NLU Delhi is pleased to announce the 7th Edition of the Arun Jaitley International Moot Competition on Insolvency and Bankruptcy.

This has been hosted by the Centre for Transnational Commercial Law at NLU Delhi, in collaboration with IBBI, UNCITRAL RCAP, INSOL India, and the Insolvency Law Academy.

The 7th edition of this prestigious event will take place from the 27th to the 29th of September, 2024 at our campus in Dwarka Sector 14, New Delhi – 110078.

The theme for the 2024 edition is ‘Corporate Insolvency including Cross-Border Insolvency’.

Day 1, 27th September 2024

The Inaugural Ceremony

17:43 – Kanav Aggarwal and Vishwas Chawla introduced the 7th Arun Jaitley International Insolvency and Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition. Dr. Risham Garg, Associate Professor at NLU Delhi and Director of the Moot, delivered the opening remarks, setting the event in motion. He emphasized how the competition reinvigorates student engagement with the I&B Code and highlighted the support from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and UNCITRAL in fostering student progress in insolvency law.

17:51– Vishwas Chawla introduced Prof. (Dr.) G. S. Bajpai, Vice-Chancellor of NLUD, who welcomed the esteemed guests and participating teams. Prof. Bajpai highlighted NLUD’s contributions to insolvency law, and put emphasis on the competition’s legacy in Arun Jaitley’s name. He stressed insolvency’s importance in the corporate world and ease of business. Acknowledging the judges’ presence and their invaluable contributions, he thanked the organizing committee for their enthusiastic efforts.

17:59– Dr. Anton Zimmermann, Associate Professor of Law at Heidelberg University and visiting professor at NLUD, took the stage with a warm greeting to all guests and participants. He emphasized how moot courts foster the exchange of ideas and relationships across institutions, recounting a personal anecdote where such connections proved invaluable in his career. Dr. Zimmermann highlighted how his own university in Germany led in moot court education, a formative experience for him. He acknowledged that while universities impart knowledge, moots offer unique skills crucial for a legal career. Wishing the teams success, he encouraged them to gain the most from this enriching experience.

18:10 – Mr. Kulwant Singh, Executive Director, IBBI, makes a speech to the students gathered. He explains the transformation that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has made, relieving 3000 distressed companies and creating a whopping 269 approved resolution plans. He mentions the future possibility of a partnership with NLUD, creating a 2-year course in Insolvency and Bankruptcy. Mr. Singh congratulates the students on their ability to sharpen and hone their skills through the moot competition.

18:15 –  Vishwas Chawla extended his thanks to all sponsors before inviting Prof. (Dr.) Ruhi Paul, Registrar of NLUD, for the vote of thanks. Prof. Paul expressed her heartfelt gratitude to the esteemed guests for their invaluable support, and she acknowledged the judges’ significant contributions despite their busy schedules. She wished all participants the best, hoping they forge meaningful connections and learn through mooting. She also thanked the sponsors and congratulated the Organizing Committee for their successful efforts. Finally, Prof. Bajpai, NLUD Vice-Chancellor, officially declared the competition open.

Day 2, 28th September 2024

Preliminary Round- 1

CR7 Team Code 120 v. Team Code 108

Petitioner

12:01- The round begins with a compelling opening statement from the petitioner, effectively establishing a clear set of facts to eliminate any ambiguity. Subsequently, the issues are articulated with precision, drawing the judges’ attention to the critical points of contention. As the tension in the courtroom escalates, the petitioner gains momentum.

12:06- The exchange of arguments intensifies as the judges pose intriguing questions, making the petitioners nervous. As they attempt to redirect the focus to reinforce their position, the judges remain steadfast, displaying a disinterest in their sly shift. This strategic questioning is challenging the composure of the petitioners.

12:11- As the judges persist in their rigorous questioning, the petitioners request a brief recess,  undermining their earlier momentum. However, once the discussion resumes, the petitioners make a come back handling all questions like a pro and establishing their arguments. This resilient performance has re-established their presence in the courtroom, leaving a lasting impression on the judges and on the opponents.

12:21- Yet it’s not all going to be this easy as the judges again begin a line of questioning towards the petitioner throwing them off. As both the judges and counsel are engaged in a riveting exchange of words to establish the facts the ambiance becomes intriguing and filled with interesting questions.

12:26- Further, as the judges and counsels disagree, the counsel tries it’s best to convince the judges using various tactics. As they move on to the last issue the counsel again begins with a strong argument. The petitioner gets an extension. The petitioners finally summarise their position and rest their case.

Respondent

12:36- As the respondents finally begin presenting their arguments, they try to clear the facts of the case before the judges. Their start seems just as good as the petitioners. The respondents substantiate their arguments and the judges seem to be pleased by their arguments.

12:41- As the judges begin questioning the respondents, the respondents try their best to dodge them and establish the facts in their favour. The proceedings continue as the respondents present strong arguments which would be tough for the petitioners to counter.

12:51– As the respondent further present their arguments, the judges seem pleased but the tension on the faces of the petitioner can be seen is increasing. The judges begin to question the respondents and they seem to struggle in successfully handling such essential questions. The respondents are now struggling to establish the facts in their favour and trying their best to make a come back.

13:01– Since the strong start of the respondents has now hit an iceberg, it seems they are unable to gain their momentum back. They try to move ahead trying to turn the court in their favour yet it can be seen that the judges have little interest in that as they once again commence questioning the respondents leaving them completely baffled and lost.

13:06- The respondents are trying their best to make a comeback and impress the judges once again nonetheless the judges are steadfast in clearing the facts before they let the respondents plead their arguments. Once again, a time extension is granted for the respondents for them to sum up their arguments.

Rebuttal

13:10-The rebuttal provided by the petitioner lasted for less than a minute, and left the judges speechless as they too were surprised at the length of it.

Surrebuttal

13:11 – This rebuttal lasted longer than the previous one, yet was still short leaving the judges mortified as they were looking for a longer counter. The tension still lingers in the courtroom as the round concludes.

CR3 Team Code 101 v. Team Code 110

Petitioner

12:03 – Team 101 begins, with the first counsel identifying five issues, covering the first three. He argues that the winding-up petition cannot run simultaneously and must be handled separately. Referring to the compendium, he stresses that post-settlement changes are irreversible, citing case law. A brief pause follows as the judges and petitioner search for the referenced paragraph, resuming after they locate it.

12:08 – The counsel continues with provisions regarding the winding-up process, arguing that its current length hampers justice. He moves to issue 3, arguing that the party’s conduct under the contract deters justice and that the NCLT’s moratorium stay is crucial. Disrupting the moratorium, he claims, would expose parties to undue harm and lead to significant injustice.

12:13 – The counsel directs the judges to the transaction, claiming it violates the moratorium, as the funds given by the director were encashed by the FMG. When asked for the case law cited regarding the moratorium and its facts, the counsel, with enthusiasm, clarifies the inquiry and seamlessly transitions to the next issue.

12:18 – The counsel argues that the SRA is duty-bound and shifts to the NCLT’s approval, successfully proving his point. He cites cases and provisions from the IBC Code, emphasizing that the IBC mandates timely disposal, which has failed in this instance. He stresses that the delay defeats the purpose of the time-bound resolution process. The bench, actively questioning, appears quite intense.

12:25 – The second counsel steps up to address the third and fourth issues after seeking permission. He outlines the relevant facts, noting that the NCLT rejected Mr. Zen’s petition due to ongoing proceedings in the London courts. He argues that this is an insufficient ground for rejection and doesn’t violate India’s public order. The judges, analyzing closely, interrupt for clarification.

12:35 – The counsel begins explaining the key facts of the decision presented to support his argument. The judges quickly raise questions regarding how Indian courts consider foreign jurisdictions and proceedings. The counsel responds respectfully but, when he requests two minutes to gather his thoughts, the request is denied. The court becomes increasingly engaging, and the judges grant a two-minute extension for him to conclude.

Respondent:

12:43 – The respondent’s counsel greets the judges and seeks permission to begin. Addressing the first issue, he asserts that the NCLT has jurisdiction, noting that the winding-up proceedings are sub judice in the Supreme Court. He emphasizes that the IBC Code has an overriding effect over specific statutes, being a new code recognized by the apex court.

12:48 – The counsel cites a Supreme Court judgment, highlighting the importance of the provisions and exceptions. He identifies contradictions in the petitioners’ arguments and asserts that there is no recourse available to the appellants.  The discussion shifts to the resolution plan, becoming increasingly intriguing. As the judges seek further clarification, the respondent requests permission to address the second issue after providing the necessary explanations.

12:53 – The issues raised by the NCLT come into focus, particularly concerning the Center of Main Interests (COMI). He again cites the compendium, referencing proceedings and facts that strongly support his position, asserting that the U.S. does not have a COMI. The judges begin questioning him about this, leading to a discussion on the relevant time period. The respondent makes a concerted effort to address their concerns.

12:58 – After clarifying the first argument, the respondent transitions to how this relates to India’s public order.  The judges inquire specifically about the purely tax-related purpose as argued by the respondent. Lightening the atmosphere, the respondent apologizes for any confusion, assuring the judges, with a smile, that they are not confused. He continues to clarify his points with renewed confidence.

13:12 – The next counsel greets the judges and swiftly moves into her two issues. She begins by addressing the validity of insolvency proceedings in the U.K. courts, making strong points while connecting U.K. and Indian provisions to the case facts. Moving to her next argument, she discusses how the principle of the corporate veil applies, citing legal precedents where the veil was lifted. A judge seeks clarification on this, which she provides confidently.

13:17 – The second counsel continues by arguing the inherent contradictions in the case. One of the judges picks up on this, posing a strong question, noting that the second counsel’s argument contradicts the first counsel’s. The judge asks for clarification, and the second counsel works to reconcile the contradiction. Despite the contradictions, she effectively sums up her argument, bringing the session to a close.

Rebuttal:

13:23– The petitioner, in a rush against time, targets the respondent’s argument on irreversible changes, asserting that no permission was obtained for the transaction. He challenges the relevance of the respondent’s argument on COMI and emphasises the importance of commercial wisdom. As the bell rings, signaling time’s up, he receives a 30-second extension. He uses it to urge the judges to side with his argument on the corporate veil, before concluding his rebuttal.

Surrebuttal:

1:27: The respondent, with intensity, challenges the petitioner’s claims, demanding evidence for their argument, stating there is none. He argues that the apex court granted an exception that permitted the transaction in question. Additionally, the respondent counters the petitioner’s points on the corporate veil, attempting to turn the tables. As time runs out, the courtroom is in a rush, but the session concludes smoothly.

Preliminary Round- 2

CR3 Team Code 105 v. Team Code 102

CR7 Team Code 119 v. Team Code 111

11:45-The counsel now discusses the revenue rule formula used in their company and how it has affected the total revenue of the company. When asked by the judge, the counsel informs the room about the creditors and the employees of the company that they represent. The discussion then delves into various doubts and citations related to the revenue rule.

11:50- The counsel discusses the country’s constitution and the provisions supporting their requests, seeking approval from the bench. As time passed, the counsel requested a one-minute extension, which the bench promptly granted, indicating their interest in the discussion. The bench asked the counsel about their claims regarding NCLT and related jurisdictions. The bench granted a further 30-second extension as the counsel summarized their arguments, and the co-counsel stepped up.

11:55- The co-counsel immediately references the Insolvency Act of 1986 and highlights specific provisions within it. They identify the issues and agendas they intend to address and argue in favor of them. However, confusion arises when the bench points out a discrepancy in the counsel’s arguments, which appear to contradict their previous submissions submitted by counsel 1 of their side.

12:01- the co-counsel argues why the petitioner’s side has the locus to approach the court, which is not accepted by the bench, and they question the assertions. However, the co-counsel mindfully answers the questions as they list out and cite the sources on which they based their submissions. The counsel now argues on issue 5 and discusses it initially.

12:05- The co-counsel now discusses the formation of the committee appointed in the company and lists out the functions and composition of the company, in a way, legitimizing its formation. The debate develops upon this, and the bench points out a flaw in the arguments of the co-counsel; nevertheless, the counsel continues to list out specific pieces of legislation, strengthening his arguments.

12:08- The time runs out, yet the bench grants an extension of 30 seconds for the counsel to summarise their arguments. The counsel does that effectively and immediately begins with their prayers, culminating in their primary pleasing objectives; the counsel rests their case as the defendants prepare to conquer.

Respondent:

12:15- The counsel now seeks necessary permissions and is addressing points 1 and 4. He is arguing against the points made by the petitioners and stating that the NCLT has the authority to start the case. He supports his claims by emphasizing provisions in the compendiums, and the judges seem to be impressed. The lawyer finishes addressing issue 1 and now moves on to issue 4.

12:20—The counsel argues that the application is premature and lists evidence to support their arguments. They refer to articles of the legislation to bolster their points. The bench questions the counsel on their submissions, and the counsel fidgets with their notes to find the correct answer to the query. The learned counsel capably answers the question, citing multiple cases; However, the bench doesn’t seem too convinced.

12:25—The lawyer also argues that the IBC Act is not reliable under UK jurisdiction because India is not a convention member, which is the basis of their arguments. The lawyer then discusses various banks and presents evidence supporting their arguments before summarising their submissions and moving on to the next issue, which is slightly interrupted as the bench questions the counsel.

12:35—The co-counsel takes up the dais and establishes their agendas for the day. The counsel lays down the legislation, forming the foundation of their arguments and specific precedents fortifying their case—the bench questions the IBC’s preamble and certain specifications under it, and the discussion further develops on this. The bench engages in a meaningful conversation with the counsel over the issue.

12:40- During the round, the counsel brings up an article written by Justice Divyanshu Pandey. The counsel discusses the article and references some important judgments and precedents. However, the bench then questions the counsel about the article. Subsequently, the counsel moves on to discuss the specifications outlined in the preamble of the IBC.

Rebuttal:

12:44- The counsel now proceeds with the prayers and summarises all of their pleadings, and the courtroom moves onwards the rebuttals. The counsel for the petitioners mentions specific submissions and conclusions regarding the jurisdictions and highlights the absence of an irreversible action, which the defendants do not agree with.

Surrebuttal:

12:45- The counsel responds to the petitioners’ arguments, citing relevant judgments and precedents to demonstrate the existence of a premature agreement. The counsel discusses autonomous and independent proceedings, concluding his case.

Finals

Team Code 110 v. Team Code 111

Petitioner

14:43:- With months of preparation culminating into this final round, the pressure has never been higher. The confidence the teams honed through multiple rounds of pleadings stands at contrast with the anxiety the weight of this round brings. Braving through it all, the counsel begins the pleading with setting out the time allocation and clarifying the issues. Each argument is articulate and made with reference to the compendium provided by the counsel beforehand.

14:48- Matters of the jurisdiction of the NCLT are discussed and a specific reference to an exception laid down by the Apex Court is submitted. The conclusion of the first issue is followed by crisp questions by the learned panel which the counsel resolves and tackles skilfully. Yet, the bench seems slightly unconvinced. It is to be seen whether this issue will be resolved completely moving forward. We’re at the edge of our seats!

Respondent

15:15- The pressure on the counsel seems insurmountable after the masterful pleading of the opposition, yet the counsel kicks-off the pleading with an air of composure and confidence. The argument begins by qualifying the requirements for ‘irreversibility’ of the order and ‘winding up’ proceedings. The honourable bench asks striking questions to the counsel but the learned counsel addresses each of the concerns and emphasises that the first issue merely deals with jurisdictional issues.

15:20- The bench exercises their discretion to address some pressing concerns beyond the issue which isn’t addressed satisfactorily by the counsel and thus the other honourable bench member has to step in. Undeterred, the learned counsel moves on to address the issue of the location of the ‘COMI’ referencing the ‘revenue rule’ to resolve this issue. Appropriate judgements are cited to back each argument to give them more weight and structure.

15:25- The counsel declares that for the purpose of the fourth issue, the argument is presumed to be presented before the honourable high court of UK. The learned bench believes this contradicts the argument presented by the counsel but these apprehensions are resolved by referring to appropriate paragraphs of the factual matrix of the case. With this, the counsel rests their part of the pleading, letting the co-counsel take up the dais.

15:30- The co-counsel begins the pleading with renewed vigour and starts with pointing out flaws in the logic of the opposition. While the analysis stands to be admittedly pedantic, the counsel emphasises the importance of these technicalities in declaring that the opposition of countering issues never raised by their side in the first place. After addressing the issues of law, the counsel moves on to addressing the merits of the case.

15:35- The counsel highlights the experience and knowledge of their client prompting the judges to put forward the inability of the client to fulfil their due diligence. The counsel moves on to point out further flaws in the reasoning provided by their opposition addressing key questions raised. Upon the direction on the bench, the counsel then moves on to summarising the prayers contended for each of the issue.

Rebuttal: