleged anti-competitive behavior on the part of the market enterprises. Appearing content with his reply, the bench urges him to wrap up and summarize his arguments.
15:07 PM	The counsel is assertive in his conclusion that the non-compete agreement between the enterprises Box Vision and Vortex is bad in law. Culminating his speech, the counsel seeks the bench’s permission to let his co-counsel approach the dais.

15:08 PM

A moment of light-hearted humor unfolds in the room as when the co-counsel seeks the bench’s consent to take her place at the dais, the bench playfully says, “What if we do not give the permission?” Nevertheless, the counsel is allowed to take the stage and commence with her contentions.

15:10 PM

The counsel requests for the bench’s consent to establish how the factual scenario were helpful to the informant’s side in contending their case. A rigorous round of questions is initiated as the bench fires a series of questions at the counsel. With a commendable show of skill, the counsel satisfactorily responds to the questions and proceeds with her argumentation.

15:13 PM

The seemingly never-ending round of questioning continues as the counsel navigates them with poise and clarity. It looks like a considerable amount of time that was to be utilized in presenting her argument is being taken up in tackling the unrelenting questioning from the bench.

15:15 PM

As the counsel proceeds with her arguments, the bench questions her on whether the arguments revolving around monopolization were a mere conjecture. When the counsel is done addressing one question, another one is fired at her, all members of the bench sequentially following up.

15:18 PM

The question-answer round goes on as rigor and passion in the interactions between the counsel and the bench is maintained. Meanwhile, the opposite team seems to be in deep discussion about the happenings of this court.

15:22 PM

Some time later, the court clerk rings the bell signaling the little time the counsel is left with to conclude her contentions. Even so, she is faced with an intense round of questioning orchestrated by the bench. In the meantime, one of her teammates passes a chit to her, possibly to assist in answering well enough to the bench’s satisfaction.

15:24 PM	The bench questions the counsel on what worries her, and she responds with naming predatory pricing as one of her chief worries. She is further asked if a business plan could ever be a cunning plan. She holds her head high as she tries to keep up with the line of questioning.
15:26 PM	The bench grills the counsel on whether competition law is meant to protect the consumers or the competitor. She is then made to read the preamble of the Competition Act, 2002, and is urged to correct her terminologies.

15:28 PM

Quizzing the counsel on the merit share of the market enterprise she represents, the bench asks the counsel to contemplate whether her concerns about her client becoming invalid were well-founded.

15:29 PM	Aiming to assess the counsel’s grasp on the basic fundamentals of the competition law, the bench asks the counsel to name the exact entity that feels the adverse impact of the anti-compettiive behavior of the market enterprises. While the counsel makes the sincerest of her efforts to satisfy the bench, the spree of questions fired at her appears unstoppable.
15:31 PM	The counsel throughout her entire presentation takes a style of posing hypothetical questions to the bench to further her point.

15:32 PM

As the counsel’s time at the dais nears its impending end, the bench grants two minutes to the counsel to summarize her contentions and conclude her speech. The counsel cites a case which, as she claims, shall answer all the bench’s questions and queries. Similarly, she elucidates her third issue also with case laws and practical examples.

15:35 PM

A brief while later, the court clerk rings the bell marking the expiry of the time allotted to the counsel to make her speech. She is graciously granted an extension of one minute by the bench. Making use of the extension granted to her, she proceeds with summarizing her arguments and contentions. The bench undoubtedly appears satsified with the counsel as it compliments her on her remarkable performance and says, “Well done!”

15:37 PM

The counsel seeks the bench’s permission to read out the prayer, but the bench advises her to read out the prayer during the rebuttal round itself. With that, the counsel takes her leave from the podium. The counsel of the opposite party takes up her place and commences her contentions outlining the division of issues between her and her co-counsel.

15:38 PM

Barely a minute into her speech, the counsel finds herself dealing with a rapid onslaught of questions directed at her by the bench. The round of questioning and cross-questioning that unfolds is rigorous. Yet maintaining her poise, the counsel satisfactorily answers the bench’s questions and is allowed to proceed with her contentions. However, an increased use of filler-words in her speech subsequent to this indicates wavering confidence.

15:41 PM

The ceaseless round of questioning resumes soon after the counsel brings up another point of argument. The passion with which the bench grills the counsel on the agreement in question is clearly apparent. The participants in the audience try to stifle a snicker listening to the aggressive line of questioning.

15:44 PM

In a sincere attempt to address the queries of the bench, the counsel draws the bench’s attention to a particular case quoted in her compendium. As she cites the said case, the bench quizzes her on the degree of persuasive value the case’s decision shall have for the bench. A brief episode of faint giggles breaks out in the audience.

15:47 PM

As the counsel goes ahead with her contentions, she is accused of evading the question being asked to her by the bench. In spite of such accusation, she retains her composure as she addresses the concerns of the bench.The bench seems to scrutinize every single word uttered by the counsel and develop a question targetting it.

15:49 PM

A couple of minutes later, the bench appears to have immersed itself in the contentions of the counsel. The bench is on the look-out for a fresh lot of questions to fire at the counsel, it seems.

15:49 PM	A couple of minutes later, the bench appears to have immersed itself in the contentions of the counsel. The bench is on the look-out for a fresh lot of questions to fire at the counsel, it seems.
15:51 PM	The round of questioning that breaks out moments later clearly indicates the depth of the thoughts that the bench had given to the questions it sought to aim at the counsel.

15:53 PM

Guiding the bench to a particular table sketched in one of her documents, the counsel proceeded with substantiaing her claims with the assistance of the details quoted in her submissions. As she concludes that the actions of Box Vision and Vortex have no significant anti-competitive impact on the market, the bench strikes her with yet another question.

15:55 PM

In response to the question directed at her, the counsel relies on a case that had been cited by the counsels of the informant and attempts to use the said case to her advantage. Furthermore, she cites additional cases to cement her contentions. Her co-counsel assists her at this juncture by passing a few chits.

15:57 PM

The counsel is asked if the mere charging of the same prize by a number of enterprises amounts to cartelization. As she attempts to respond to the question directed at her, the counsel runs out of allotted her time but proceeds to answer the said question. She is granted an extension of two minutes by the bench for summarizing her arguments. She utilizes this extended time to move to the next issue.

15:59 PM

The counsel is reminded by one of the judges of the paucity of time. Thus, the counsel proceeds by citing authorities that may lend support to her argumentation.

16:00 PM	Upon the culmination of the counsel’s speech, her co-counsel approaches the podium and seeks the bench’s permission to begin with her submissions. The bench grants her the same.
16:02 PM	The counsel guides the bench to particular paragraphs of the moot proposition, and goes on to lend support to her argumentations denying any instance of anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the market enterprises she represents.

16:04 PM

Within barely four minutes into her speech, the counsel finds herself dealing with questions being hurled at her by the bench. She respectfully expresses her disagreement with the bench’s stance on the issue and eloquently moves further with her submissions with adequate substantiation.

16:06 PM

Unable to provide an immediate answer to one of the questions asked by the bench, the counsel requested for a time duration of ten seconds to find what she was looking for. She frantically flips through the pages of her documents as her teammates also scrouge for post-it notes to assist her. Finally, the counsel answers to the bench on the motive of price rise orchestrated by one of the market enterprises in question.

16:08 PM

The counsel finds herself in a perilous situation when the bench asks her as to why it should rely on her arguments. Members of the bench fire a volley of questions at her. Showing marked signs of fumbling, she tries her best to keep her calm while addressing the bench.

16:09 PM	The onslaught of questions directed at the counsel by the bench shows no signs of ending. Even so, the counsel endeavors to skillfully navigate through the successive questions being fired at her and is allowed to carry on by one of the judges on the bench.
16:12 PM	In spite of the satisfaction of one of the judges on the bench, not a single shred of relief seems to exist for her as other judges on the bench continue to rigorously grill her.

16:14 PM	Finally, after an extensive spell of tease by the bench, the counsel is allowed to carry on with her argumentation. But just then, with the flick of a wand, the relentless questioning by the bench resumes yet again.
16:16 PM	As the counsel answers the bench’s questions and moves on with her contentions, the court clerk raises the “5 minutes left” placard. The time crunch she finds herself grappling with seems to be extremely restrained in nature.
16:18 PM	Making the best possible us of the time available to her, the counsel goes on to summarize her contentions and relies on various authorities like legal provisions to strengthen her claims.
16:20 PM	Despite the critical paucity of time available with the counsel, the bench does not stop grilling her with its questions. Finally, once the counsel ultimately runs out of time, the bench grants her a minute-long extension only to question her further.

16:22 PM

The counsel is asked if she were deliberating on a technical issue or a legal issue and is accused of utilizing technological prowess to outsmart the others competing against her. In an attempt to rescue herself from the bench’s intense grilling, the counsel cites the DG Report to substantiate her contentions.

16:24 PM	The bench asks the counsel to conclude her speech as her time was well overdue. Yet, one of the members as adds on a question to which the counsel was bound to reply in a fraction of a minute as granted by the bench.
16:25 PM	Finally, upon the expiry of the extension granted to her, the bench urges the counsel to end her contentions and appreciates her performance. Exhibiting a heartening show of cheerfulness, the bench advises the counsel to be mindful of the time available to her and not to exceed it.

16:26 PM

The counsel seeks the bench’s consent to read out the prayer but is instead asked to dive head-first into the rebuttals. In a rushed pace of speech, the counsel briefs her prayer and seeks requisite remedies and reliefs from the bench.

16:29 PM

Finally, the counsel of the opposite party approaches the podium and begins to rebut the rebuttals quoted against her. She debunks the claims of the counsels of the opposite party and mitigates the validity of the authorities cited by her rival counsels.

16:31 PM

In a cheerful display of levity, the bench expresses its gladness for the timely culmination of the rebuttals by the counsel. As the proceedings of the intense and intellectually stimulating finals of this esteemed competition draw to a close, the bench, the audience, and the finalist teams take their leave from the auditorium. The anticipation for the exceptionally awaited results of the final round grip every soul, who had witnessed the heated proceedings. Every single witness appears immensely eager to know which team shall be clinching the coveted title and be crowned the first champion of the 1st Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition.

 

Valedictory Ceremony

17:15 PM	The guests arrive in the auditorium.
17:16 PM	The hosts welcome everyone to the valedictory ceremony of the 1st Justice Hidayatulllah International Moot Court Competition, 2024.

17:18 PM

The hosts request everyone to stand up for the national anthem.

17:20 PM

Prof. (Dr.) Yogendra Srivastava Sir is invited on stage to deliver the welcome address. He speaks about the wonderful celebration of legal acumen and expresses his warm welcome to all guests.

17: 22 PM

He also thanks the faculty members and students involved in making this event a grand success.

17: 24 PM

He expresses heartfelt gratitude to the national and international participants, without whom HIMCC would not reach the height it has acquired.

17: 26 PM	Vice Chancellor, Prof. Dr. V.C Vivekanandan invited to felicitate Mr. Praful Bharat and Mr. Ranbir Singh.
17: 27 PM	Registrar Sir invited to felicitate Mr. R. Murlidharan Sir. Subsequently, Mr. Anindhya Tiwari Sir felicitates Mr. Bharat Budholiya Sir.
17:27 PM	Mr. Amitesh Deshmukh steps on the podium to provide a report of the HIMCC 2024, conducted with much grandour and success. Mr. Deshmukh thanks all the sponsors, media and knowledge partners for their contribution to the event.

17: 29 PM	Mr. Deshmukh announces the rewards for winners and participants, which consists of an incredible internship opportunity and other goodies and merchandise.
17: 30 PM	He provides a brief narrative of the event as it took place, chronologically. The data for participants, judges, market leaders, academician and all persons involved is mentioned in his report.

17: 31 PM	He expresses hope for an upward trajectory for future editions of the competition.
17: 32 PM	The anchor invites Prof. (Dr.) V.C Vivekanandan to deliver his address to the crowd. He opens his speech with a light note and advice for the audience.
17: 34 PM	Mr. Vivekanandan counts the achievements of Mr. Praful Bharat and Mr. R. Murlidharan and thanks them for their remarkable presence in the closing ceremony of the competition.
17: 35 PM	He mentions the significance of women participants and how it contributes to empowerment of women in the legal profession.

17: 37 PM	Vice Chancellor Sir emphasizes the integration of moot court competitions with academic curriculum to felicitate capacity building for law students. He thanks the organizers for incorporating digital live streaming of the final round for everyone to witness.
17: 39 PM	He offers his grateful remarks to faculties and students involved in the marvelous conduction of the event. For the participants, he believes competitions like these prepare them for the future race course, that is, their professional life.

17: 41 PM	He acknowledges the presence of everyone who is a part of the ceremony and concludes his remarks by thanking all the volunteers for being the front-runners.
17: 42 PM	Ms. Zia Mody, the Managing Partner of AZB & Partners, is invited to deliver a video message through the projector screen.
17: 43 PM	The video message plays. Audience and persons present are fixated on the message she presents for students and future champions of the legal field.

17: 45 PM	She traces the history of moot court competition organized by HNLU and the university’s commitment to competition law as a subject matter. She says simulating real courtroom experience improves the students’ practical understanding of legal problem.
17: 47 PM	Her suggestion is that students should explore the area of competition law through competitions like these and welcomes the winning team to relish the internship opportunity under them. The video message ends.
17: 48 PM	Mr. Bharat Budholiya, Partner at AZB & Partners, is invited on the dais to address the gathering.

17: 50 PM	Mr. Budholiya congratulates the participants for their sheer determination and hardwork and emphasizes it’s not the winning that matters but rather the participation. He believes the moot proposition this year was far more complicated than last year’s proposition.
17: 52 PM	He stresses upon the fact that what one learns in law school goes a long way in building an advocate/future practitioner’s career. He narrates his own journey as a competition lawyer in India.

17: 53 PM	Competition law in India is growing, he says and hence it is quite relevant for upcoming bright minds. He hopes that competitions like these occur more frequently.
17: 54 PM	Prof. (Dr.) Uday Shankar is invited on the dais to address the gathering. He promptly takes his place on stage.
17: 55 PM	He expresses his delight at being a part of the event in the previous year and is grateful to be present here for the first international edition of the flagship moot court competition.
17: 57 PM	He speaks of a digitalized world being taken over by AI, however the practical learnings that are furthered by a physical moot court competition is unmatched for building true professionals.
17: 58 PM	Guest of Honour, Sri R. Murlidharan is invited on stage to grace the gathering with his inspiring words.

18:00 PM	He provides a brief history of the competition law regime in India. He speaks briefly about the Competition Act coming into effect. He speaks on the industrial state India was in back when the Act was enacted.
18: 02 PM	He talks about the position of CCI in the legal regime of India and the unique standing it holds amongst other commissions. He furthers a short summary of competition law and what it means to stakeholdes.
18: 04 PM	The Act is meant to prevent unjust enrichment, he says. He elaborates more on the objective of the Act and the role it plays in safeguarding consumer interests.
18: 06 PM	He speaks on the role of British East India Company in establishing a ground for industrialization.
18: 10 PM	He hopes HIMCC becomes a well-participated, prestigious international moot in the future.
18: 12 PM	Mr. Prafulla Bharat is invited on the stage to speak a few words.
18: 14 PM	He congratulates all the participants and emphaises on the value of participation. He says participation helps one overcome flaws and improve themselves in a better manner.
18: 16 PM	He believe in the resonance and impact that HIMCC, 2024 rediates on a national and international level and considers it a personal achievement to be here.
18: 17 PM	Chief Guest, Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh is invited to address the gathering. He opens his speech with a line of hindi poetry.
18: 19 PM	He presents an insignt into the career of a lawyer practising before the CCI. He speaks on the shortcomings that come with practicing before quasi-judicial body and how a skilled advocate overcomes them.
18: 21 PM	He explains the mandate of a law school and the aim it carries, of producing competent law students.
18: 23 PM	He talks about the different teaching methods that are involved in nurturing various skills that are important for a lawyer to posses, like research and argumentation.
18: 25 PM	He mentions the position of universities in terms of co-curricular activities like mooting, activities that strech beyond academic curriculum. He suggests that students should fixiate their attention on more competition law moots, instead of cracking only corporate law problems.
18: 26 PM	The guests are facilitated with momentos as a token of appreciation for their distinguished presence in event.
18: 27 PM	Vice Chancellor of HNLU, Mr. Vivekanandan presents a momento to Mr. Ranbir Singh, the Chief Guest of the ceremony.
18: 28 PM	The rest of the dignitories are given momentos subsequently to honour their presence in the ceremony.
18: 29 PM	The student convenors are invited on stage to faciliate the Vice Chancellor.
18: 30 PM	The rest of the student organizing committee members are invited on stage to faciliate the faculty members.
18: 31 PM	The hosts annouce that we have arrived at the stage of declaration of results. Mr. R. Murlidharan is invited on stage to declare the results.
18: 32 PM	He extends his special congratulations to the Best Memorial winners. He declares that the team that wins Best Memorial is NLU, Delhi. The team steps on the stage to receive the trophy.
18: 33 PM	The Best Researcher award goes to Ms. Bhagyshree Tiwari from NLU, Jodhpur.
18: 34 PM	The award for Best Speaker is claimed by Ms. Muskan from UPES, Dehradun.
18: 35 PM	The Runners-Up prize is subsequently bagged by Nirma University. The participants graciously received the trophy and cash prize.
18: 37 PM	The winners of the competition, hence declared, are the team from UPES Dehradun, setting a historical track record for their university.
18: 39 PM	The host requests Mr. Vipan Kumar, Registrar of HNLU, to propose the formal vote of thanks.
18: 41 PM	The crowd rises for the national anthem.
18: 42 PM	The ceremony formally concludes.