Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

   

ABOUT THE EVENT:

The School of Excellence in Law, Chennai takes immense pleasure to announce TNDALU SOEL’s State Tamil Moot Court Competition is scheduled to take place on 6th, 7th (virtual mode) and 11th (Offline mode) of January 2023.

TNDALU SOEL is conducting their 1st State Tamil Moot Court Competition to encourage mooting in Tamil and to promote the interests of the student community and in addressing pressing issues in the society.

ABOUT THE ORGANISERS – TNDALU

The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University is the first of its kind of Affiliated Law University in the Country established by the State of Tamil Nadu in 1997 in the City of Chennai. The University offers Academic Programs under its School of Excellence in Law.

The school was established on the lines of National Law Universities to offer all Academic programs. Its Nine Post Graduate Departments with different subject specializations take care of Legal Research by offering Doctoral and Post Graduate programs. Apart from the Departments, the School also offers Undergraduate programs in Law with varied inter-disciplinary streams of 3 Years and 5 Years Integrated Law Degree Courses.

ELIGIBILITY:

  • Participation is strictly restricted to bona fide law students enrolled in the three years or five-year LLB or BL degree course in any institution situated in Tamil Nadu.
  • Two teams are permitted to participate from each registered institution.
  • Each team shall comprise three members. Two of the members shall be designated as ‘Speaker’ and the third member shall be designated as ‘Researcher’.

IMPORTANT DATES:

பொருண்மை வெளியீடு

18.11.2022

போட்டியின் கட்டணம் மற்றும் பதிவு செய்ய இறுதி நாள்

20.12.2022

வாதுரையை சமர்ப்பிக்க கடைசி நாள்

2.1.2023

சிறந்த ஆராய்ச்சியாளருக்கானத் தேர்வு

6.1.2023

போட்டியின் தொடக்க விழா, குழுக்கள் முறை மற்றும் வாதுரையை பரிமாற்றம்

6.1.2023

செய்தல் தகுதிச்சுற்று

7.1.2023

காலிறுதிச்சுற்று, அரை இறுதி

8.1.2023

இறுதி சுற்று மற்றும் போட்டியின் விடைவு விழா

11.1.2023

REGISTRATION PROCEDURE:

To register for the competition, kindly click on the link given below and fill in the google form.

Also, in the google form kindly upload the:

  1. Receipt for the payment of the registration fees.

    (REGISTRATION FEES:

    For PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS – 2000/- per team

    COLLEGES AFFILIATED TO TNDALU – No registration fees.)

  2. Authorisation letter for participation from the institution.

Link for the Google form:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lSmRLwxJTKubs2kHow7kgQo2xVcYx1NwCodJWP96n54/viewform?chromeless=1&edit_requested=true

COMPETITION MATERIALS:

Rules and regulations –

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JB5GItDHEgdBJQOEsxpxdHltJ8GRjE_P/view?usp=share_link

Moot proposition –

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O7IS74wdjTG988fG93F-5n7N7CC8jmjk/view?usp=share_link

CONTACT DETAILS:

Ms.S Nishasri,

Vice President, Moot Court Association

School of Excellence in Law,

The TamilNadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai

+91 9840149587

Ms. H.N. Shree Harini,

Joint Secretary, Moot Court Association

School of Excellence in Law,

The TamilNadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai

+91 7358236570

For any further queries, kindly reach us at the official email ID for the Moot Court Competition at soelsmcc1@gmail.com or you can reach us at the below mentioned profiles.

Website: mcasoel.wordpress.com

Instagram: mootcourtassociation.soel

NLU Delhi
Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

   

We are pleased to announce that the National Law University Delhi in collaboration with Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies will conduct the 8th India National Rounds of the IBA International Criminal Court Moot Court Competition 2023 in-person this time. The ICC Moot Court Competition is one of the most prestigious moots hosted and organized annually by the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies of Leiden University, The Hague Campus, with the institutional support of the International Criminal Court and International Bar Association.

Registration are now open for the India National Rounds of the Competition. Teams can register by filling out the Registration Form and Consent Form and emailing them to iccmoot@nludelhi.ac.in.

Please find the Registration From, Consent Form, the Problem and the Rules of Procedure here: https://lnkd.in/d2neBTTQ.

Here is the tentative schedule of the event:

Opening of Registration

1st November 2022

Last date of Registration

11th December 2022

Deadlines for sending queries for clarifications on the moot problem

12th December 2022

Last date for making changes to team composition

13th January 2023

Last Date for payment of participation fees

13th January 2023

Deadline for memorial submission

12th February 2023

Competition Dates

17th -19th March 2023

We will update our LinkedIn page with new information on the National Rounds of the competition.

Kindly keep visiting the page for more information. In case of any queries, feel free to send an email at iccmoot@nludelhi.ac.in.

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

School of Law, Lovely Professional University is organizing its “Gavelled”: 4th Moot Court Competition scheduled from November 10th to November 11th in offline mode.

Participation is open for all law students pursuing an Integrated 5-year law course or 3-year law course. The Moot Proposition is based on Contemporary issues revolving around the intricacies of criminal and constitutional law.

Prizes for the Competition are as follows:

  • Winners- a cash prize worth Rs. -31000/- along with Three (3) one-year complimentary (Academic) subscriptions to SCC Online Web Edition to be distributed to the winning team worth Rs. 27,000 each
  • 1st Runner Up – a cash prize worth Rs. -21000/- along with Three (3) one-year complimentary subscriptions to EBC Learning worth Rs. 14,500 each.
  • Best Memorial – Rs. 10,000/-
  • Best Speaker – Rs. 5,000/-
  • Best Researcher – Rs. 5,000/-

Note: Only one team is allowed per institution to participate in the Moot Court Competition.

Please find attached the Brochure and the rulebook along with the moot proposition. Kindly note that the last date for registration is 5th November, 2022.

Link of the Registration: https://forms.gle/B82AZwZeSJWxA5Zf8

Link for payment of registration fee: https://paytm.me/oSi-2mt

Please go through the brochure to know the steps to register.

For any further queries, kindly e-mail us at: solmootcourt@lpu.co.in

For More Details Click Here: Updated dates & Updated brochure and rulebook

Student Convenors/ Contact persons

Ms. Neha Abbi- +91- 9855588720

Ms. Poornima Kapoor- +91- 8284847996

Ms. Tanisha Vijayvergiya- 91- 6377671471

Venue: Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar-Delhi, G.T. Road, Phagwara, Punjab (INDIA) -144411 – Google Maps

We hope to receive a positive response from your institution and look forward to your participation.

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

   

It''s only after you''ve stepped outside your comfort zone that you begin to change,, grow,, and transform..”

– Roy T.. Bennett

The Moot Court Society of Amity Law School Noida has always upheld the belief that to achieve excellence in the field of Law, students need a platform to show their skills and practice their oral and written advocacy. The Moot Court Society is one of the largest student-run body comprising students who share a passionate zeal to achieve great heights.

The society has been successful in hosting many prestigious workshops by inviting legal luminaries and eloquent speakers. Several teams that have been sent out to participate in the various National Moot Court competitions have constantly brought glory and pride to the college.

Law students need to prove skills and efficiency in terms of their subject around the peer group. This can be achieved through the enriching experience of Mooting. Therefore, the Moot court competitions reveal new insights and spaces for students to practice their skills in debating, mediation, problem-solving, critical thinking and analytical measures. All these skills will further help to gather a comprehensive focus on legal materials for study and related subject areas.

It is with great enthusiasm that the Amity Law School, Noida presents the 12th edition of its Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2022. The event is scheduled on- 4th November 2022 & 5th November 2022 in Online Mode.

Amity Law School Noida presents a Platform where the part-takers can display their talents and undergo interactive and communicative sessions for an exchange of ideas that will lay focus on public issues.

We are grateful to our Founder President Sir, Dr Ashok K Chauhan who has been instrumental in providing an environment where students can come on stage and perform in many myriads of activities.

This year's competition is based on the leading issues of ‘International Criminal Law' which comprises rules and laws laid down by the various International bodies. Any violation of such rules and laws will lead to the perpetrators being held accountable for their actions. The laws of the war protects civilians, civilian objects, and environment from direct attack. The natural environment has frequently remained a silent casualty of war. The consequences of environmental damage for conflict-affected populations are severe and complex, affecting their well-being, health and survival. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules that protect the natural environment and that seek to limit the damage caused to it by armed conflict. At the same time, armed conflicts have continued to cause environmental damage and destruction. The question remains to what extent international law can be expected to mitigate environmental disruption in times of warfare?

Cyber warfare poses another challenge to the application of international humanitarian law. Does IHL applies to cyber-attacks? What constitutes an attack under IHL? Does the destruction of data constitute an attack under IHL? What would be the consequences if IHL is deemed inapplicable to cyber space?

Furthermore, the use of fully autonomous weapons raises serious moral and legal concerns. Who will be accountable for unlawful harm caused by fully autonomous weapons? Should humans be always responsible for the error caused by autonomous weapons? What is the level of accountability for individuals directly or indirectly involved in the use of autonomous weapon systems?

The competition will instigate the participants to research and examine these questions and additionally help them to gain an inclusive approach to the subject.

To Know More, refer Rules and Regulations- AIM 22,Moot Problem- AIM 22 and Itinerary-AIM22-compressed

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, will be hosting the “19th K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2023” scheduled to take place from February 17, 2023 to February 19, 2023 at the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110007. The K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court is the only Moot Court held exclusively on Criminal Law in India. The last two editions i.e. 17th and 18th editions were held virtually due to the sudden resurgence in COVID-19 cases at the global level.

This International Moot Court is held in the memory of late Mr. K.K. Luthra, Senior Advocate, a renowned criminal lawyer from India.

The Inaugural Function, Draw of Lots and Preliminary Rounds-I will be held on 17th February 2023 at the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, Delhi (India). The Preliminary Rounds-II, Octa-Final (at the discretion of the organizers) and Quarter-Final Rounds will be held on 18th of February 2023 at the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, Delhi (India).

The Semi-Final and Final Rounds will be held on 19th of February 2023 followed by the Prize Distribution at The India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (India).

Click here to refer: Schedule of Events, Moot Problem and Rules of the Competition

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

Government Law College, Mumbai, in association with the Wildlife Conservation Trust, presents the 4th Wildlife Protection Government Law College National Moot Court Competition, 2022.

The Wildlife Protection Government Law College National Moot Court Competition is India’s first wildlife conservation-focused Moot Court Competition. This years’ event marks its fourth edition, with the view of creating awareness on the challenges faced by wildlife among law students. The Competition is scheduled to be held offline from 25th to 27th November, 2022 at Government Law College, Mumbai.

Organisers:

Government Law College, Mumbai, established in 1855 is the oldest law college in Asia, a pioneer in legal education – an institution par excellence. The generations of legal luminaries who have been nurtured by this unique institution have made a seminal contribution to the evolution of the Indian Legal System.

Wildlife Conservation Trust (WCT) was envisioned to preserve and protect India’s rich natural heritage. Currently, WCT works in and around 160 Protected Areas across 23 states in the country covering 82% of India’s 50 tiger reserves. WCT aims to reduce anthropogenic pressure on forests and river systems with the involvement of the forest department, local communities, corporates and other NGOs, with a firm belief in landscape-level conservation, factoring in the needs of people dependent on these forests.

Government Law College, Mumbai and Wildlife Conservation Trust are pleased to announce DSP Investment Managers (DSPIM) as the Supporting Partner for 4th Wildlife Protection Government Law College National Moot Court Competition, 2022.

DSP Investment Managers (DSPIM) is an Indian asset management company (AMC), with a wide range of offerings across the risk-reward spectrum. DSPIM is backed by the 150+ year old DSP Group which has been very influential in the growth and professionalization of capital markets and the money management business in India. DSPIM has been an avid supporter of WCT’s initiatives & projects for several years. DSPIM is enthusiastic of its support to the ‘Combating Wildlife Crime’ Project and looks forward to battling this grave issue and making a difference together. Visit us on dspim.com for more.

Competition Details:

The Moot Proposition of the competition primarily deals with the use of selective culling as a tool for managing and mitigating human-wildlife conflicts. The participants will be made to go through extensive Mooting Rounds, to ensure that only the two best teams reach the Final Round of Arguments. All participants must present their Written Submissions prior to the Competition.

The Moot Court Competition will be conducted over two days where the participating teams will go through two Preliminary Rounds of Argument, Quarter-Final Rounds of Argument, the Semi-Final Rounds of Argument and ultimately, the Final Round of Arguments. Eminent lawyers and Judges of the highest standing in India, academicians and experts in the field of wildlife and forest law shall converge to adjudicate the various rounds of the Competition.

A unique feature of our Competition is a Panel Discussion which witnesses the representation of eminent personalities from the field of environmental law, wildlife conservation, media, etc. The panel discussion will provide teams the opportunity to learn from and interact with these diverse professionals.

Registrations:

Registrations for the competition are now open. Your esteemed university can provisionally register for the competition by sending an email to wpm.glc@gmail.com stating your interest to register. Please note that registration is on a first-come first-serve basis. Participation is limited to 16 teams.

Only after the provisional registration has been confirmed will a link to a Google Form and details for the payment of registration fees be provided. The payment of registration fees will be through NEFT in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) the details of which will be provided once the provisional registration has been confirmed.

Please note that the teams must fill in the registration form and make the payment via NEFT before 28th September, 2022 latest. The teams will be required to upload the screenshot/proof of the same while filling the google form for registration.

If you require any further information or assistance with respect to this competition, you may email us at wpm.glc@gmail.com or mcaglc@gmail.com.

Eligibility:

Participants must be current students of any recognised law college in the country. Each team shall comprise three students- two speakers and one researcher.

Moot Schedule:

Last date of registration for the competition: 28th September 2022

Last date to seek clarifications: 6th October 2022

Last date of submission of soft copies of Memorials: 16th October 2022

Last date of submission of hard copies of Memorials: 30th October 2022

Panel Discussion: 25th November 2022

Rounds of the Competition: 26th to 27th November 2022.

Contact details:

Registrations: Mr. Agastya Vijayaraghavan (7021137909)

Memorials: Mr. Karan Nair (9137128855)

General Secretary of the Moot Court Association:

Ms. Sakshi Shetty (+91 91361 27507)

Click to know more: WPM GLC 2022, Moot Proposition , Rules – WPM GLC 2022

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

 

ABOUT THE ORGANIZER

Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh was established in 2013. Amity Law School conducts three integrated 5 years under-graduate courses, LLB (Hons) (3 Years), LL.M. (One Year) and PhD programmes in law-related subjects.

ABOUT THE MOOT

During these unprecedented times, we are keen to nourish minds that are comfortable and skilled in dealing with the differing legal systems and cultures that make up our global community.

Amity Law School is proud to announce that it is organizing the AUMP National Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2022 which is scheduled to be held from September 15-16, 2022.

Moot Court Committee, Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh is privileged to invite you for advancing premier level arguments and to hone your research as well as argumentative skills on a National level event of Moot Court Competition which shall be judged and presided over by the Hon’ble Justices (Sitting or retired) of the Court of law, renowned Advocates in the arena of Criminal Laws and distinguished Academicians.

Having successfully organized various webinars and competitions in a row, this edition speaks of our efforts that aim at improving the whole experience by ensuring that the teams are met with a challenging problem based on contemporary and developing aspects of the law.

This Competition will be conducted virtually allowing the students to hone their advocacy skills while sitting safe at their homes. This Competition aims to provide an opportunity to the participants to develop the requisite skills for a dynamic process of Advocacy.

ELIGIBILITY

The Competition shall be open for ‘bona fide’ students who are pursuing an integrated 5 years or 3 years Law Program in India from an institution recognized by the Bar Council of India.

TEAM COMPOSITION

Each team shall consist of a minimum of two (2) members and maximum of three (3) members. Teams comprising of two members shall only have two (2) speakers and teams comprising of three members shall have two (2) speakers one (1) researcher.

REGISTRATION

All interested teams must register themselves on or before September 08, 2022 by diligently filling the registration Google Form. Only one form per team is to be submitted. The registration fees for this Competition is INR 1,000/- per team.

MODE OF PAYMENT

Mode of payment of the registration fees shall be via Bank Transfer or by UPI Transfer to be made on following details:

Bank: Axis Bank Limited, Kanwal Complex, Shrimant Madhav Rao Scindia Marg, City Centre, Gwalior, M.P. (IFSC Code: UTIB0000158), Pin 474002.

Account Name: Amity University Madhya Pradesh

Account Number: 911010033371991

Or

Name – Nupur Bhatt

UPI Handle – nupurbhatt046@paytm

KEY DATES

Last date of registration

September 08, 2022

Last date to seek clarifications

September 06, 2022

Last date Memorial Submission

September 10, 2022

Date of the Competition

September 15-16, 2022

CONTACT INFORMATION

In case of any queries, please contact us alsmootcourtcommittee2022@gmail.com. You may also contact the following:

  1. Prof. (Dr.) Sandeep Kulshrestha (Convener, Moot Court Committee): +91 70009 15701

  2. Ms. Shubhangi Gupta (Assistant Professor, Amity Law School) +91 97273 83869

  3. Ms. Eshita Mittal (Co-ordinator, Moot Court Committee): +91 89899 24648

  4. Ms. Nupur Bhatt (Co-ordinator, Moot Court Committee): +91 91316 64340

IMPORTANT LINKS

For the Moot Proposition, click here.

For the Rules of the Competition, click here.

For the Registration Form, click here.

For updates, like our Facebook page. Do follow us on Instagram.

For more details click here: Event Description, Proposition and Rulebook

Moot Court competition
Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

   

THIRD GD GOENKA INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHNOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 IN ASSOCIATION WITH CYBER LAW UNIVERSITY ON 17TH-18TH SEPTEMBER.

ABOUT THE GD GOENKA UNIVERSITY

The GD Goenka Group is a leading educational setup driven by a passion for excellence in education and quality in life, where Globalization and Internationalization are the buzz words. With 26 years of excellence in the field of education, GD Goenka Group has come a long way since its first school in 1994. The GD Goenka Education City is set on 60 acres with the ancient and picturesque Aravalli hills for a backdrop. The GD Goenka University is guided by the philosophy that new thinking in the areas of teaching, learning, research and training are pivotal to making students tomorrow's leaders and giving them a world view. With unswerving focus on providing quality education, GD Goenka University has engaged the best faculty to guide students, engage their minds and raise their horizon. The University has the best of facilities, equipment including laboratories, dedicated video conference facilities, virtual learning facilities and fully equipped conference rooms. These are all designed to extract the best and most creative qualities from the students. To afford quality education to students, which are along the lines of best of international standards, the University follows an inter-disciplinary approach to education whereby students are encouraged to learn subjects from various disciplines at GDGU. A global connection via a truly international educational institution. SCHOOL OF LAW, GD GOENKA UNIVERSITY offers Law Degree Programs at Undergraduate, Post Graduate and Doctoral levels and strives to open new vistas in the arena of law through clinical legal studies and research. With an objective to raise the standards of clinical legal education in India, the GD Goenka University, School of Law regularly hosts Moot Court Competitions and encourages law students from various Law Schools and Universities from across India and world to learn the art and skills of advocacy.

CYBERLAW UNIVERSITY While there has been some effort done to create more awareness about Cyber law through different initiatives, it was felt that there is a distinct need for an online University that is dedicated specifically and exclusively to all the legal issues pertaining to cyberspace and the Internet. Herein lay the genesis of the origin of the idea of the Cyber law University. Cyber law University, as the name suggests, would be a unique university dedicated exclusively to Cyber law and related disciplines. As Cyber law is the law pertaining to cyberspace and the Internet, it is only in the fitness of things that Cyber law University operates in cyberspace as an online University. Cyber law University is in touch with various universities and we are in the process of forming 4 professional relationships with different academic institutions and universities. In the times to come, the goal of Cyber law University is to become one common central point for not just the growth of Cyber law jurisprudence across the world but also for disseminating knowledge about the constantly changing cyber legal trends impacting the use of computers, computer systems, computer networks, communication devices as also data and information in the electronic form. Given the ever-evolving nature of the Internet, legal issues of cyberspace have developed rapidly.

ABOUT THE COMPETITION

With an objective to raise the standards of Clinical Legal Education in India, the GD Goenka University, School of Law announces 3 rd GDGU International Virtual law and technology Moot Court Competition, 2021 in association with Cyber Law University, on 17 th & 18 th September, 2022. Moot Court Competitions, which is a mandatory part of law curriculum in our law school offers a practical and application-based approach to learning of law. It gives the law students, the necessary free space to interpret and analyse legal provisions in the context of a given legal regime, while trying to solve a practical problem. The GDGU School of Law is dedicated to promote this aspect of legal training for ensuring a wholesome legal education and the GD Goenka Virtual moot Competition is an endeavour of the School of Law in this direction. 3 rd GDGU International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022 in association with Cyber Law University is about technology law. Technology law focuses on intellectual property rights, a complex branch of the legal system that deals with disputes over who ‘owns’ intangible ‘property’, such as creative works, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. Technology law helps to protect the creatives who come up with these ideas and also ensures rights concerning the distribution of their work. The 3rd GD Goenka International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022 in association with Cyber Law University is expected to have participations from various Law Schools and Universities from across India & abroad.  More details about the Competition are available on an exclusive website made just for this purpose — www.gdgoenkamootcourt.com

ELIGIBILITY

Students duly enrolled and pursuing full time 5 years or 3 years undergraduate law course from India or from a foreign university with law as major may apply to participate in 3rd GDGU International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022 in association with Cyber Law University.

Students enrolled and pursuing post-graduate diploma or short-term certificate courses in law is not eligible to apply.

TEAM COMPOSITION

A team shall consist of maximum three members that must include two Speakers and one researcher.

Any team, intending to change the team composition of the team shall intimate the Governing Council by sending an e-mail at mootcourt@gdgoenka.ac.in, the change will be allowed on discretion of the Governing Council.

Any person, other than three registered team members, is not eligible to join the videoconferencing or the audio-video recording of the oral rounds, and non-compliance is a ground for disqualification.

The Researcher may be permitted to argue as Speaker in case any unforeseen event.

Prior permission of the organizers of competition in such case shall be mandatory. In case the team fails to inform the university, decision will be final.

REGISTRATION

Each team shall register to 3rd GDGU International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022 in association with Cyber Law University by filing registration form, in the prescribed manner by 30th August, 2022.

Registration form: https://forms.gle/2FVBGrnvRaAbxwDQ7

On receipt of the duly filled registration form the institute shall respond to the participating team, acknowledging the receipt. 1After the deadline for the registration expires, the Governing Council shall respond to each registered team, as specified under clause 3.1.1, with a unique team code, which shall be used to identify the teams during the competition.

REGISTRATION FEE

The registration fee for the competition is Rs. 999/- for Indian Teams and 11$ for International Teams. The registration fee for the 3 rd GDGU International Virtual Law & Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022 in association with Cyber Law University is to be paid through NEFT transfer or UPI. No other payment method shall be accepted.

Any additional charges incurred by the team while making the wire transfer are to be borne by the team.

PAYMENT DETAILS

Name of Beneficiary: G.D. Goenka University

Name of Bank: HDFC Bank Address: Site No. 2, OCF Pocket, Sector — C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070, India

A/c No.: 02731450000270 RTGS/ IFS Code No.: HDFC0000273 Fax No.: 0124-3315936

MICR Code: 110240034

E Mail: accountsgdgu@gdgoenka.ac.in

COMPLETION OF REGISTRATION PROCESS:

All teams must upload a scanned copy of the receipt generated on completion of the NEFT transfer on the Registration Form. The receipt must contain the reference number after the completion of the wire transfer of the registration fees.

Registration to 3rd GDGU International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022 in association with Cyber Law University shall be deemed to be confirmed only on completion of all the formalities as specified under clause

Any failure, may be treated as withdrawal from the competition and no claim of what so ever nature shall be entertained thereafter.

IMPORTANT DATES

Registration opening from

29th July, 2022

Final date of Registration

30th August, 2022

Clarification questions to be submitted

10th August, 2022

Clarifications released

20th August, 2022

Memorial Submission

10th September, 2022

Competition Dates

17th & 18th September, 2022

rgnul
Law School NewsMoot Court Achievements & Reports

ABOUT RGNUL

The Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab was established by the State Legislature of Punjab by passing the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab Act, 2006 (Punjab Act No. 12 of 2006). The Act incorporated a University of Law of national stature in Punjab, to fulfill the need for a Centre of Excellence in legal education in the modern era of globalization and liberalization. The University acquired approval of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in July 2006

ABOUT SURANA & SURANA INTERNATIONAL ATTORNEYS

A consensus pick for legal assistance in Southern India, Surana & Surana-International Attorneys, Chennai, is considered one of the top Indian law firms. The firm has a huge track record of offering timely, pragmatic, cost-effective solutions with diverse contributions. With such widespread recognition and a commitment to academic quality, collaboration with your company will open up new opportunities for aspirational law students all across the country.

RGNUL would like to express our appreciation to Surana & Surana International Attorneys for their continued collaboration with us. Having begun in 2018, a modest endeavor is moving forward with zest and intensity into another year of success. The Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, in collaboration with Surana & Surana-International Attorneys, Chennai, is pleased to announce the 5th Surana & Surana and RGNUL International Law Moot Court Competition, slated to begin on 29th September 2022.

Surana & Surana International Attorneys, through this moot hopes to push international law forward and improve upon an already successful venture, continuing with its legacy of producing the unequaled in law and legal education – and in the same vein, the competition will take place.

IMPORTANT DATES

  • Release of Moot Proposition: 4th August 2022

  • Commencement of Registration: 4th August 2022

  • Late Date for Registration: 31st August 2022

  • Last Date to seek clarification: 1st September 2022

  • Release of Clarifications: 4th September 2022

  • Last Date for Submission of Soft Copy: 22nd September 2022 (5:00 pm)

  • Last Date for Submission of Hard Copy: 27th September 2022

  • Draw of Lots & Memorial Exchange: 29th September 2022

  • Prelims & Quarter-Finals: 30th September 2022

  • Semi-Finals, Finals & Valedictory Ceremony: 1st October 2022

AWARDS

Winning Team: Rs 21000

Runners-up Team: Rs 15000

Best Memorial: Rs 8000

Best Student Advocate: Rs 8000

CONTACT DETAILS

Coordinator

DR. GEETIKA WALIA, Associate Professor of Law, RGNUL Punjab (91 9646023882)

Student Convenors

Mr. Divyank Tikkha (91 7706036179)

Ms. Tanisha Singh (91 94133 09117)

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY

NMIMS is the all-encompassing educational platform for diverse fields of career such as Engineering, Science and Technology, Management, Commerce, Architecture, Law, Economics, Pharmacy, Aviation, Design, Performing Arts, Hospitality Management, Mathematical Science, Branding and Advertising, Agricultural Sciences and much more. Started in 1981, NMIMS has today emerged as a globally reputed university. Always socially conscious, the Shri Vile Parle Keeravani Mandal (SVKM) made the decision to cater to the rising demand of management institutes in the country. This led to the birth of the Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS).

About School of Law, Hyderabad

NMIMS School of Law offers an outstanding legal education so as to inculcate a wide range of legal skills useful for the legal profession including the corporate level. Established in 2019 by NMIMS University, one of the premiums Deemed to be University in India, the programs offering in our law school has all qualities and subtlety of the programs offered by the world class Universities over the world with a global focus and international outreach dedicated to advance human dignity, social and economic welfare, and justice through knowledge of law.

School of Law aspires to be a global centre of scholarly excellence in the field of law and justice and will prepare outstanding and innovative law professionals with socially responsible outlook through holistic legal education.

About 1st National Moot Court Competition (Virtual),2022

The quest for knowledge, wisdom and insight is part and parcel of life. While the pandemic still roars on the edges, and everyone is stuck at their homes, The Moot Court Society of NMIMS School of Law, Hyderabad takes immense pleasure while announcing our 1st National Moot Court Competition (Virtual) 2022.

The competition is scheduled to be held from 29th April- 1st May, 2022 on a virtual platform. To judge the moot, we have on board with us legal luminaries with excellent expertise in the legal field.

Date

The date of the competition is 29th April- 1st May, 2022.

General instructions

  • Venue: Online Meetings Application (The links and the schedule of the meeting rooms shall be provided via mail after the submission of memorials)
  • Dress code: The Dress Code for the competition will be-
  • For Ladies: White shirt and black pant with black blazer/formals.
  • For Gentlemen: White shirt, black trousers, black tie along with black blazer/ formals.
  • Language: The language of the competition will be English only.

Eligibility Criteria

All students enrolled bona fide in an undergraduate i.e., 3 years/ 5 years or post-graduate law program conducted by any college or university shall be eligible for participation in the competition.

REGISTRATION

  1. Teams are supposed to complete their Registration by 27th March, 2022 on 11:59 PM.

Early Bird Registrations are open until 25th March, 2022 on 11:59 PM.

  1. The Registration Fee for early bird registrations is Rs. 1000.

Post early bird registration the Fee is Rs 1250.

Below is the link for the registration- HERE

The Registration shall be done by filling up the Application form, available.

 

1st National Moot Court Competition (Virtual), 2022 – Official Brochure

PAYMENT DETAILS

BANK DETAILS-

Mr. Sridip Surendran Nambiar

A/C No.- 66550100009457

Bank Branch: Bank of Baroda, MG Road, Secunderabad.

IFSC Code: BARB0SECUND

  • The screenshot of the payment needs to be uploaded in the Google Form
  • Payment can be done by apps like Paytm, PhonePe and Gpay by using the Bank Transfer option in the application.
  • For more flexible and easy convenience, the registration payment can be done through abovementioned apps on the given contact no. +91- 9656415634.

IMPORTANT DATES-

Sr. No Event Date Time
1.       Release of Notification 02/03/2022 N/A
2.       Registration Starts 02/03/2022 N/A
3.       Release of Moot Proposition 02/03/2022 N/A
4.       Last Date to Register 27/03/2022 11:59 pm
5.       Last Date of Memorial Submission 25/04/2022 11:59 pm

 

AWARDS

PRIZE MONEY ALLOCATION:

  1. Best Team: Shall be given the Certificate of Merit along with a cash prize of INR 25,000/- + Internship opportunity + Free subscription of Knowledge Partner
  2. Runner Up Team: Shall be given the Certificate of Merit along with a cash prize of INR 10,000/- + Free subscription of Knowledge Partner
  3. Best Mooter: The speaker having the highest score in the preliminary rounds shall be given a cash prize of INR 4,000/-
  4. Best Memorial: The team having the highest average written submission score from both sides shall be given a cash prize of INR 5,000.

 

Contact Information-

Any other queries (other than the Moot Problem) may be directed to the following persons.

  • Sridip Nambiar (Faculty Co-Coordinator)

+91- 9656415634

sridip.nambiar@nmims.edu.in

  • Sankalp Agrawal (Student Convener)

+91- 7394839609

sankalp.agrawal13@nmims.edu.in

  • Navya Gupta (Student Co-Convener)

+91- 7392864355

navya.gupta559@nmims.edu.in

 

 

Law School NewsLive Blogging

About the Competition

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow is hosting the 10th edition of the International Media Law Moot Court Competition in collaboration with SCC Online. Ever since the 1st edition in the year 2013, the student community of National Law University, Lucknow has put in days of focused effort to organise this moot court competition which acts as the University’s contribution to the mooting fraternity of National Law Universities. It is very encouraging to see the participation increase consistently with every passing year. This year will see participation from 32 teams including both National and International teams.The teams vie for 4 categories of awards – Winners with a prize money of INR 25000, Runners Up with INR 15000, Best Oralist and Best Memorial with INR 10000 each.

This year’s Moot problem has been drafted by Mr. Anindya Roy and Ms. Ishita Khare. Mr. Anindya Roy is an alumnus of National Law University, Lucknow and is now an Associate at Goodwin Proctor, London. Ms. Ishita Khare, an alumnus of National Law Institute University, Bhopal is a Senior Associate at Khaitan and Co. The Moot Court Competition has come to fruition through the untiring support and dedication of the University’s Moot Court Committee (MCC) headed by Joint Convenors, Arunima Athavale and Deeksha Anand of the 5th Year.

Day 1 – The Opening Ceremony

4:15 PM:The inaugural ceremony of the Competition was graced by the benign presence of Prof. (Dr.) Subir K. Bhatnagar, the Vice Chancellor of the University, and Dr. Prasenjit Kundu, Faculty Coordinator of the Moot Court Committee.  

4:25 PM:The Vice Chancellor addressed the gathering, boosting the morale of all the participants. He talked about the importance of Moot Court Competitions in not only developing legal acumen but also being an important knowledge asset for law students. He thanked all the judges, SCC Online and declared the competition open. 

EBC Session

5:15 PM: Mr. Chetan Singh GillSenior Manager, Eastern Book Company addressed the gathering and held an interactive session about how to access and use the SCC Online database. He also discussed the nuances of mooting, and its importance in law schools.  

Match Ups

6:00 PM:The participants were briefed and after a short while the Match-ups were released post which Memorials were exchanged. The palpability in the meet was conspicuous, the participants left the meet with the mounting nervousness of presenting a case at court tomorrow.  

Judges Briefing 

7:45 PM:  The judges inclusive of experienced senior advocates, partners and associates at reputed law firms, joined the meeting to be briefed on the moot proposition, marking scheme and other technical details

Mr. Anindya Roy and Ms. Ishita Khare, the problem drafters delivered an insightful speech explaining the issues centered around the Moot Proposition.

8:00 PM:  A question and answer session was taken by the problem drafters regarding the issues related to the Moot Proposition.

The judges are ready for tomorrow to witness the preliminary round – 1, wherein 32 teams from the best law schools of the sub-continent present their case. 

Day 2 – Preliminary Rounds and Quarter–Final Rounds

Preliminary Round 1 – 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM

Court Room 1: WBNUJS, Kolkata was up against Villa College, Faculty of Sharia and Law. The counsels were grilled by the judges to extract the most coherent arguments. The participants put up a brave face on as they answered the questions to the best of their ability in order to put forth their most convincing arguments. The judge focused on various peculiarities of law that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments.

Court Room 2: Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar was up against BENNET University, Noida. The participants presented articulate arguments that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. The judges engaged in questioning regarding authorities and backing of international laws, which was dealt confidently by the counsels. The judges also engaged in procedural questioning. The judges focused on various peculiarities of law and international principles that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The round came to an end with engaging rebuttals.

Court Room 5: Christ College, Bangalore had a challenging round against National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi. The participants presented their arguments in a well structured manner, The judges grilled the counsels in order to extract the most cogent arguments. The judges primarily focused on the legal backing of the arguments with relevant case laws and precedents. The participants put a brave face on and answered the questions articulately. Both counsels were asked to submit their prayers following their arguments. The participants gained invaluable experience in the art of answering the queries of the judges with precision and brevity.

Court Room 8: National Law University, Jodhpur was up against SASTRA University,Thanjavur. The participants presented articulate arguments in an attempt to solidify their contention. The participants were questioned by the judges in great detail. The participants gave well thought out answers that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentations.

Court Room 10: Manipal University, Jaipur was up against CLC, Delhi. The participants presented articulate arguments, backed by the proper authority of law. The judges engaged in some grilling questioning, which the participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus thoroughly impressed. Both the teams were given the time extension of 3 mins and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentations.

After an intriguing set of arguments by all of the teams, we have now arrived at the end of the first session of the Prelims.

Preliminary Round 2 – 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM

Court Room 1: DNLU, Jabalpur faced off against Symbiosis Law School, Noida in a competitive round. The judges engaged in constant questioning, which was dealt with confidence by the counsels. The counsels did their utmost to persuade the judges that their arguments were legally sound, otherwise they would have been reduced to mere conjecture.  It was a battle between two premier law schools both equally placed in their research which ultimately came down to who could present their set of arguments in a more cogent and coherent manner.

Court Room 4: Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University were up against Nirma University, Ahmedabad. Before proceeding to the arguments, the judges asked the petitioners to summarize the facts of the case. The teams were well researched and presented convincing arguments to support the case on their respective sides. The judges questioned the participants on the particulars of the law, and international principles centered around the case at hand. After both the sides presented their arguments, they proceeded to the rebuttals.

Court Room 6: BENNET University, Noida faced Christ university, Bangalore and had tough battle. Both the teams presented a set of cogent and impressive arguments. The counsels were questioned by the judges multiple times, but it was dealt by both the sides confidently. The counsels answered the several queries of the judges with precision and brevity. The judges seemed pleased with the ancillary issues presented by the counsels to support their central argument. At the end both the sides engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.

Court Room 8: National Law University Odisha squared up against the equally talented team of National Law School of India University, Bangalore. The participants presented well drafted arguments indicative of the thorough research carried out by them. The participants seemed well versed with the intricacies of the problem and were questioned by the judges on the particulars of the law and its authoritative backing. The participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus thoroughly impressed. Following the arguments, the participants presented their rebuttals

Court Room 11: Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad v. Government Law College, Mumbai was a neck-to-neck round between two premier law schools. The court room saw the bustle as the counsel on behalf of the petitioners receives a round of questions from the Bench, which they answered to the best of their ability. Both the teams were given the time extension of 2 mins and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. The feedback was enriching for both the  teams.

Preliminary Round 3 – 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM

Court Room 1: DSNLU, Vishakhapatnam was up against TNNLU, Tamil Nadu. The participants presented articulate arguments that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. Both the teams had very competitive speakers. Both the teams engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. Judges gave a very motivating and enriching feedback at the end to both the teams.

Court Room 2: Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat squared up against Presidency University, Bangalore in an intense round where the judges grilled the counsels on the intricacies of the moot problem and relevant legal provisions. The judge focused on various peculiarities of law that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus thoroughly impressed.

Court Room 4: National Law School of India University, Bangalore and Symbiosis Law School, Pune faced each in a cutthroat round. Fine set of arguments were presented by both the sides accompanied with answering of questions presented by the judges in an attempt to make their respective cases stronger. The counsels presented their arguments with utmost clarity and coherence. The participants were questioned by the judges, and they answered the same with authorities and legal backing. The round came to a successful end after both the teams delivered their rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.

Court Room 5: The National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad v. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala was a close fight between two premier law schools. The participants presented their arguments in an attempt to make their case strong. The judges focused on various peculiarities of law that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The participants gave thorough answers to the judges. Following the arguments, the participants presented the Rebuttals. The judges gave an  inspiring feedback at the end and provided insight to the participants on how they can improve.

Court Room 8: NUSRL, Ranchi was up against GNLU, Gandhinagar. The court room saw an engaging round as the judges were asking numerous questions. The counsels attempted their best to try and satisfy the judges of the legal backing to their arguments Later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.  Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentations.

6:45 PM :The Quarterfinals Breaks

After a gruelling two rounds of tough questions and confident rebuttals the teams that have broken into the Quarterfinals of the 10th RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition, with their iron clad cases are-

Tamil Nadu National Law University

National Law University, Odisha

Symbiosis Law School, Pune

West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University

Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar

National Law University, Jodhpur

The Quarterfinals will begin shortly.

7:15 PM :The Quarterfinals 

Court Room 1: Tamil Nadu National Law University were up against National Law University Odisha in the quarterfinals round being judged by Mr. Pushkar Anand Mr. Divyanshu Bhatt and Mr. Victor Das, all of whom are very experienced. The judges grilled both the sides with constant questioning over the binding value of legal provisions mentioned by the counsel. The judges asked several tricky questioned which were answered by the counsels in a tactful manner and this taught them the much-valued art of thinking on one’s feet. The round came to an end with clear rebuttals and sur-rebuttals presented by both the sides.

Court Room No. 2: The room witnessed the round between Symbiosis Law School, Pune and WBNUJS, Kolkata. The bench comprised of Mr. Hari Krishnan, Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, and Mr. Kushal Bansal. The participants seemed exceptionally well versed with the facts and principles of law being applied to the case at hand. Mr. Hari Krishnan questioned the counsels on the principles of law extensively. The various tests applied by the counsels to satisfy the queries of the bench were indicative of the well-researched case being argued in the round. Both the teams were given the time extension of 3 mins and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.

Court Room No. 3 : Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University squared up against Symbiosis Law School, Noida. The round was judged by the learned bench comprising of Mr. Ishaan Madan, Mr. Ankit Yadav, and Ms. Kalyani Bhide. The round began with the Team from SLS Noida presenting its arguments. The counsel was asked to throw some light on the facts of the case. Following which the team was questioned thoroughly with respect to International Law. The counsel answered the questions with proper legal backing and sound legal principles. The team from BHU showed great zeal in presenting their arguments and dealt with all the questions thrown at them. This round brought out several interesting insights into the characteristics of the problem and their argumentation.  Following the rounds the judges gave valuable feedback to the participants in order to help them overcome their shortcomings

Court Room 4: The room saw Gujrat National Law University going up against National Law University, Jodhpur. Mr. Anindya Roy, Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Rishi Mishra were on the bench that posed a series of questions which put the participants in a position to think and come up with the most convincing of arguments. Both sides were confident and articulate in presenting their sides before the judges. The round came to an end with a brief and crisp set of rebuttals and sur-rebuttals.

The rounds came to end with teams from National Law University Jodhpur, Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Symbiosis Law School, Noida, and Tamil Nadu National Law University qualifying for the semifinals. They left the meet with excitement and nervousness for the big day tomorrow.

Day 3 – Semi-Finals and Final Rounds

12:00 PM: The Semi-Finals

Court Room No. 1 : The match-up between National Law University, Jodhpur and Symbiosis law School, Pune was an extraordinary display of skills of in-depth legal research and oral argumentation. Judged by the learned bench comprising of Ms. Ruchira Goel, Mr. Samar Kachwaha and Mr. Anindya Roy. Both the teams were given a time limit of 45 minutes each to present their arguments including rebuttals, the petitioners took an extension of 23 minutes, while the respondents took an extension of 13 minutes. The petitioners and respondents both started their arguments with the issue of maintainability. The teams presented international authorities before the bench to strengthen their case. The judges questioned the teams on the fundamental principles of international law when the speakers were arguing using the principles of freedom of speech expression under international law, judges and were precise in seeking loopholes in their narratives by trying to catch every mis-step of the counsels, which were responded to by both the teams to their best capacity. Both the teams were equally matched in their attempt to present strong and clear cases to the judges. The judges also asked the teams about their locus standi. The judges were well versed with the moot proposition and time and again referred to the same to ask the counsels questions referring to the same. The judges seemed pleased with the ancillary issues presented by the counsels to support their central argument. The round was reflective of the participant’s thoroughness of the law applied. By covering the finer points of the law, all four counsels covered all possibilities and contingencies to the case at hand and hence concluded a hard-fought semi-final round.

Court Room 2: Tamil Nadu National Law University versus Symbiosis Law School, Noida was a fierce round of arguments and counter-arguments. The bench comprised of Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Mr. Akash Prasad and Ms. Ishita Khare. The round began with the Team from SLS presenting their arguments. The counsel was asked to summarize the facts of the case before proceeding with the arguments. The judges grilled the participant regarding the facts mentioned in the moot proposition. Prachi Shreskar (speaker 2) was questioned in great detail regarding the statutes of the International Court of Justice and the significance of national symbols. The team from SLS concluded their arguments with a total extension of 25 minutes. The team from TNNLU was questioned thoroughly with respect to defamation. The participants answered the questions tactfully and provided the judges with the answers they were looking for. Mr. Aakash Prasad asked well-structured questions in order to gauge the knowledge of facts. The team concluded their arguments with an extension of 15 minutes. The counsels had to balance time-management with the plethora of issues to be dealt with. Fine speaking skills were put on display by the participants. The teams cited various authorities to back their arguments, to the satisfaction of the bench and as a counter to the contentions of the opposing counsels. It was a closely contested round which came down to the rebuttals in the final minutes of the round. The round was hard fought, adding to the anticipation of the results.

2:45 PM: The much awaited results of the Semi-finals have been declared, the teams making it to the Finals of 10th RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition  are –

National Law University, Jodhpur

Tamil Nadu National Law University

3:00 PM: The Final Round

 

The applicant, Tamil Nadu National Law University presented their submissions first –

Speaker 1

The proceedings started with agent 1 giving a brief submission of facts for the perusal of the judges.

The speaker then went on to systematically list out the issues to be argued by the counsel and the co-counsel hence lending a comprehensible structure to the method of argumentation. 

The first argument presented by the petitioners was that the current dispute in Issue-I is mainitable in front of the court. The counsel referred to Article 36(1) of the statute of ICJ in their first leg of arguments. In addition to all this it was argued that the court has jurisdiction over the presidential order passed, as both the parties are members of WTO and signatories of GATT. The judges questioned the agent regarding the jurisdiction and the type of International Law which is being applied in the present case. The judges also questioned whether a case of such commercial nature has ever been presented before ICJ and not WTO at any prior instance.

The petitioner answered the question by citing the case of Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, which led to further questioning by the judge over the relevancy of the cited case in the present matter. 

The judge then asked the counsel to define defamation against the state, the counsel defined the same using international law and said that this issue will be dealt with by the other speaker and moved on to the next issue i.e. freedom of speech and expression enshrined both in the Winlandan constitution and the International Law. The judge questioned the counsel over the locus on the issue, the counsel answered the same by talking about the erga omnes obligations that it draws from the UN Charter and ICCPR. The petitioner further argued about the merits of the ban, and how the ban does not fulfill the restriction by applying the 3 part test prescribed under article 19 of the ICCPRThe arguments under which were – 

Not prescribed by law

Lack of Legitimate aim

And it is not necessary and disproportionate. 

The judge asked the counsel to elaborate what facet of public international law has been violated, and how do they relate the state law with the international law, which was answered by the counsel.

The counsel dealt with the queries raised by the learned bench, gracefully and the court mannerisms and etiquettes were on full display during the course of argumentation.

 

Speaker 2 

The speaker started her submission by highlighting the 4th issue, which is – Whether the ban on Chirp under the Presidential Order is tenable under the principles of International law. And talked about the most favored nation treatment that the member nations of WTO get. 

The judges mentioned to the counsel that of the entire case of the petitioner s is merely based on trade disputes then why is wto not the correct forum for them and why have then approached ICJ, the counsel answered the same by clarifying that the case is not merely a trade disputes but includes more aspects than that.

The counsel argues that no good faith exception can be made in the present instance as time and again president palapatine has made anti qinquestian statements.

Then the counsel moved to make submissions on the issue of defamation and submitted that they are aware that there is no distinct definition of defamation of state hence they said they shall rely on Domestic laws and 38(1)(c) of statute of International Court of Justice, and they interpreted attributability from the same.

The counsel pointed out that an Additional context that needs to be considered is that in sickness runerians were being considered super spreaders who are majority in the country.

Therefore, by providing a wide perspective of the general narrative argued by the Plaintiff’s the co-counsel rested their case. 

 

The Respondents National Law University, Jodhpur presented the counter arguments next –

Speaker 1

After a stellar performance by the petitioners, the counsel for the respondent had their work cut out for them. 

The counsel on behalf of the respondent started by laying down their course of action for their submissions and said that they would discuss the first 2 issues. 

Their first submission was around the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the court in the present case. The respondents said that the dispute is not maintainable before the court as the court does not have the jurisdiction.

The counsel presented that Art. 42(1)(b) provides that a state party can refer the matter of alleged violation of provisions of ICCPR by another state party to the Human Rights Committee established under Art. 28(1) for the same purpose which has exclusive jurisdiction ,ICCPR does not confer jurisdiction upon ICJ and any dispute involving an alleged violation of human rights treaty as the subject matter cannot be adjudicated before this court and the same is not admissible, special jurisdiction will prevail and and this court will not have jurisdiction over the same.

The case of Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) was cited by the speaker, but the judges questioned the relevance of the case in the present situation as that case was about consular access. Iran v United states was also mentioned and judges questioned them about the facts, but the respondents were unaware of the same which was not appreciated by the judges. Further the judges asked the counsel for the authority which was answered by the counsel by citing the case of Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America which led to further cross questioning around the facts and principles of the same. 

Then the agent presented that defamation of state does not fall within any of the 3 sources of law presented by the petitioners, and hence the matter does not fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court.

The agent submitted that the present case fulfills the 3 part test under article 19 of ICCPR i.e.   

Prescription by law

Legitimate aim

Necessity and Proportionality

The judges questioned them on the aspect of national security, and asked them to not only rely on the facts but also mention the law to know the basis of the exception, which was then dealt with by the speaker.

Then the respondents submitted that the misinformation from the app led to ostracization of minorities, problems in hospitals, and the judges questioned the respondents on the same as it was their people using a foreign app spreading misinformation against their own people which was allowed by them themselves and now they are accusing a foreign entity of the same, which was dealt by the speaker.

Then the counsel moved on to their last argument about proportionality. With this the counsel rested their case and handed the podium to the co-agent.

 

Speaker 2

The second speaker on behalf of the respondents presented the third, fourth and fifth issue of the case.

They submitted that neither the external self determination nor Internal self determination can be attributed in the present case. 

The case of Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo was cited by the counsel to strengthen their arguments.

They submitted that the ban on chirp was effectuated for national security and public interest reasons, the judge then inquired as to  why this app was allowed to operate in the country earlier.

Judges asked whether the person joining the app was forced the give the information or has the choice to refuse, the respondent then said that there exists a privacy policy and the users were aware of the same, but there have been instances wherein chirp data has been sold illegally and consent provided by users is only for use of app not for other such illegal purposes, as used by the Chirp app.

Upon questioning by the judges the counsel submitted that the ban of chirp deals with all the issues such as miniformation, national security threat and hence if the ban on chirp is upheld by the court they would not approach the court again for the same claims. However, the judges still were not convinced with the issue of maintainability in the present case. 

Then the respondent moved to argue the merits of the case. 

The judges asked for the recourse that the respondents have for all the rights that have been violated, the speaker answered the same briefly. 

In order to prove the legitimate aim of the measure it is contended that there were several aims in the mind of the government like National security- national intelligence law required all organs to cooperate with the QCP regarding data collection. 

The counsel brought to notice Article 7 of National Intelligence Law Of The Socialist Republic Of Qinques states that The National Intelligence Law requires all Qinquestian enterprises and organizations to cooperate with the QCP in terms of data and information sharing with the government. 

The judges questioned the agent on their domestic laws, their intricacies and application in the present case. 

The counsel for the petitioner then proceeded with the following rebuttals: 

The first being that Clause 3b of the global financial powers act on pg 8 of clarification does not provide power to the president to curb free speech. 

The second being that the Special committee report did not ever actually recommend that the app needs to be banned and is an act of legislative overreach. 

The petitioner further submitted that the Unfortunate events that happened in private hospitals show no proof of any action taken by the government. Moreover, the Internal problems cannot be termed as national security, failure of govt to handle the situation is being labeled as a threat to national security.

The respondent then proceeded with the following Sur- rebuttals:

The counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has interpreted statutory provision and held it valid in terms of powers of the president.

The agent further submitted that Privacy of  individuals was getting hampered, and hence the action was needed.

The arguments of the both the sides, concluded, the bench now had to make a decision.

 

5:00 PM – The Closing Ceremony and Declaration of Results

Nervousness hung in the air as the teams joined the meeting for the declaration of results. After a brief address by Mr. Atul Kumar Tiwari, acting Vice Chancellor of the university wherein he welcomed everyone to the 10th edition of  RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition and thanked our sponsors for the support they have given to this competition from the last 10 years. He thanked the problem drafters for drafting a problem that dealt with such contemporary issues. Then an address was delivered by our Guests of honour Mr. Rahul Goel, Mr. Murali Neelakantan,and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Justice S. S. Shamshery who gave valuable feedback to the participants. They emphasized that one must give more time researching and less time rehearsing. 

The results of the 10th RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition were declared –

 

Best Memorial –  Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala

Best Speaker –  Symbiosis Law School, Noida, Aakshat Khetrapal

Runner’s Up – National Law University, Jodhpur 

Winner – Tamil Nadu National Law University

Tamil Nadu National Law University won the the RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition and thus concluded another successful edition of the sub-continent’s most reputed Moot on International Media Law.

Law School NewsLSAT IndiaMoot Court Announcements

Law schools organize Moot Competitions to train law students in reasoning, argument, and legal analysis. These competitions teach students to explore both sides of an argument, learn to present their conclusions coherently and improve their written and oral communication.

LSAC Global is providing this opportunity to law aspirants through the 2nd Moot Court Competition for Law Aspirants on 5th and 6th February 2022. This competition aims to provide a challenging and yet fun experience of the courtroom to law aspirants to help them develop their analytical, critical reasoning and advocacy skills without the need to have legal knowledge or any legal training. An interactive event that will provide an opportunity for participants to learn about the legal system and what it is like to be a lawyer.

The participants will be analyzing the factual matrix of the situation provided and arguing on the same.

 

Eligibility

The competition is open to all school students currently in grade 11, 12 or who are yet to be enrolled into a law school.

 

Objectives

LSAC Global is conducting this competition with the objective of improving communication skills, critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities of law aspirants. This will help in exposing high school students to the nuances of court system in India and provide real-life experience and training in presenting relevant oral and written arguments.

Registrations

Interested students can register for the event till 25th January 2022. All participants will be required to submit a Memorial on 31st January 2022 after due training is provided to them. Preliminary rounds will be conducted on 5th February 2022 for the shortlisted students and the winners of each preliminary round will qualify for the final round on 6th  February 2022. There is no registration fee for participating in this competition.

Prize

All participants who will register, successfully submit the memorials on the due date and appear for the oral rounds on the event date will be awarded a Certificate of Participation

The winners in the rounds will receive a Certificate of Merit and a medal under each of the following categories:

  • Winner
  • Runners-up
  • Best Written Argument and Memorial
  • Best Speaker

Important Dates

Registration for Moot Competition 7th October – 25th  January 2022
Mentoring/ Training Session 27th January – 29th January 2022
Memorial Submission 31st January 2022
Allotment of Sides 02nd February 2022
Preliminary Round 05th February 2022
Final Round 06th February 2022

 

Important Links

Moot Problem

2nd LSAC-DLI-Moot-Court-Brochure

Contact Details

For more details, please visit our website.

To register for the 2nd DLI Moot Court competition click Here.

In case you have any queries, write to discoverlawindia@lsac.org.

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

MAIMS was established in 2003 by Maharaja Agrasen Technical Education Society. The Society comprises a group of educationists, eminent industrialists and people from different walks of life. The Society has got success in establishing institutions of repute in the areas of Management, Law, Engineering and Journalism etc. The Institute has attained a distinct position in running BBA, B. Com (H), BA Eco (H), BA (JMC), BA LLB and BBA LLB (Integrated) programmes affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi.

 

Maharaja Agrasen Technical Education Society (MATES) added a new feather into its cap of excellence by introducing five-year integrated courses B.A. LL.B & BBA.LL.B from the academic session 2017-18 and 2020-21 respectively with the vision to provide quality education with a professional approach to the budding legal professionals.

ABOUT THE MOOT

The Moot Court Society, Department of Law, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies (MAIMS), is organizing its 2nd National Moot Court Competition, 2021. The competition aims to provide a platform for students across India to showcase their advocacy and research skills by competing in a professional and challenging environment.

The event is scheduled to be organized in a hybrid mode; the Inaugural Ceremony being organised in a Physical Mode (subject to the prevailing Government Protocols) while the Competition Rounds being organized in virtual manner in order to ensure safety of the participants.

ELIGIBILITY 

  • The competition is open for students pursuing LLB three-year / five-year course during the current academic year.
  • Only one team is permitted to participate from each participating Institution.
  • A team is not permitted to have members from more than one institution. Each team shall consist of three members.
  • This number cannot be modified under any circumstances.
  • In a team consisting of three members, two members shall be designated as ‘Speakers,’ and the third member shall be designated as ‘Researcher.’

DATE & VENUE

MAIMS 2nd National Moot Court Competition, 2021’ will be held from 26th November, 2021 to 28th November, 2021, of which Inaugural Ceremony would be held in physical mode, and the Oral Rounds would be conducted in virtual mode.

FEE DETAILS

The registration fee of Rs. 3000/- for each participating team consisting of three (3) members is to be submitted via online transaction on or before 25th October, 2021 by 11:59 p.m. (IST)

 

REGISTRATION DETAILS

To register online, please click on the link below: HERE 

MAIMS 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021 BROCHURE

Moot Problem – National Moot Court Competition

Rule Book – National Moot Court Competition

 

IMPORTANT DATES

  • Last Date of Registration: 25/10/2021 by 11:59 p.m. (IST)
  • Release of Moot Proposition: 17/09/2021
  • Publishing of Clarifications: 04/11/2021
  • Last date of Memorial Submission: 13/11/2021
CONTACT

For any queries, feel free to drop us an email at mootcourtsociety@maims.ac.in or contact the following:

For any further queries, you may contact:

Dr. Nisha Dhanraj Dewani– (C) 989-916-9706

(Faculty Convener, Moot Court Society, MAIMS)

Ms. Aarushi Agarwal– (C) 987-121-5225

(Faculty Co- Convener, Moot Court Society, MAIMS)

Shivam Sethi – (C) 959-982-9969

(Student Convener, Moot Court Society, MAIMS)

Sarthak Budhiraja – (C) 858-808-3076

(Student Co- Convener, Moot Court Society, MAIMS)

 

Follow our LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook pages for more updates.

Law School NewsLSAT India

INTRODUCTION TO MOOT COURT

Moot Court is a method of teaching law and legal skills frequently adopted in law schools. It requires students to analyse and argue both sides of a hypothetical legal issue​. The skill of Mooting enables students to think and analyse like an advocate. The students learn how to present their conclusion in a sensible and effective manner. It improves both the written and oral communication of a law student.

Know More about Moot Court visit – Redirect link to Moot Court Article

DLI MOOT COURT COMPETITION FOR LAW ASPIRANTS

LSAC Global will be hosting its first ever Moot Court Competition for Law Aspirants 2021 this year virtually.

DLI Moot Court for Law Aspirants 2021 is based on the notion of moot court with a little twist. It is aimed to provide an experience of Moot Court to prospective law students without resorting to core legal issues/arguments and assist them in developing their critical and analytical reasoning skills.

The participants will be analysing the factual matrix of the situation and arguing on the same.

OBJECTIVES

  1. To enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills that are required in law school.
  2. To encourage students to express their thoughts on an online medium and thereby improve their communication skills.
  3. To expose High School students to the nuances of court system in India.
  4. To provide a real-life experience cum training in presenting ground-breaking arguments (oral and written).

MOOT PROBLEM

Moot Problem is a hypothetical situation which makes up for a case in the court. The Moot Problem for this competition is based on an interesting tortious situation. It is important that the participants stick to the facts provided in the moot problem while forming arguments without dealing in legal provisions.

The moot problem for the competition can be downloaded from – PDF link

REGISTRATION

There is no registration fee for participating in this competition.

Register Now – https://forms.gle/CRCMZ5QTBSTVgTHj9

EVENT

The Moot Court Competition 2021 will be held virtually on 13th and 14th February 2021.

Know more about the Process and Rules  – PDF link

ELIGIBILITY

  1. The competition is open to all school students currently in grade 11, 12 or who are yet to be enrolled into a law school.
  2. Student confident in debating and public speaking with proficient communication skills in English language, logical reasoning, and critical thinking.

PRIZE

  1. Certificate of Participation

Certificate of Participation will be awarded to all the participants who will register, successfully submit the memorials on the due date and appear for the oral rounds on the event date.

  1. Certificate of Merit

Prizes on Merit include a Medal and Certificate under each of the following categories:

  1. Winner
  2. Runners-up
  • Best Written Argument and Memorial
  1. Best Speaker

IMPORTANT DATES

Event Date
Registration End Date 5th February 2021
Mentoring/Training Session 5th to 10th February 2021
Memorial Submission 11th February 2021
Allotment of Side 12th February 2021
Preliminary Round 13th February 2021
Final Round 14th February 2021

For more details, refer MOOT COURT COMPETITION FOR LAW ASPIRANTS 2021

MOOT PROBLEM

Register HERE 
In case you have any queries, write at discoverlawindia@lsac.org.

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1 – Inauguration, Registration, and Exchange of Memorials

1:00 p.m. – Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to the 8th Edition of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition 2018. We will be bringing you live updates from the competition everyday so remember to stay tuned to the blog and we hope you enjoy this ride with us.

1:05 p.m. – The teams have assembled for the registration. The room is buzzing with excitement and we can definitely feel the electricity.

2:05 p.m. – The following teams have registered for the competition.

  1. ILS Law College, Pune
  2. Maharshtra National Law University, Mumbai
  3. KIIT Law School, Odisha
  4. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  5. Damodaram Sanjivavya National Law University
  6. Maharani Laxmi Bai Govt. College, School of Law, Gwalior
  7. Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirapalli
  8. LLoyd Law College, Greater Noida, U.P.
  9. NUALS, Kochi
  10. National Law University, Odisha
  11. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  12. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  13. Institute of Law, Nirma University
  14. School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur T.N.
  15. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  16. School of Law, Christ, Bengaluru
  17. NUJS, Kolkata
  18. Law Centre – 1, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
  19. NLSIU, Bengaluru
  20. GLC, Mumbai
  21. IFIM Law College
  22. NLU, Jodhpur
  23. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
  24. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi
  25. University of Dhaka

2:15 p.m. – The teams have been briefed on the rules and will now be breaking for lunch. We’ll be back soon with all the details of the Inaugural ceremony. Stay tuned for what promises to be a knockout.

3:35 p.m. – Welcome back. We are live at the inauguration ceremony and are graced by the presence of dignitaries from various fields. We begin this ceremony with the lighting of the lamp and the Saraswati Vandana to bring this event to a fitting start. The Chancellor, Dr. S.J. Chopra, and the director of the School of Law, Dr. Tabrez Ahmad have presented the guests with a floral welcome.

3:48 p.m. – The Director of School of Law, Dr. Tabrez Ahmad is greeting the participants, and informing them about what they should expect from the moot court competition. He sets out, very eloquently, the purpose of Energy Law and the experiences he hopes that the participants will have.

3:54 p.m. – The Chancellor, Dr. S.J. Chopra, is now addressing the dignitaries with his wise words. He is truly an inspiration to us all.

3:59 p.m. – Dr. Parag Diwan, the founding Vice-Chancellor of the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, is now addressing the participants. A distinguished academician, Dr. Parag Diwan has always been a guiding light for the university and his knowledge acts as a lighthouse to all present here.

4:02 p.m. – Mr. Ashish Jain, the faculty co-convener is now briefing the participants about the event as well as the past editions of the same.

4:10 p.m. – Dr. R.B.S. Rawat, Ex-Chief Forest Conservation Officer, Uttarakhand is now briefing the participants about policy making and sharing his vast experience in the field of environmental law. He appeals to the participants to protect the environmental resources that have been granted to us and the importance of international law.

4:17 p.m. – The Guest of Honor, PadmaShri Dr. Avdesh Kaushal, is now addressing the students. The founder of RLEK and a champion of environmental rights, Dr. Kaushal is a legal luminary par excellence. He addresses the students on the need for the development of Energy Law jurisprudence.

4:21 p.m. – The Chief Guest, Mr. Shekhar Dutt, Former Governor of the State of Chattisgarh, India and a Retd. IAS Officer, is now addressing the students and motivating them to reach new heights. He talks of international law and polity and the landscape of the soft law system. Mr. Dutt stresses the need for research and the need to understand the International Politics. Mr. Dutt further talks about the discussion around the creation of public policy and strengthening the legal system.

4:32 p.m. – Mr. Krishna Deo Singh, Faculty Convener MCA gives the vote of thanks to all the dignitaries. The guests are felicitated by the Director, Dr. Tabrez Ahmed.

4:40 p.m. – We are now moving for the Group Photograph followed by the High Tea. We’ll be back for the Researchers Test and the exchange of memorials.

5:30 p.m. – The researcher’s test is underway. Meanwhile, the memorial exchange and the fixtures are being conducted in the Auditorium. The researcher’s test is for a duration of one hour.

6:00 p.m.- And we are heading towards the final event for the day, which an informative session from our knowledge partners- SCC online. Our Instagram page is giving the live update at energy_moot18 https://www.instagram.com/energy_moot18/   Follow it guys! We’ll back tomorrow with all the live updates from the Preliminaries and Quarter Finals. Watch this space.


Day 2 – Preliminaries, Quarter Finals and Cultural Night

10:10 a.m. – Ladies and Gentlemen, we are back for the second day of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition, 2018. We are live at the judges briefing as the research committee briefs the honorable judges about the moot problem and the intricacies of the challenges that the clients face. Meanwhile, the participants are seated in the courtroom, anxious to begin the day. We will be bringing to you all the live updates as the day goes on.

10:25 a.m. – Here are the fixtures for the first round of the preliminaries –

  1. GNLU v. CLC, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
  2. School of Law, Christ, Bengaluru  v. NLSIU, Bengaluru
  3. LLoyd Law College, Greater Noida, U.P. v. Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirapalli
  4. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi v. KIIT Bhubaneshwar
  5. RGNUL, Patiala v. School of Law, Sastra University, Thanjavur
  6. NUALS, Kochi v. NLU, Jodhpur
  7. Maharani Laxmi Bai Govt. College, School of Law, Gwalior v. ILS, Pune
  8. IFIM Law College v. MNLU, Mumbai
  9. Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, DU v. University of Dhaka
  10. DSNLU v. SLS, Pune
  11. School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (Swing Team) v. NLU, Orissa
  12. GLC, Mumbai v. NUJS, Kolkata
  13. Nirma University v. SLS, Hyderabad

The judges briefing continues as we wait with bated breath for the rounds to begin. The judges are grilling the research committee about the moot problem. We can only imagine what the participants are in for.

11:05 p.m. – The judges are making their way to the respective courtrooms as we fasten out seat belts for what promises to be a roller coaster of a ride.

Preliminaries – Round 1

Court Room 1:
GNLU v. CLC, Faculty of Law, Delhi University

The Agent 1 from the side of appellant has approached the bench and started off by stating the brief facts of the case. The judges are questioning the authenticity of the authorities being cited by the Agent, and the response by the agent doesn’t seem to be to the satisfaction of the judges and they seem unimpressed. Agent 2 has now approached the dais and is dealing with issue no. 3. Before the Agent could set the rhythm of the argument, the bench starts with the questions. Agent is unable to answer the questions of the judges successfully and the confidence of the agent seems to be wavering. He fares a little better with the 4th issue in what can only come as a relief to the appellants.

The Agent 1 from the respondent side has started off the argument in a systematic manner. However, the things have taken a turn for the worse as the judges seem to draw the conclusion that several of the arguments of the agent are not backed by any authority and are rather baseless., The judges are for the time being not intervening much, letting the arguments flow smoothly. However, it seems that we spoke too soon. The the last issue being dealt by the Agent seems to run counter to what the agent previously stated and the judges have caught onto that.

Court Room 2:
School of Law, Christ, Bengaluru v. NLSIU, Bengaluru

The Agent 1 from the side of the Applicant has approached the podium.
Judges are putting forward questions and asking them to back their authorities with proper citations. The arguments being raised by the Agent is being contradicted at every point by the judges and this doesn’t seem to be helping the Applicants case at all. They are in a tight position which they might find difficult to maneuver out of.
Agent 1 has now started with the second issue. The tension in the room rises as the Agent is unable to save their cause. Finally, after repeated signs of time extension, Agent 2 approaches the dais. The judges are poking holes in the arguments of the Agent very systematically. The agent is trying to anchor their drowning boat but it is not proving fruitful. Let’s see what the judges think.

Respondents are at the podium after a long wait.
They also get the same treatment from the judges. The compromis is analyzed carefully and in depth by the judges. Mathematics and geography are also scrutinized thoroughly.
The 1st issue of respondents has been disregarded completely with the Judges stating that their arguments and the compromis are not in consonance with each other.
The judges are being dismissive and now the respondents are being asked to move to their other issue. Agent 2 fares relatively well and is able to substantiate the arguments and it is smooth sailing for them now. Let’s hope it ends well for them

Court Room 3:
LLoyd Law College, Greater Noida, U.P. v. Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirapalli

The applicants have started with the briefing of facts. The judges are patiently listening to the legal arguments being presented by the Agent 1. The judges are questioning the authority of the cases cited by the applicants. The Agent 2 seems confident and judges seem quite satisfied with his arguments. The counsel has been continuously referring to the compromis and all in all this is a great performance.

The Excellencies have asked the respondents to brief them with facts which favour them. The agent has been using the moot compromis and the memorial to substantiate her arguments. They have moved on to the arguments. With the lack of time, the Excellencies have asked the agent to conclude her arguments. The co-agent seems very well prepared to clear the queries of the excellencies. The co-agent has been answering the questions with poise. Due to lack of time the excellencies have asked the co-agent to wrap up with her arguments.

Both these teams are equally matched. This is an exciting contest.

Court Room 4:
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi v. KIIT Bhubaneshwar

The judges have asked the applicants to present the facts. As soon as Agent 1 started with the legal arguments the judges bombarded them with a lot of questions. The applicants have not filed a compendium which is creating a problem in proving the authorities they have cited. The judges don’t seem satisfied with the arguments and have asked the Agent to conclude her arguments. The Agent 2 is unresponsive to the questions asked by the judges.

The respondent agent has directly started with the legal arguments. The agent has not been able to provide any authority for some of their arguments and instead have referred to Dictionaries. The Excellencies are not at all convinced with the authorities they have cited.
The co-agent is giving accurate answers but is it enough to undo the damage caused by the lack of substantiation?

The excellencies have reverted to asking about the basics of international law and this will be a real challenge for the respondents.

Court Room 5:
RGNUL, Patiala v. School of Law, Sastra University, Thanjavur

Agent 1 of the applicants seeks the permission of the excellencies to proceed.
Agent 1 has started to explain the finer points of their arguments with assertion. The judges tried to waver the confidence of the agent however it seems that the agent was prepared for that as those arrows from the side of excellence were dealt eloquently with by the Agent. The court is well involved in the orals now, listening intently to the arguments being presented by the agent.
Agent seems to be well prepared as the question which was asked by the judges was dealt with ease by the Agent. However, judges are not fully satisfied with the agent’s explanation and have now started to grill the Agent on that particular point.

Respondent
Agent II from the respondent side seems to be prepared to clear the way and give light to their arguments, however, its all in vain. The Agents are unable to wade through the never ending questions of the judges. Let’s see how the judges view their performance.

Court Room 6:
NUALS, Kochi v. NLU, Jodhpur

The applicant seeks permission from the judge to approach the bench and begins with his oral arguments, however, the Agent seems nervous and is fumbling. The judges are getting impatient and ask the Agent to wrap up their arguments within 10 minutes and then the agent of the applicant seeks permission to proceed. The judges start to grill the Agents on various issues mercilessly and the Agent is taking various defenses but the Judges seem unconvinced.

The respondent after seeking the permission of the judges to approach the bench has started with the issues and the respondent seems very confident and very clear with the issues and judges also seem very impressed and are intently hearing the arguments. The judges have now started grilling the agent on various legal issues. The atmosphere in this courtroom is rather quiet, with a question here and there from the judges and no other drama.

We cannot tell which way this contest will tilt. Stay tuned.

Court Room 7:
Maharani Laxmi Bai Govt. College, School of Law, Gwalior v. ILS, Pune

The Agent no. 1 for the applicant has approached the dais and in a confident and articulate manner began his arguments. Agent no. 1 is done with his arguments and it’s time for Agent no. 2 to begin with the arguments. The bench is letting the proceedings, run in a very smooth manner, with minimal intervention. This would definitely come as a sign of relief for the respondents who will shortly take the stand. The applicants have rested their case. It was a good performance by both the counsels, only time will tell, if the bench agrees with us. Stay tuned.

Agent No. 1 for the respondents approaches the dais to present their case. A very fine display of confidence and reasoned, argumentative skills. That was the smoothest flow of argument, probably, ever and well within the allotted time.
Agent 2 for the respondents begins with his arguments. The judges are having a hard time here, the agent is a very soft-spoken guy. Well, he better get his pitch up or it may cost his team. The respondents are done with their case and the applicants have been called upon for rebuttals.

Court Room 8:
IFIM Law College v. MNLU, Mumbai

The judges are in total control of the proceedings from the word go. Agent No. 1 for the applicant is in a very tight spot and the clock is ticking. She has run out of time and the judges have a lot of unanswered questions.She somehow survived this extremely inquisitive bench, let’s see if her co-agent can do any better.
The bench is back at it, and the council is in a bit of a spot right now. Well, well, well, the applicants have had to rest their case due to paucity of time. The applicants would definitely be feeling that they could have done better.

The respondents shall now present their case. Agent No. 1 for the respondents is in the line of fire, and the bench is  mulling over the arguments. The agent is clearly struggling in keeping up with his line of arguments. The allotted time and the allowed extra time is over and the questions don’t seem to end. Agent 1 would be happy with the effort that he put in. It was a valiant one.

Agent 2 is called upon to argue the rest of the respondent’s case. She began her arguments in a poised and calm manner. The judges have let off with a barrage of questions and the trend continues. And yet again, the agent had to go past the allowed extra time to complete her argument. This bench has proven to be a tough one for both the teams, but then, a moot is all about satisfying the bench, let’s see which of the two teams did a better job.

Court Room 9:
Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, DU v. University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

We have started with the matchup. 1st Agent from the side of the appellant has approached the dais. As soon as she cited the relevant authorities for her arguments the Judges began with their questions.
Judges are grilling the 1st Agent mercilessly but to the Agent’s credit, she has managed to keep her cool and answered to the satisfaction of the judges.
As soon as Agent 2 approaches the dais, the judges start questioning him on the procedural legality of the grounds and principals on which their arguments are based. The agents looks confident and the judges seem impressed
Judges are now on a spree of cross-questioning, the Agent is now wavering in his demeanor and seems to be caught in the web of questions.
It has been 10 minutes since the expiration of time period yet, judges are questioning him on his each and every statement. Researcher of Appellant is trying to help out his team member but it looks like he is failing miserably because for every one answer of speaker judges have two new questions ready for him.

1st speaker of Respondents has approached the Dais. He seems to be lacking confidence but judges seem impressed that he has all the copies of cited judgments.The speaker is under volley of questions by the judges and tries to answer all of them to the satisfaction of judges.

Agent 2 of respondent has now approached the Dais. Judges are asking the Agent several legal questions from the very start of the orals. Judges do not look satisfied with her answers but nevertheless, let her continue. Agent is putting forward her arguments supported by numerous case laws and conventions and is backing it up with help of a fact sheet.
Judges seem impressed by her thorough knowledge of the compromis and case laws but continue to grill her mercilessly, not even giving her time to speak or complete her answers.
The judges seem to be on a rampage as they raise question after question not even waiting for the answers. The respondent manages to respond to most of the questions sufficiently.

Court Room 10:
DSNLU v. SLS, Pune

Judges have arrived and the round begins!
Agent 1 states the facts and follows it up by addressing the issues. The Agent has lost track of the argument and has dug a hole so deep that she is unable to get out.

Agent 2, on the other hand, is quite assertive and speaks with a bold voice filled with confidence, however, that confidence starts to waver when the Agent is unable to answer the questions of the judges and in fact ends up countering his own arguments.

Agent 1 of the respondent started out with a lot of composure and confidence but after the questions of the judges, he seems a little lack-luster. However, the Agent pushes through and gains back his composure after hopefully has managed to convince the judges on the issues.
Agent 2 is passionate with her oral arguments. The judges try to divert her by their questions but she is sticking to her issues. She is well versed with the facts of the case and using them as a shield for the queries of the judges.

All of these matches are going to go down the wire with no one team emerging as the clear winner. We can’t wait to see what round 2 holds.

Court Room 11:
School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (Swing Team) v. NLU, Orissa
Judges started firing questions at Agent 1 right away. Some questions were answered to the satisfaction of the judges, some were not. The questions of judges are deceptively clever to confuse the speaker.
Agent 2 addresses the remaining issues. Judges are relentless with their questions but Agent 2 is managing the onslaught with vigor. The arguments of Agent 2 were good and delivered in an articulate manner but he was continuously addressing the judges erroneously.

Agent 1 from the respondent approaches the bench. She speaks in a composed manner and is making fine points. Now the judges starts asking questions of all sorts. The speaker is trying her best to answer these questions in a manner that the curiosity of the judges be satiated. In the final minutes she submits her issues and their justification.
Agent 2 follows through by elaborating the issues and countering the allegations of the applicants. Also she is answering the questions of the judges in an unwavering manner. The judges grant the second agent an extension to allow her to finish her argument. This is too close to call

Court Room 12:
GLC, Mumbai v. NUJS, Kolkata

The Agent for the Applicant side starts with briefing the facts and deals with the issues ably leaving no room for doubt. The judges, however, seem to find certain loopholes in her arguments and are now firing questions at her, which she manages to handle deftly for the moment. Agent 1 continues with her argument but is again under pressure of the Judges’ questions which she tries to answer to the best of her ability.
Agent 2 has now taken the floor and continues with their contentions. The Bench has turned quite inquisitive and the Applicant side appears tense. The Respondent side seem to be taking notes at the speed of light to rebut the Applicant’s arguments.
The Agent continues her arguments against the ticking clock. The questioning seems to have taken a toll on Agent 2’s composure although her arguments appear to have clarity of thought. Agent 2 has exceeded her time but the Judges appear interested to hear her out and allow an extension. The Applicants finally rest their case. Let’s see how the Respondents shape their arguments against the Applicants’ case.

The Agent for the Respondent side takes over the floor, she appears quite confident and manages to convince the Judges with her answers to their queries. Agent 1’s arguments are factually sound and she seems to know what she’s dealing with. But wait, this is getting interesting. The Bench is grilling Agent 1 and she appears to be faltering, her team members try to help her out by passing chits. The Judges do not appear convinced, seems like Agent 1 could not cross that hurdle smoothly.
Agent 1 passes on the torch to Agent 2 and Agent 2 continues with their contentions in a composed manner. However, Agent 2 does not appear as energetic as her predecessor and the tension in the room seems to have stilled. Agent 2 does not lose her composure even in the face of questions being fired at her. The time has come to an end but the Respondents are taking time to wrap up. The Respondents finally rest their case. This is going to be a tough one to decide.

Court Room 13:
Nirma University v. SLS, Hyderabad

It seems that the judges were prepared to grill the applicants from the word go. Though the applicant is soft- spoken but he confidently answered the questions asked by the judges substantiating with some cases. However, the co-agent of the applicant seems to be nervous and the judges have taken advantage of this fact and are now bombarding the agent with questions.The co-agent seems to be lacking preparation and is unable to answer the questions of the judges and does not seem to be well-versed with the facts. The arguments seems to be slowly getting away from the hands of the applicant as Judges continue to grill them mercilessly.

The judges seem to grill the respondent from the very start just as they did the applicant. The respondent seems to struggle with the questions asked by the Excellencies. However, the co-agent seems to be confident with the arguments and is fairly answering the questions but the real struggle is to satisfy the Excellencies. The grilling has continued till the end, be it the respondent or the applicant.

That brings us to the close of the first preliminary round. We’ll be back with the fixtures for the second round along with all the live updates.


Preliminaries Round 2

Court Room 1
SLS Hyderabad v SOL, Christ, Banglore

The agent no. 1 from Applicant has come up and she is giving a short brief of facts related to the case simultaneously referring to similar cases to prove her argument and the judges are not interrupting as of yet. By the end of the arguments of Agent 1 however, the judges seem to have drawn the conclusion that the Agent is not clear with the law. She has dealt with issue no 1 and 2, now agent no. 2 has resumed the proceedings and is going to deal with issue no. 3 and 4. As Agent No. 2 falters in the very beginning against unrelenting judges, it seems that she has her work cut out if she wants to impress the judges. Let’s see if the Respondent perform any better.

The agent no. 1 from the respondent side has approached the dais and stating the fact briefly in order to set the base for her arguments. She explains her arguments succinctly and persuasively. Now the agent no. 2 has come up to deal with the issue no. 3 and issue no. 4, and he easily manages to convince the judges with his brilliantly structured arguments not leaving a lot of room for interrogation.

Court Room 2
NUJS, Kolkata v GNLU

The agent 1 approaches to the podium. Right off the bat, the Bench starts with a deep research. Agent 1 manages to answer beautifully, blending the facts of the case with proper cases.
However they have not adhered to the time limit and, let’s hope it doesn’t cost them a lot.The agent 1 now is in a trouble with the question put forward to her. She is not able to satisfy the judges as all her approaches and efforts of making the argument are going into vain.
Retrieving her confidence and putting forward her arguments she steps down from the podium.
Agent 2 approaches the podium and is already put forward with a question before even she starts with her arguments.
The agent is also smoothly tackling with the questions put forward and is satisfying the judges. The agent 2 very skillfully has managed not to invite a lot of cross-questioning.

The respondent approaches the podium. The agent 1 starts with their contentions, affirming it with the help of case laws. It seems to be going smoothly for the Agent, however, when they start with the other contentions, the Agent has contradicted themselves, in turn resulting in a barrage of questions.
However, Agent 1 manages to navigate well and is dealing with the other contentions seemingly well.
Agent 2 takes the podium in a very diffident manner and has been advised by the Judges to calm themselves down and then proceed. The advice has worked for the Agent as he is able to successfully answer the three questions being posed to him. Although the questions never seem to end, the Agent has fared quite better than what was expected out of him in the beginning.

Court Room 3
NLU, Odhisa v GGSIPU

The applicant seems to be under pressure from the very beginning, yet the agent 1 tries her best to answer the questions raised by the Excellencies. The agent 1 has cited conventions and case laws to prove her points and that seems to work and the excellencies seem pretty satisfied. The agent-2 begins her arguments in a very confident manner. The excellencies interrupt the agent-2 with questions to which she answers confidently and to the satisfaction of the excellencies. But now the agent-2 is only repeating her arguments and is stuck in the rut unable to take the applicants arguments forward.

The respondent Agent 2 seems confused since the beginning of her arguments, Which has led to continuous interrogation by the excellencies. The agent 2 is not able to understand the questions put up by the excellencies and seeks permission to conclude her arguments. The performance by the Agent 2 is quite disheartening and a total let down. Let’s see if the judges agree with us.

Court Room 4
SLS Pune v Llyod Law College

The Agent 1 of the applicant has begun in a systematic manner. The excellencies have started with a lot of questions. There has been continuous passing of the chits and Agent 1 is seeking help from them to answer the excellencies. The excellencies don’t seem convinced with the answers. Agent 1 continued with his arguments. One of the excellencies just said that he is bored with the arguments. Agent 2 is pretty confident and starts out and ends confidently.

Agent 1 for the Respondent has begun on a very confident note and is in total control of the proceedings. Agent 1 is well versed with the facts and the arguments. The excellencies didn’t get a chance to question the Agent 1 at any point.
But the tables have turned as soon as Agent 2 starts with his arguments. He is being bombarded with a lot of questions. The excellencies are discussing a lot amongst themselves. Agent 2 is facing the brunt of the attack and let’s see if they crumble under the pressure. This is quite an interesting contest.

Court Room 5
University of Dhaka v NUALS, Kochi

The agent 1 from the side of the applicant seems to be nervous in the very beginning. The excellence have started with the questions and the applicant has been pushed into defensive mode.
The agent tries to smartly side-step questions that could lead to problems for them but the Excellencies seem determined to get an answer.
The session is getting more interesting as the agent is bombarded by the judges. This intense back and forth is amazing to look at.
The applicant side is actively participating, with the co-agent and the researcher, helping the agent in salvaging this situation. The second agent has been interrupted right at the beginning of her first argument and the judges are punching holes in the arguments of the Agent and she is being trapped in her own arguments. Let’s see if the respondents fare any better.

The Respondents are next and they start off their argument by submitting a huge compendium. Agent 1 deals with the excellencies in an able manner and supporting his argument by using facts. The excellencies are in total control, however, Agent 1 from respondent’s side seems very well prepared to clear the queries of the excellencies.The agent is well versed with his arguments which somehow prevented him from grilling. The agent answered most of the questions satisfactorily and passes on the rest to his co-agent who performed equally well.

Court Room 6
MNLU, Mumbai v MLB, Gwalior

The round starts on a low note as the applicants seem to be low on energy. The agent 1 seems rather unprepared and not well-versed with the facts of the case and the laws pertaining to it. The judges act as the guiding light to the agent, helping him navigate through the issues of his case. But it seems that the Judges are done being nice, and have now started grilling him extensively.
Agent 2 has started with vigor, but it doesn’t help their situation as such because the Judges seem unimpressed.

Agent 1 of the respondents approached the bench with confidence. However, the confidence of the Agent was shaken as the judges pointed out an error in their prayer. A total turnaround in the attitude of Agent 1 is noticed as now he seems nervous. Agent 2 is unable to rescue their sinking ship.

Court Room 7
NLU, Jodhpur v IFIM Law college

Agent 1 for the applicant begins with her submissions in a calm and composed manner. She is swiftly moving through her structure of arguments and comfortably answering the questions put forth by the bench. Agent 1 has summed up her arguments within the allotted time and here comes Agent 2 to address the remaining issues. A fine display of argumentative skills. Well within the allotted time, covering all the bases and satisfying the questions of the bench as and when asked. It’s time for the respondents to take the dais and present their case before the bench.

Agent 1 for the respondents begins with her submission and she is done with her arguments with minimal intervention from the bench. Agent 2 takes the dais to substantiate the remaining issues. It was a confident display of argumentative skills by both the agents and they were able to put forth their case well within the permissible time limits. The applicants are called upon to submit their rebuttals.

The round is too close to call. Anyone’s match.

Court Room 8
ILS, Pune v RGNUL, Patiala

Agent 1 for the applicant takes the dais and begins with his arguments. The bench has come out all guns blazing and Agent no. 1’s confidence is taking quite a hit. The clock is ticking and agent 1 is not even done with his first issue. Time over, the agent did a decent enough job, pulling things ?together at the end and resting his issues on a satisfactory note.
Agent 2 has been called upon to address the remaining issues raised by the applicants. Agent 2 is doing a good job, the bench is not taking it easy on any of the agents. They have questions and these questions are hampering the flow of arguments.

Agent 1 for the respondents begins with her submissions. The bench has posed a question to which the agent seems to have no satisfactory answer. Excellencies have allowed the researcher to research the said question while the agent continues with her other submissions. The bench is not very satisfied with the submissions being made by the respondents. Time is running out and Agent 1 is in a bit of a spot right now.
Finally, agent 1 is done with her submissions and agent 2 takes the dais to deal with remain issues. Agent 2 starts her submissions on a confident note, addressing the questions raised by bench. Agent 2 is very categorically enunciating her arguments and the counter-arguments to the questions posed by the bench. And the trend continues, the permissible time limit is over and agent 2 is not yet done with her submissions. Agent 2 is asked to quickly sums up her submissions and the applicants have been called upon for rebuttals.

Court Room 9
SOL, Sastra University v DSNLU

We have started with the matchup.
1st Agent of Appellant has approached the dais and briefs judges with the facts. On being questioned, Agent 1 is unable to answer the questions. Disappointed, judges grant her permission to carry on. The Agent looks a bit unprepared.
The Agent is slowly trying to get back in the game. She is substantiating her arguments with relevant case laws. But the judges are getting to her with their unending questions and the Agent seems to lose her composure and confidence.
Unable to answer the questions, speaker seeks an apology and sums up her arguments.
Agent 2 of Appellant has now approached the dais. The demeanor of the Agent is quite nervous and she seems diffident. Cross questioning of the judges have taken her by surprise it seems. Speaker does not seem to be making valid points and the judges don’t seem impressed.
Speaker humbly submits her prayer and move back to her position.

Agent 1 for the Respondents has approached the dais. Agent 1 seeks permission to directly address the issues in question and her confident demeanor has given the Respondents a smooth start which we hope is maintained throughout their round.
Agent 2 has now approached the dais and has maintained the flow of their orals by giving a powerful argument and further substantiating it with case laws.
I think we jumped to the conclusion too soon as while dealing with the other issue, the Agent 2 stumbles. She looks confused and nervous and unable to answer the questions being posed by the judges.

Anything can happen folks. This competition is just getting exciting.

Court Room 10
DSNLU v. SLS, Pune

Agent 1 takes her position at the podium with the permission of the bench. A question is raised regarding sovereignty which the agent answered adequately. The issues were raised with justification attached to them by the agent. There were some questions left unanswered in the air but the arguments were fairly appropriate.
Agent 2 is submitting the issues and the judges are asking questions regarding the basis of these issues. Agent is answering these questions to the best of her ability. Agent is warned once to not to assume facts and use them to support her claim. One of the issues of the agent was not substantiated properly. Judges are asking questions mercilessly. Agent is boxed into a corner and there seems to be no way out.

Agent 1  for the respondent speaks with assertion. The judges ask her deceptively clever questions but she manages to answer them successfully.
Agent 2 approaches the bench. The agent seems confident. The answer given by the agent to the question by the bench backfires a little and causes harm to the credibility of the respondent. The agent fumbles a bit after being continuously questioned by the judges. He starts citing case laws now to support his claim. It looks like the harm is already done as the judges continue grilling him with questions.

Court Room 11
TNNLS v GLC, Mumbai:

Agent 1 has started with her contentions from the Applicant’s side after a brief overview of facts. She appears nervous. The Hon’ble Bench is interrogating her vigorously, let’s see how Agent 1 fares in the face of adversity. This is getting quite interesting. Chits are being passed continuously by her team members to help her out of this tight spot. The Judges seem to be enjoying the grilling. Agent 1 has finally moved on to their next contention, but the Judges are on a roll. Agent 1 pleads ignorance to their query but tries her best to regain her flow but the clock is ticking to an end. Agent 1 has to stop midway and passes the mantle to Agent 2.
Agent 2 tries her best to bring the ball back to court. The Bench has turned quite inquisitorial and Agent 2 is struggling to keep up. There’s a light moment in the room when the Judges ask Agent 2 if she’s the Vatican to be able to do anything and get away with it. The Respondents seem to be enjoying the Applicants’ grilling but let’s see what end they come to in a while. The time is up and the Applicants rest their case.

Agent 1 has taken the floor from the Respondents’ side and appears confident. The Bench continues its interrogation but Agent 1 manages to convince the judges all through maintaining her composure. However, the Judges are not one to back down but the Researcher steps in to save the situation. Agent 1 continues on to their next issue, but the Judges have put her in a tight spot again which she again manages to evade successfully.
Agent 2 takes the mantle from her but starts off with wrong facts on International Law and lands herself in a tight spot. The Judges hand her submission back to her on grounds of ignorance by the Respondents and asks her to continue with her issue. Agent 2‘s composure has taken a toll and she appears flustered. She tries her best to maintain the standards set by her predecessor and successfully manages to regain her flow. Chits are being passed at a furious rate by her team members and the tension in the room is high. It’s the Applicants’ turn to enjoy the show, and this has taken an interesting turn of events. Agent 1 has run out of time and has to hurry to wrap up their arguments. The Respondents finally rest their case.
Despite their slightly fizzled out end, the Respondents have definitely given the Applicants a run for their money.

Court Room 12:
NLSIU, Banglore v Nirma University

Agent 1 starts submitting various issues and arguments to the bench. The bench is occasionally raising queries. She is citing various international law principles to substantiate her claims. She maintains her calm while answering questions from the bench.
Agent 2 speaks with less confidence compared to the other agent but affirms the claims of the other agent and her own with principles and case laws. She is passionate about her claims and conveys these claims firmly. She uses the judges’ questions to further her claim to the case. The agent is thorough with her research is using the memorial, moot problem & compendium intensively.

Agent 1 of the Respondent firmly makes his points and claims. He is rejecting the arguments of applicants simultaneously. The manner of delivery of the arguments by the agent is good. There are occasional queries by the bench which are satisfied by the agent to the mark.
Agent 2 seeks the permission of the bench to argue before the bench. He begins by rejecting the claims made by the applicants. Documents are given to the judges to substantiate the claims made the agent. There seemed to be some question about inter-generational equity which was adequately answered by the agent

Court Room 13:
CLC, DU v UPES, SOL (Swing Team)

The applicant started in a systematic manner, describing the structure of their arguments and the time allotted for the same. The applicant firmly states his arguments and initially answers all the questions asked by the Excellencies. However, in the latter part, he seems to struggle with the questions asked. The co-agent seems to be confident with the facts, but seemed to struggle at the end of his argument.

The respondent with a slow pace began with the arguments, however he later faced the questions asked by the Excellencies. Seems like the co agent was extremely well versed with the facts but however not well versed with the arguments and the laws supporting the arguments which was somewhat case for the appellant as well. After what seemed like an eternity of question, the judges finally allowed the respondents to move onto the prayer.

The second round of the preliminaries has come to an end. We’ll be back with the results soon.


3:50 p.m. – The judges are being felicitated as we move on towards the quarter-finals. Here’s a list of all the teams that qualified and who they will be facing –

  1. Nirma University v. NLU, Odisha
  2. TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli v. MNLU
  3. NLU, Jodhpur v. Lloyd Law School
  4. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University v. RGNUL, Punjab

Court Room 1 – Nirma University v. NLU, Odisha

Agent No. 1 for the applicant begins his submissions with poise and confidence. The Excellencies have broken the flow of arguments and are dictating the proceedings. The agent has just contented a fact that did not please the bench. Agent 1, played it extremely well, the bench had some unanswered concerns and he was able to satisfy the same.
Agent no. 2 comes forth to present the remaining submissions. The bench is not convinced with the submissions being made, as in their view the burden of proof has not yet been discharged and the argument cannot be taken to be conclusive. Agent 2 has shown immense composure under pressure. The applicants have rested their case and it’s time for the respondents to present their submissions.

Agent 1 for the respondents begins her submissions and the excellencies are on it from the word go. They are bombarding questions and agent 1 for the respondent is skillfully dealing with the queries. A few fundamental questions related to Public International Law, to check the Agent’s legal acumen. Agent 1, has used up all of her time and is forced to summarize her arguments within 2 minutes.
Agent 2 approaches the dice and explains the line and structure of her arguments, that she is going to submit before the excellencies. She begins with her submissions. Keeping up with the good performance of Agent 1, Agent 2 looks confident and has everything under control. The Excellencies have increased the pressure and Agent 2 is in a tough spot, right now. Well, that is some splendid argumentative skill, being displayed here.
The Respondents conclude their submissions and rest their case with their prayer.

Court Room 2 – TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli v. MNL

Agent 1 steps up to the podium to address the bench. She starts with the facts of the case which are followed by the contentions. The excellencies do not give any time to the participants and start asking questions right away to test the preparation of the agent. The judges do not seem to be satisfied by the answers provided by the agent. The confidence of the agent crumbles completely and it seems that she does not have any satisfactory answers. The proceeding moves to the 2nd issue. The agent fails to regain her confidence & composure. We move to issue 3. Agent again tries to find her rhythm and she partially succeeds. It does not look very hopeful.
Agent 2 comes to the stand and is ambushed by questions regarding jurisdiction which the agent fails to establish. It seems that the team is mildly unprepared. The agent is unable to convince the bench of the party’s issues. The performance of agent 2 though better than that of the co-agent is still a bit lacking. The judges are merciless with their questions which too is hampering the composure and poise of the agent. In the end the agent was doing well but it all crumbled when she wasn’t able to answer a simple question like “What is ‘opinio juris’?”

As the respondents take the dais it is clear that the judges are not sparing anyone from their questions. Again the bench asks of jurisdiction through which the agent 1 of respondent has approached the bench. Agent 1 is holding on somehow from the relentless questioning of judges. He is citing various case laws and the judges are asking the facts and circumstances in those case laws to get a better understanding of the contentions made by the agent. It seems an answer was given which was to the satisfaction of the bench. Agent is still trying to hold his ground and convice the court of his issues by citing various principles. The agent is throwing allegations towards the applicants.
Agent 2 takes the podium and begins with their remaining contentions. He appears a little nervous though and manages to answer the questions fired at him by their Excellencies confidently if not correctly. However he starts to falter in the face of further interrogation and the Bench has successfully managed to put him in a tight spot. The Applicants seem to be jotting down notes at top speed for rebuttals, let’s see what they have up their sleeve. Meanwhile, Agent 2 is listing out case laws in order to wriggle out of this situation. Agent 2 starts with his final submission but the Bench seems to have a lot of inquiries in relation to his arguments. However, the questioning does not dampen Agent 2’s spirit and composure and he continues with his contentions. The clock is ticking to an end and the Respondents finally rest their case.

Court Room 3 – NLU, Jodhpur v. Lloyd Law School

Agent 1 from the Applicants’ side has taken the floor and begins with a brief statement of facts and moves on to her issues. She appears confident and clear about her arguments. Her contentions appear well researched and she continues uninterrupted. But that’s not to continue for long because their Excellencies have started putting forth their queries. However Agent 1 handles the situation well and their Excellencies appear satisfied. She’s quick to substantiate her arguments with the documents being submitted by her to their Excellencies. Agent 1 began to falter in answering a query but soon regained her flow. Maintaining time well she passes on the onus to Agent 2 who continues with their third issue.
Agent 2 also appears bold and confident and maintains the standards set by her predecessor. She’s well versed with judicial decisions on various cases and preachings of jurists. Though she appears nervous when faced with grilling by their Excellencies, she manages to hold her own. There seems to be a difference of opinion between Agent 2 and their Excellencies which is soon resolved and Agent 2 moves on to their last issue. Agent 2 comes to an end of her submission. The Applicants have enunciated their arguments and supported their inferences with numerous authorities. It is going to be a tough task to match up to the same. Let’s see if the Respondents can come up with a fitting reply.

The agent 1 of the respondent has started. She has been answering all the questions which have been put up by the excellencies and they seem pretty much convinced with the answers. Despite the continuous cross-questioning from the bench, Agent-1 has been able to answer all of them.
Agent-2 is going to elaborate upon the last 3 issues. She seems well prepared with her arguments. As soon as the excellencies started with their queries, Agent-2 became a little confused. The excellencies have now started to ask specific questions relating to the facts of the case.
The judges don’t seem very interested in the rebuttals of the teams.

Court Room 4 – Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University v. RGNUL, Punjab

The agent 1 of the applicants has begun by introducing the issues. The excellencies are patiently listening to the arguments. But that was only for a while and now the judges have started to ask a lot of questions. The excellencies have asked the Agent 1 to corroborate his arguments with authority but he is unable to do so. Due to the paucity of time the excellencies have asked the Agent 1 to move on to the next issue. He could not finish his arguments within the allotted time and has requested for an extension.
Before the agent 2 could start arguing the excellencies have questioned him about the jurisdiction, which he is unable to answer. The excellencies ask the agent 2 to state cases or any authority which can substantiate one of his arguments, but he is unaware of any such authority. The excellencies ask the agent-2 to move onto the last issue since they are not able to answer accurately.

Agent 1 from the Respondents’ side starts with a briefing of Statutes referred to in their contentions. She seems calm and composed and is quickly listing off authorities. However there is a distinct lack of energy in Agent 1’s submissions after this, maybe the tiring day is wearing her off, or maybe it’s the judges relentless questions. When faced with questions from their Excellencies, Agent 1 appears flustered and their Excellencies don’t seem so convinced. She continues her arguments in furtherance of her contention but is again interrupted by their Excellencies’ queries again which she’s unable to answer and shifts the responsibility of the same to Agent 2. What seemed to be a strong start for Agent 1 proved to end very weakly.
Agent 2 takes the podium and begins with their remaining contentions. He appears a little nervous though and manages to answer the questions fired at him by their Excellencies confidently if not correctly. However he starts to falter in the face of further interrogation, the Bench has successfully managed to put him in a tight spot. The Applicants seem to be jotting down notes at top speed for rebuttals, let’s see what they have up their sleeve. Meanwhile, Agent 2 is listing out case laws in order to wriggle out of this situation. Agent 2 starts with his final submission but the Bench seems to have a lot of inquiries in relation to his arguments. However, the questioning does not dampen Agent 2’s spirit and composure and he continues with his contentions. The clock is ticking to an end and the Respondents finally rest their case.

And this brings us to an end of the Quarter-Finals. Watch this space for the results of the next rounds and what the semi-finals hold.


6:40 p.m. – As we wait for the results of the quarter-finals, the participants are entertained by the cultural night full of dance, music and comedy. We will return shortly with the results.

7:40 p.m. – An we are back. After riveting performances by Vultus, Sankriti, and Izhaar among many other, the night seems to be saturated with excitement.

It is now time for the results of the quarter finals. Here are the teams that have advanced.

  1. NLU, Odisha
  2. MNLU, Mumbai
  3. NLU, Jodhpur
  4. RGNUL, Patiala

We’ll be back tomorrow with all the updates from the semi-finals and the finals. Watch this space for all the live action.


Day 3 – Semi-finals, Finals and Valedictory

9:45 a.m. – And we are back with live action from Day 3 of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition. The judges for the semi-finals have arrived and the judges briefing is underway. Meanwhile the semi-finalists wait with bated breaths for the rounds to begin. They are so close to the glory, they can almost taste it.

10:50 a.m. – Ladies and Gentlemen, it is now time for the semi final. The best teams in the competition have moved ahead and will be battling it out for the trophy and the laurels that come along with it. Here are the fixtures for this round.

Court Room 1 – MNLU v.  RGNUL:

Agent-1 has started on a good note. He has been answering all the questions with confidence. However we see a bump in the road as the agent-1 just contradicted his own argument which has created a confusion in the minds of the excellencies. Agent-1 however manages to maneuver successfully as he gives a beautiful answer to a question posed by the excellencies that what he would have done if he was in respondent’s place.
The allotted time period is over and the agent seeks permission for extension of time but the excellencies didn’t allow him to speak further. The Agent is dejected as he is unable to conclude his arguments. Let’s hope this does not cost him a lot.
Agent-2 of the applicants has started her oral arguments in a systematic manner, describing the structure and manner in which she will be dealing with the issues. The excellencies have asked her to first discuss the technicalities of the issues and then touch upon the legal aspect of the issues. Agent-2 seems petrified with the kind of questions the excellencies have asked her,. There is continuous passing of chits from her team members, but it doesn’t seem to help her at all. Mr. President seems the most disappointed with her answers. The excellencies now ask her about the kind of relief the applicants want from the bench. Moving onto the 2nd issue the excellencies ask her to answer the important questions first and not straightaway move ahead with the next issue. The excellencies have asked the researcher to answer one of the questions. While stating their prayer, it seems that the excellencies are praying on behalf of the applicants.

The agent-1 of the respondent has started on a confident note. The bench while enjoying their cup of tea, have started grilling the agent-1. The excellencies say that the respondents are claiming their title over the disputed territory, but nothing has concrete has been established that shows the respondents have sovereignty over the territory. Mr. President compared this situation to the situation of Pakistan claiming their title over Kashmir.
The bench seems satisfied with the arguments put up by the agent-1. The agent-1 seeks permission for extension of time but is denied the same.
The agent-2 seems energetic and confident. Despite of the continuous cross questions she is giving all the answers accurately. The excellencies are continuing to be hard on the agent-2 but she is answering in a calm and composed manner. She is continuously referring to the moot compromis to substantiate her answers. Due to the paucity of time the excellencies ask agent-2 to elaborate upon the reliefs the respondents want to seek.

Court Room 2 – NLU Jodhpur v. NLU, Odisha

Agent 1 for the applicants begins her submissions before this learned 3 judge bench. She is swiftly moving through her arguments and simultaneously satisfying the queries put forth by the learned bench.
Well, the learned excellencies have raised a concern and the agent is finding it difficult to satisfy the bench. The bench, not being entirely satisfied have reserved the issue to be heard at a later stage.
This has been an outstanding performance by Agent 1, and it is to see whether her co agent can finish off on the same lines.
Agent 2 begins her submissions with the usual pleasantries and a brief introduction of her scheme of submissions. She looks calm and composed and is confidently answering the questions put forth by the bench.
Well, well, well, the agent has just made a blunder. She just challenged the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, being an applicant. Well, quite a few bumps and mistakes on the part of the agent, but in toto, this was a commendable effort by the Applicants. It’s time for the Respondents to present their case now.

Agent 1 for the respondent begins her submissions in a confident and poised manner. The learned bench is very categorically pointing out the lacunae in her arguments. The learned bench is posing some extremely intelligible queries before Agent 1. She has so far been able to satisfy the bench on all such counts. However, where Agent 1 is struggling with is time management.
Well, in totality the Agent did a pretty good job and now it’s time to see if her Co-agent can take it forth to finish off the event at a strong footing.
Agent 2, without wasting any time, begins her submissions. Agent 2 has no idea what hit her, the bombarding of questions has thrown her off of her entire scheme of arguments. This Learned Bench is turning out to be the winner among the competing teams, without actually competing. The Applicants and the Respondents were called upon to submit their rebuttals and address the issues reserved by the learned bench.
An extremely informative and educational session. Both the teams were faced by an extremely learned bench and the quality of mooting seen in this round was top notch. Whichever of the two teams takes it away from here, what must be highlighted is that this has been a learning experience for all of us.

And that brings us to end of the semi-final. What an exhilarating contest. We’ll be back with the results of the semi-finals soon.


12:50 p.m. – The judges for the quarter-finals are being felicitated by the Director, School of Law, Dr. Tabrez Ahmed. As the finals draw ever nearer, the excitement is palpable. The results will be announced soon.

1:20 p.m. – The following teams have advanced to the finals.

  1. NLU, Jodhpur
  2. RGNUL, Patiala

We are live with the final round that you can view on – https://www.facebook.com/mediacellcolsupes

We will be updating you with the action as it happens.

Finals

Court Room 1 – NLU, Jodhpur v. RGNUL, Patiala

The finals have started in full force with the auditorium packed with audience. The Agent 1 from the side of the appellant has approached the bench and has briefed the excellencies about the facts of the compromis.
The excellencies have already begun with the volley of questions as the appellant discusses the practice in both civil and common law countries. The applicant is explaining to the excellencies the concept of sovereignty and the excellencies are grilling Agent 1. The Agent is standing strong, substantiating her answers with case laws. The Agent is elaborating upon the issue of prescription but she is under constant fire from the bench. The agent has for the time being satisfactorily responded to the excellencies. And they continue on their pursuit to establish sovereignty. The agent is elaborating her response with a renowned case adjudged by Justice Schwebel and Lauterpacht.
The Agent has been allowed to move to her next submission which is issue 4 of the Compromis and it relates to compensation, the Agent has cited the classic trail smelter case.
The President of the Bench has jumped into action, seeking answers with regard to customary international law and the equidistant principle. The Agent has been able to satisfy the President and has continued with her submission, discussing the aspect of state responsibility in the present case.
The Agent 2 has taken the dais, she has started off strong. However, the excellencies are not impressed and before she can actually begin with her submissions, she is being bombarded with questions. The Agent tries to elaborate upon the principle of effective control but she is interrupted again. This is brutal as the judges dismantle the flow that the Agent is trying to create.
The Agent is now attempting to prove the Company’s several liability. But the judges have caught on to the fact that the company worked as a JVC and this might backfire.
The Excellencies have demanded precedents and the Agent has provided them deftly. The Excellencies are really taking the Agents to hell and back and the applicants are doing their best to face the fire.
What is clear here is that there seems to be a communication parallel running here with the excellencies and agents running on different lengths.
The Excellencies have categorically stated that they do not place any faith in the submissions of the Applicants and this must really be a blow to the Agents.
The Agent of the applicant carries on valiantly though, sticking to her point as she argues the non-existence of strict liability.
The Agent finally seems to have the excellencies on her side and this could be the change that they were looking for. It has to be said the second Agent is doing extremely well as she keeps her poise and calm. She has kept her wits about her as she has cited International conventions in relation to civil liability and ship pollution. The Agent is really putting on an impressive show. The Agent has deftly summarised her argument and moved on with the prayer.
This was an impressive show by an impressive team.

Agent 1 of the Respondents has approached the Dais, the agent has started strong however, she is unable to gain a footing. The excellencies are asking the Agent to substantiate her arguments and not merely quote statements.
The Agent now addresses the issue of declaration of territorial waters, substantiating her argument with the case of Island of Palmas. The agent is interrupted by the excellencies and has stumbled over her words while trying to answer the questions to the satisfaction of the excellencies. The Agent however is trying to slowly gaining control, quoting the case of Libya .v Malta while dealing with the issue of exclusive economic zone.
The excellencies question the inaction by the Respondent on aspect of establishing sovereignty. The excellencies write off the arguments presented by the Agent with regard to the lack of action. However, the Agent is not backing down easy she is trying to substantiate her arguments with the help of the compromis. The excellencies finally let the issue go as the Agent quote the case Qatar v Bahrain. It is quite impressive how the Agent was adamant with her submissions and finally was able to convince the excellencies.
The President has asked a question which has left the Agent at a loss for words. However, the Agent gains her composure and with vigor and she is trying to establish that the Respondents will not be liable for the actions of the Company conducting oil exploration. The submission by the Agent is well appreciated by the Excellencies but due to paucity of time, she is made to rush to her conclusion unable to finish off strong.

Agent 2 has now started with her submission, she is not being allowed to establish the facts and the excellencies ask her to move on to the issues directly. Agent 2 is precise and clear with her oral arguments, stating that the charges they put forward are obligations erga omnes. The excellencies have asked a question with regard to ratification of UNCLOS and how they will hold the other party liable under the UNCLOS if they have not ratified it. The Agent is now getting slightly frantic, her arguments are not being appreciated by the excellencies and they are asking her to substantiate her point with the help of precedents. This has caught the Agent in a loop as she is not able to gain any footing in this particular submission.
The agent got a bit frantic but is slowly gaining control of the flow of her arguments. The agent is discussing the principle of preferential rights with regard to artifacts. The argument is allowed to flow smoothly without any interruption by the excellencies.
The Agent is allowed to address her next issue now, and the barrage of questions have started again. The President points out that the Agent is contradicting her own statements. The argument is long forgotten now, the agent is caught in the web of words she herself made.
This final was a tough and intense one, the audience are unable to gauge who will win. Lets see what the excellencies think. The results are eagerly awaited!


Valedictory

3:30 p.m. – Ladies and Gentlemen, we are back with the valedictory ceremony. We are excited to know  who the winners of this competition are and what the final moments of this competition hold. We are honored to be in the presence of dignitaries such as Justice Satendra Kumar Jain (retd.), High Court of Allahabad, Mr. Mohd Naseem, Chairman and Managing Partner, Global Law & Liaison Services; Ex. Legal Counsel, ONGC and Ms. Piyushi Diwan, Renowned Author and Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court. We are also grateful to be in the presence of Institutional dignitaries such as Ms. Deepa Verma, Registrar; Mr. Arun Dhand, Director Govt. Relations; and Dr. Tabrez Ahmad, Director, SOL, UPES.

3:49 p.m. – The Director, Dr. Tabrez Ahmad welcomed the judges and addressed the participants. He thanked the moot court association for all the hard work put in by them and the participants for arriving and giving it their best shot.

3:52 p.m. The Student Convener, Ms. Yuvakshi Grover, addressed the participants as she briefed all present about the entire event through a movie dedicated specifically to this 8th edition.

3:55 p.m. Ms. Piyushi Diwan, is now addressing the participants and sharing with us stories about the late Dr. Paras Diwan. Ms. Diwan narrated stories about the life of Dr. Paras Diwan and how he acts as an inspiration for us all.

3:58 p.m. – The Honorable Justice Satendra Kumar Jain (retd.) is now addressing the students about the importance of law in our society and the growth of law as a profession. He emphasizes the need to read bare acts and the capability of lawyers to change the world. The honorable Justice has motivated us all today to achieve greater things.

4:04 p.m. – The dignitaries and judges of the final  are felicitated by Dr. Tabrez Ahmad. We thank them for taking the time out to grace us with the presence.

4:15 p.m. – Ms. Shruti Reddy, Faculty Convener of Society of Law and Literature, has announced the results of the 3rd UPES International Energy Law Writing Competition, 2018. The Winners are –
Winners – Lloyd Law College
1st Runner Up – RGNUL, Patiala
2nd Runner Up – MNLU

4:22 p.m. – Without much ado, here are the results of the 8th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition, 2018. Here’s the complete list of winners.
Best Researcher – Nishtha Arora, NLU, Orissa who wins a cash prize of Rs. 10000, a trophy and books.
Best Speaker – Shreyanshi Sharma, RGNUL Patiala, who wins a cash prize of Rs. 10000, a trophy and books.
Best Memorial – Lloyd Law College, who win a cash prize of Rs. 20000, trophies and books.
1st Runner Up – RGNUL, Patiala, who win a cash prize of Rs. 30000, one year membership to SCC Online,a trophy and books.
Winners – NLU, Jodhpur who win a cash prize of Rs. 50000, one year membership to SCC Online, a trophy and books. 

4:34 p.m. – The Director of School of Law, UPES, Dr. Tabrez Ahmad felicitates the core committee of the MCA, Ms. Yuvakshi Grover, the Student Convenor; Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Secretary; and Mr. Vishwas Rai, Treasurer. After a vote of thanks by Dr. Mamta Rana, Faculty Coordinator, MCA we come to an end of this exciting competition.

Thank you for taking the time to tune in and share with us in the excitement and intensity of the competition. We hope you had a fun time reading. We would like to thank, our knowledge partners, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company for all their help. Thank you for reading. On behalf of the live blogging committee, we wish you farewell. Thank you.

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1: 7th April 2017 – Registration and Inauguration

1:30 p.m. – We welcome all of you to the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition. Thank you for tuning in. The moot, one of the most prestigious in the country will soon be underway. We hope to keep you entertained throughout the moot.

2:05 p.m. – The participants have assembled in the auditorium and the registration process will soon commence.

2:20 p.m. – It’s great to see participants from almost 14 states of the country and a special shout-out to the team from Dhaka. The registration and draw of lots is now underway.

3:00 p.m. – The following teams have registered-

  1. Gujarat National Law University
  2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  3. NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
  4. Central University of South Bihar
  5. Alliance School of Law, Alliance University
  6. Amity Law School, Delhi, (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University)
  7. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  8. Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College, Bengaluru
  9. L.Law College, Belagavi, Karnataka
  10. CMR Law School
  11. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai
  12. Government Law College, Ernakulam, Kerala
  13. National Law University, Odisha
  14. ILS, Pune
  15. Tamil Nadu National Law School
  16. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, Kerala
  17. Lloyd Law College
  18. GLC, Mumbai
  19. National Law Institute University, Bhopal
  20. MNLU, Mumbai
  21. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, DU
  22. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  23. Rayat and Bahra National University of Law, Punjab
  24. Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
  25. Damodram Sanjivayya National Law University, Vishakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh
  26. HNLU, Raipur
  27. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  28. Faculty of Law, University of Dhaka

The teams have now stepped out for group photos. Congratulations to all the teams for making it through the memorial selection rounds.

 

3:10 p.m. – With the completion of registration process, we are now ready for the briefing of rules and the researcher’s test. The researchers seem to be excited and rearing to go. We are seeing some last-minute conversations amongst the team members and some last-minute research.

4:30 p.m. –  The teams have assembled back in the auditorium. We are soon beginning with the inauguration ceremony.

4:50 p.m. – We’d like to thank all the dignitaries for their esteemed presence. Our Chief Guest is Mr. Suresh Dhar, a leading advocate. Other guests include Dr. S.J. Chopra, our Chancellor; Dr. Srihari Honwad, Vice-Chancellor; Mr. Sanjiv Zutshi, Senior Director Operations; Ms. Deepa Verma, Director Institutional Affairs; Mr. Arun Dhand, Director Govt Relations, Deans from other colleges and heads of other departments.  Big thanks to our sponsors as well, SCC Online, GAIL and EBC.

4:55 p.m. – The Master of Ceremonies introduces our honored guests. The events are officially underway with the lighting of the lamp and the Saraswati Vandana.

5:00 p.m. – Dr. S.J. Chopra, The Chancellor imparts some wise words to the crowd.

5:05 p.m. – The Chief Guest, Mr. Suresh Dhar, a senior lawyer in the Uttrakhand High Court, is now on the stage. He specializes in the field of anti-corruption. He shares with us his experience and is engaged in an enlightening discourse.

5:11 p.m. – Ms.Shruti Reddy, faculty convenor of Society of Law and Literature, inaugurates the 2nd UPES Energy Law Judgement Writing Competition and briefs people regarding the rules, which shall be based on the memorial of the 7th Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition. We expect some great entries this year from all the aspirants.

5:15 p.m. – We end this inauguration ceremony with a vote of thanks by Mr. Arun Dhand, Director of Government Relations, who commends the efforts of  the Organizing committee.

5: 17 p.m. – We break for high tea but stay tuned because right after this, we have a workshop by SCC online representatives.

6:45 p.m. – The SCC online presentation is underway. The representatives from the institution have divulged some important knowledge that will definitely help all those involved. They have given us some key points on honing our researching skills and the little gems of wisdom regarding reporting and cross-referencing.

7:28 p.m.- The end of the lecture brings about the end of first day. The participants are heading back to the hotel for dinner and we will see you tomorrow. Stay tuned for there will be a lot of exciting action waiting for us.


Day 2 : 8th April, 2017 – Preliminaries and Quarters

10:10 a.m. – Good morning and welcome back to the 2nd day of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court. We have an exciting day ahead of us. Stay tuned for some riveting action.

10:12 a.m. – And we are starting off today with the Judges’ Briefing. The Judges are being informed about the facts and issues of the moot proposition by the research committee. Soon, we’ll be beginning with the preliminaries.

11:05 a.m. – The judges briefing is done with. That was one long session. The judges are now moving for the group photograph.

11:30 a.m. – The preliminaries have commenced, we will be providing the real time updates from every courtroom.

 

Court Room No. 1: Tamil Nadu National Law School v SLS, Hyderabad: The applicant seems nervous and is trying to calm himself down but it is to no avail. The respondents are up next and are dealing with the Excellencies and supporting their arguments by the use of authorities. They are well aware of the facts and circumstances of the compromis.

The agents is mixing up his statements and is responding to questions that aren’t even put up. This might turn into a fiasco if they don’t salvage it soon. The applicant seems to be fumbling with his words which just gives the excellencies the opportunity to put them under more pressure. The excellencies have a frown on their face which probably shows that they are not very convinced by the version of facts being laid out in front of them.

Court Room No. 2: School of Excellence in Law, Chennai v GNLU: Applicant side has began with the facts of the case. The applicant is being bombarded with questions. Some they answer to the absolute satisfaction of the Excellencies but in others they seem to be disappointed. We’ll see how this round progresses. The applicant is struggling with the memorial in order to answer the questions. The excellencies are motivating the agents and that seems to be working well. A new life seems to have been breathed into the agents and while they do fumble with a few queries, they are gaining ground.

The respondent starts off by submitting a 500 page compendium. The questions of treaty interpretation are put forward. The Excellencies seem unconvinced with the answers. The co-agent for the respondents is so well-prepared that he need not even look at his submissions. He satisfies the excellencies.

Court Room No.3: Law Center I, Faculty of law, Delhi University v Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College:It seems like the applicants are suffering from the very start. They fail to answer basic international law questions but we are hoping the co-agent can pull up the socks. The agents is responding to the excellencies but the answers don’t seem to hold any sway. The co-agents is responding to the queries raised by the excellencies. And we have hit a snag as the agents forgets decorum for a moment and address the Excellencies with pronouns.

The respondent begins weekly perhaps forgetting court decorum for a moment. They don’t seem to be very well versed with the facts of the case and fail to cite relevant authorities. There were faults in legal arguments which the excellencies needed to rectify. This might prove problematic

Court Room No. 4: GLC Mumbai v SLS, Noida: Right off the bat, the Excellencies are ready with the questions. Seems like the applicant is in for a grilling. But he seems to be fluent and well versed with the compromis. But when it comes to the legal aspect, the applicant seems to be lagging. Let’s see how long it takes for them to move to the front foot in this legal battle.

The respondents are humble and polite. They speak with care weighing every word. They are clear with the law and facts of the case. And all in all seem to be in stellar form. Both these teams are tough and this will be a well fought battle.

Court Room No.5: Symbiosis Law School, Pune v DSNLU: Agent of the applicant seeks the permission of the Excellencies to proceed. There were some questions during the proceedings but they went past them with ease. All of the Judge’s doubts were extinguished swiftly by the agents of the applicants. Agents conveyed there contentions fully and clearly to the Excellencies. The 2nd agent took a little extra time to settle her arguments and was not able to give a suitable case law to the satisfaction of the Excellencies.

The agents of respondents are attacked with questions immediately and they failed to answer them definitely. This shook the confidence of the agents and affected their performance. While the respondent seem to be aware of the general principles of law, they seem to be losing ground when it comes to specific principles of international law.

Court Room No. 6: NLIU, Bhopal v Central University of South Bihar: Applicant was performing well but the time ran out, so with the permission of the Excellencies she asked for a little more time to wrap her arguments. The other agent of the applicants is fumbling a bit due to the pressure but manages to pull through but with some questions unanswered. Also the agents were very formal in addressing the Excellencies and were procedural in their approach which will definitely fetch them more points.
The respondent are answering the questions of the Excellencies through the interpretation of treaties and the facts of the matter. The agent is well versed with international law and is performing very well. Agent 2 took the help of various case laws to cement his contentions.
 

Court Room No.7:Amity Law School, Delhi, IP University v Lloyd Law College:  The agents are unable to answer satisfactorily and have run out of time with some issues remaining undealt. We’ll see if this harms their chances of moving on to the quarters.
Before the respondents can even begin, the Excellencies are asking them questions which they cannot answer. The respondents response is not satisfactory which seems to confuse the Excellencies and the fact that they are contradicting their previous argument does not seem to be helping their case at all.

Court Room No.8 : ILS Pune v Campus Law Centre, Delhi University: The applicants are answering the question put before the confidently, speaking with utmost poise. The applicant is fluent and is able to deal with all the issues.
The respondent seems to be nervous in the very beginning. They are answering the Excellencies satisfactorily. The Excellencies don’t raise a lot of questions and it seems that the respondents are doing a good job satisfying them with their argument.

Court Room No.9 : GLC, Kerala v Faculty of Law, Dhaka: 

The Applicant has begun with a formal stating of issues. The excellencies have started with the questions and the applicant has been pushed into a defensive mode. The time for the agent is running out, and the pressure is building up fast. Let’s see if the co-agent can pull things together but their legal knowledge seems to be lacking. Stay tuned.
The second Agent is here, and he seems far more confident and composed. This is turning into a interesting battle between the questions of the Excellencies and the Agent, and he is definitely giving a tough fight. The talisman of “Who must pay the compensation? ” seems to be haunting the applicants.
The first Agent for the Respondents has begun with an introduction. The Agent looks extremely confident and is diligently answering the questions put forth by the Excellencies, to their satisfaction. She seems in control of the proceedings. Only time will tell, if she can keep it up.
The second Agent has taken the dias and has erroneously said something that has been picked up by the Excellencies. It was a difficult situation but the speaker has made it out of that situation confidently. The Excellencies are governing the flow of the proceedings and the Agent is cornered.

The Second Agent is running out of time and the Excellencies have gotten under his skin. The speaker is well past the allotted time and still has a lot to contend. The Excellencies have allowed a last few minutes, but the speaker is tangled in the questions put forward by the Excellencies and the the extension is about to end.

 

Court Room No.10 : Alliance School of Law v NUALS, Kochi : The Excellencies are in total control. The applicant is finding it difficult to answer and the clock is ticking. The applicant has been pushed into a corner and the questions don’t seem to be ending anytime soon. The co-agent takes the stage to answer the questions Could he pull this together and end on a high note? Stay tuned for more.

The first agent for the respondents is done with her arguments and she has laid down a firm base for the second agent to consolidate upon. The second agent has been interrupted in her very first argument and the Excellencies seem to have picked up a flaw. Moving on with her arguments, the agent seems to be playing it cautiously and the strategy seems to be temporarily working.
And here it goes again, the Excellencies have again picked up a flaw and the speaker is being targeted with questions and the Excellencies do not seem entirely satisfied with her arguments.

Court Room No.11: SMR Law School v NMIMS Law School, Mumbai: The applicants are articulate when they put forward their arguments. They are brisk when they are responding to the queries and their use of authorities shows that their preparation is commendable. The queries of the Excellencies though seems to break through the confident exterior of the co-agent and he seems to fumble.

The respondent has taken the dias. He seems a bit inarticulate in the beginning of his submissions but soon gains eloquence. He seems very well prepared to clear the queries of the excellencies.

Court Room No.12: MNLU Mumbai v RGNUL: The grilling by the Excellencies doesn’t seem to faze the very confident agent who looks nervous and yet composed. It is remarkable in the way they are precisely stating what the excellencies want to hear. But they have sadly run out of time before they can deal with all the issues.

Court Room No.13: Rayat & Bahra, Mohali v R.L Law College Karnataka: The applicant seems to be under pressure yet the agent tries her best to answer the questions raised by the Excellencies. The Excellencies aren’t really convinced with what the applicants are stating.

The respondents are facing what seems to be an uphill climb. The Excellencies remind them of the human cost of their actions and that seems to tear their argument asunder. No proper answer seems forthcoming.

Court Room No.14: HNLU, Raipur v NLU, Odisha: The applicant begins with the utmost confidence. Mr. President asks the agent to brief the court with the facts of the case and then continue with the statements of jurisdiction. The agent is succinct and persuasive and answers the queries raised by the Excellencies with confidence. The applicant tries to smartly side-step questions that could lead to problems for them but the Excellencies seem determined to get an answer.
The respondents plead ignorance to a lot of queries and that doesn’t buy them any favors from the judges. They run out of time but that isn’t enough to stop the respondents. They are given an extension but soon that runs out too because of the constant grilling by the excellencies.

1:10 p.m.- That brings us to the end of the first prelims. That was a very interesting round, we’ll start the updates for another engaging session, in a few minutes. Stay tuned!

1:40 p.m. – Round 2 of the Preliminaries have begun. Let’s catch up with the action.

Court Room No.1 – NLU,Odisha v. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

The Applicant is nervous but they are well versed in their arguments and that is helping them overcome their initial jitters. No questions were further put up by the excellencies during their arguments, and they seemed convinced. The moot proceedings are put on hold since the excellencies grill the teams simultaneously. The excellencies point out grounds for rebuttal to both the teams and this seems like quite a mess.

Court Room No.2 – R.L. Law College v. Tamil Nadu National Law School

The applicant started off with their argument but were interrupted by their excellency with queries which the Applicant could not satisfy at all. They were confounded by one question for a long time which weakened their argument. The applicant got no chance to speak as the excellencies grilled them continuously.

The co-agent was very nervous and was asked to relax by the excellency. Even the co-agent seems unable to satisfy the queries of the excellency and seems unprepared. The first agent steps in to answer, but the judges are still not satisfied. The respondents seem to have lost their grip on this match as they struggle to answer the questions. It might not be too late though as they are still attempting to give a good fight.

Court Room No.3 – RGNUL v. GLC, Mumbai: The applicants are well versed with the facts but seem to contradict themselves in the prayer. They confirm with their researcher and respond to the judges but the judges do not seem wholly satisfied.

The respondent find trouble as there is inconsistency between their oral and written submissions. They skips issues and forget court mannerism which might cost them points. They are unable to satisfy the courts queries.

Court Room No.4 – NMIMS Law School, Mumbai v. Faculty of Law, Law Center I: The applicant is humble and courteous before the court. They cite conventions and case laws to prove their points and that seems to work for a while until the applicant ends up contradicting themselves. The back and forth continues as every response to a query is greeted by another one. The agent answers most of the questions satisfactorily and passes on the rest to his co-agent.

The respondents are beginning now and observe all the niceties. The bench responds to the agents arguments with questions of their own, even sharing a joke or two. The respondent provides clarifications and then concludes.

Court Room No.5 – NUALS, Kochi v. NLIU, Bhopal

The applicants are faced with questions of the excellencies at the very start of their argument and are trying their very best to satisfy the excellencies. Agent 1 is trying very hard to ascertain the contentions with the help of the compromis. Agent 2 is confident but the excellencies are giving her a hard time. The excellencies are interacting with the agent so as to determine the basis of their contentions. The confidence of the agent seems to be fluctuating. Case laws on various contention are demanded from them for the acceptance of the same.

The very law is being challenged by the respondents as they attempt to dissuade the court to follow the decisions made in previous cases.

Court Room No.6 – Faculty of Law, Delhi v. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)

The Applicants are formal while addressing the excellencies. The applicant is very calm and composed and carries the proceeding smoothly. They answer various question put forth by the judges adequately with the help of the various articles and provisions of relevant treaties. So far the applicants are performing very well. The contentions are well formed by the applicants and are communicated properly to the excellencies. The applicants are checking all the right boxes regarding the matter.
The respondents start off at a blistering pace providing no opening to the excellencies. But the dynamics shift soon as they are caught in a torrent of questioning which they fail to get out of. This seems like a well balanced fight and any team could take this.

Court Room No.7 – Campus Law Center, DU v. Alliance School of Law: As the researcher attempts to prompt the team into action, we see an onslaught of questions against the applicants. While they are courteous, they seem to be struggling against the queries.

The respondents seems to be losing their composure when faced with a barrage of questions. It feels as if the excellencies are prodding them along and almost arguing for them. The questions raised seem to take them off balance but the respondent is soldiering on valiantly.

Court Room No.8 – LLoyd Law College v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune: The applicant begins their argument by citing case laws which garners admiration from the judges who seem to be agreeing with them. The snag arises when the judges ask a question that completely bewilders them.
The respondent starts out strong and continues on with that momentum. The excellencies seem convinced by the argument and all the queries are being answered to their satisfaction.

Court Room No.9 – Central University of South Bihar v. ILS, Pune: The applicant begins their argument by citing case laws which garners admiration from the judges who seem to be agreeing with them. The snag arises when the judges ask and question that completely bewilders them.

The Applicant has begun with a brief statement of facts and the bone of contentions. The Excellencies are putting up some very interesting questions and the agent for the applicants is giving precise and well thought answers. The questions are now pouring down upon the Applicants and they seem to be in a defensive position. The time is running out and the agent is still tangled in the queries of the Excellencies. The speaker has used up all of her time and has been allowed an extension of 1 minute to deal with their last issue.

The respondents begins their arguments in a very confident manner. The excellencies interrupt the speaker with questions to which the speaker answers confidently and to the satisfaction of the excellencies. Suddenly the tables are turned and the excellencies are stuck on a query which the respondent is unable to address. However, the agent’s confidence is remarkable and is constantly thinking on their feet. The excellencies are coming up with very well thought of queries which require a rather logical explanation accompanied by the relevant legal principles. The arguments are getting interesting. Even though the time limit is over, the excellencies have allowed an extension to address their reservations.

Court Room No.10 – DSNLU v. GLC, Kerala: The Applicant seem to be trying very hard to stay composed, but is pressurised due to the continuous interruptions by the Excellencies. The Agent seems to have gotten himself tangled up into his own arguments and the Excellencies have taken hold of the proceedings. The applicants are definitely on a back foot and the clock is ticking.

The respondents are in a time crunch and the agent is still left with one issue. The excellencies do not seem satisfied and the respondent is unable to come up with any satisfactory arguments. The second agent has come to the stand and has begun with his issue of maintainability upon which the excellencies have turned the tables on him and he is left with no response. As a result the respondents have been forced to move to their next issue.

Court Room No.11 – SLS,Noida v. MNLU: Since the beginning of the submissions, the applicant seems nervous. Their way of putting forth the submissions is rather dilatory. But the lack of grilling from the Excellencies is helping them gain their confidence. But as soon as the first question is put forth, nervousness took over the applicant which is predominant in the way they are presenting their argument.
The respondent has started their submission in a very clear and precise manner. They seem to be agitated while being grilled by the excellencies but they pull through.

Court Room No.12 – Bishop Cotton Women Christian Law College v. SMR Law School: The applicant seeks the permission of the Excellencies to begin. The approach adopted by the applicant is aggressive though it is not backed by substance. The queries raised are not satisfactorily responded to and it seems like it will be difficult for the applicants to turn this into a success.

The respondents seem to lack the requisite knowledge at first but then the co-agent brings steadiness to a rocky ship. They speak eloquently for a while but end up contradicting themselves.The respondents seem to lack the requisite knowledge at first but then the co-agent brings steadiness to a rocky ship. They speak eloquently for a while but end up contradicting themselves.

Court Room No.13 – GNLU v. HNLU, Raipur

Applicant takes the dias with utmost confidence. The Applicant is very formal and well mannered. Excellencies keep asking the Applicant questions but the Applicant answers them with utmost confidence and is able satisfy them. Excellencies are impressed and comment on one of the answers given by the agent with a, “very good” ! The agent was eloquent, she finished her arguments within the given time slot.
The Co-agent take the dias. He puts forward his arguments before the bench with flair. He took the base of various principles in order to substantiate his arguments and managed to satisfy the judges on the various questions raised by them.

The respondents begin and straightaway there seems to be a dispute regarding the statement of jurisdiction which is handled quite well by the respondents. The respondents are very soft spoken and this ends up being a bit problematic due to them being inaudible. The judges raise queries which are answered politely. The Excellencies don’t really seem to agree with what is put before them but due to paucity of time, they raise no further objections.

Court Room No.14 – SLS Hyderabad v.Rayat Bahara, Mohali 

The Applicant takes the podium.The deference of the applicant to the court has engaged the judges and also the respondents. They have a smooth flow,which makes everyone believe that they are making some strong points. The Excellencies are posing questions towards the agent, but the agent without getting suppressed is answering all the questions with utmost patience. The Co-agent begins. The judges are trying to corner him and the agent is confused. Agent 1 comes to his rescue and the Excellencies allow agent 1 to answer on his behalf. Co-agent seemed for extension of time and he was granted the same. The Co-agent somehow managed to end his speech on a positive note.

The respondents plead ignorance to a lot of queries and that doesn’t buy them any favors from the judges. They run out of time but that isn’t enough to stop the respondents. They are given an extension but soon that runs out too because of the constant grilling by the excellencies.

3:30 p.m. – With that exciting session, we come to an end of the prelims. Now we will be breaking for lunch. Will be right back with the results of the preliminaries and the Quarters. Watch this space for more!

5:41 p.m. –  Good evening guys, we are back with the prelims result. There will be eight teams which will qualify for the Quarter Finals.

This is the result-

  • NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
  • Faculty of Law, Dhaka
  • Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  • Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  • GNLU
  • NUALS, Kochi
  • MNLU
  • ILS, Pune

We will start with the quarter finals by 6:00 p.m. Stay tuned for the live updates.

Quarter-Finals 1 – NMIMIS Law School, Mumbai v. ILS Pune: Agent 1 for the Applicant has begun on a very confident note and is in total control of the proceedings. There was a minor hiccup here, when the President and the excellencies came up with a question relating to the definition of the river, but the agent was able to answer the query.
The President has just raised a query as to a conclusive authority to crystallize state responsibility, but the extension is over. The Board has just allowed another minute to conclude the arguments. The first Agent has laid down a firm base for the second agent to come in and cement their position in this contest.
The second Agent has begun her arguments on a very confident note, but the first query from the board seems to have surprised her. The agent is facing problem in arguing for the two applicant states and the same has been pointed out by the Excellencies.

The agent makes ample use of their compendium and has been able to satisfy most of the queries of Mr. President and the Excellencies. One final query, but since the allotted time is up, Mr. President has just allowed an extension of 3 minute and the agent is about to conclude her arguments. And that is a wrap from the side of the applicants as they recite their prayer.

The Agent for the respondents has entered the battlefield all guns blazing and has, from the word go, began citing authorities in numbers. The Excellencies have broken the flow of agent one, with a couple of successive queries. The agent seems to have been put off their game and is being pushed into a defensive mode. The agent is doing exceptionally well to handle the overload of queries.
The flow of the proceedings has slowed down and the Excellencies are dictating the proceedings. The agent has exhausted the allotted time and the extension but has been granted a final extension of 2 minutes to sum up all of her arguments.

Quarter Finals 2 – Faculty of Law, Dhaka v. MNLU, Mumbai: The Agent 1 of the applicant in a very systematic manner first briefed about the facts of the case to the excellencies. The Agent then went on to answer the questions of the Judges, in a cool and calm manner. However, the Agent 1 has been unable to form a response to one of the questions, which the excellencies are bringing up again and again.
Agent 2 has been able to explain the issues that they will be dealing with in a satisfactory manner. However, they are unable to justify their Prayer and one of the gaping hole in their argument is their inability to prove liability of the respondents.

Right at the very beginning, Agent 1 from the side of the Respondent seems to be unsure with her arguments. Therefore, giving a chance to the Excellencies to grill her extensively. The team tries to recover from the blow by passing off the chits. Agent 1 has lost their calm and is unable to answer the queries of the Excellencies.
Without much ado, the Excellencies ask Agent 2 to begin, there seems to be a contradiction in the arguments presented by the Agents. The excellencies refer to the argument made by the Agent 2 as far-fetched.

Quarter Finals 3 – NUALS, Kochi v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune: The clock is ticking right about now and the participants are eagerly waiting for the judges to start the round. Agent 1 representing the Applicants begins by establishing the Statement of Jurisdiction. The judges tried to trap them on the issue of jurisdiction. The speaker did find her way out but it wasn’t without a loss. The Agent is very well prepared and confident with sound speaking skills. Agent 1 with a calmness in her voice manages to persuade the Excellencies to agree to her contentions. In between when the Excellencies are trying to corner the agent,the researcher is furiously passing on chits to the agent right now. The allotted time as well as the extension has elapsed but the Excellencies aren’t satisfied again granting the agent extension of time. The agent utilizes the time at hand in the most optimal manner and provides the Excellencies with a crisp summary. Finally after repeated  extensions the speaker concludes.
Agent 2 takes the dias. The second agent too is well versed with every point involved. However,pertinent queries were posed by the Excellencies and they were all answered well by the Appellant.

Agent 1 representing the respondents takes the podium. The composed speaker begins by clarifying to the bench the stand of the respondents on the Statement of Jurisdiction.  The Excellencies while enjoying  their sip of tea start to put the agent in a tight spot with their questions. The impressive part is how rarely the speaker seems to be referring to the memo.Mr. President shakes his head in despair when the agent answers one of his question.  The agent  is partially able to convince the judges regarding her issues. Agent 2 approaches the podium. The agent seems to be a confident speaker, with slight nervous stutters here and there. The loopholes in the Applicant’s arguments are pointed out by the bench. Co-Agent is trying her best with utmost confidence and logic in her speech to persuade the Excellencies but they just keep coming up with another set of questions for the Co-agent.

Quarter Finals 4 – SLS, Hyderabad v. GNLU: Agent 1 of the applicant speaks with conviction. The agent is requested to argue the contentions to which the agent obliges. The excellencies are grilling the agent heavily, it seems like their metaphorical boat is in need of heavy repair. They are not letting the agent catch his breathe. Though the agent made a good point in the argument, the argument as a whole was not satisfactory for the judges. The agent is taking a heavy beating.

Agent 2 of the applicant started out with a great opening but the excellencies are gradually puncturing holes in his arguments which is affecting his performance. The agent is shaken to his core and is now unable to answer even simple questions. The bench shared a good laugh with the agent on the point that the NGO cannot be bribed due to lack of money. The said issue is rejected completely. The excellencies are not stopping and are continuing to rip apart the applicant’s issues. An extra minute is given to the agent to wrap up his contentions. Let’s see how the respondent’s fare.

Agent 1 of the respondent presents her 1st issue to the excellencies who do not agree to the submissions of the agent. She is ambushed by questions. The excellencies term the respondent as a bully nation. The excellencies are continuing to be hard on the agent. The agent is not able to satisfy the questions of the excellencies completely. The topic of NGO comes up again and its alliance with either country is an amusing topic. The agent is citing various precedents in a way to cement her contention.
Agent 2 of the respondent is faring well compared to their colleague initially. The question of the excellencies is answered through a case law and it seems that they are satisfied by the answer. There is a question regarding negligence on the part of Rivendell. The agent is still somehow maintaining his composure.
Though to conclude it is clear that the excellencies are the only one who are winning this round.

7:30 p.m.- The Acoustic Evening, organised by MCA, in association with IZHAAR filled with band performances, and an entertaining dance performance by the dance group Paradigm is underway. Going by the crowd’s enthusiasm, they seem to be having a good time. We’ll soon post the pictures.

8:00 p.m. – The participants have moved on for Gala Dinner, time for some good food.

 

9:30 p.m. – The following teams have qualified for the semi-finals –

 

  • SLS, Pune
  • GNLU
  • NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
  • MNLU

Congratulations to all the teams that advanced. Tune in tomorrow for live updates of the semis and the finals as we bring an end to this great event. We hope to see you there. Thank you.


Day 3 – Semi-Finals, Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

9:45 a.m. – Good morning. We welcome you to the final day of the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition. We will be underway with the judges briefing soon and will then move on to the Semi-Finals. It’s going to be an exciting day. Stay tuned.

10:05 a.m. – We have begun with the Judges Briefing, the research committee is informing the esteemed panel regarding the relevant legal conventions and articles pertaining to the Compromis. This helps in hammering out a fixed set of legal issues that the judges can focus on.

10:20 a.m. – We are beginning with the semi-finals. Keep watching this space for all the live action.

Semi-Final 1 – NMIMS Law School, Mumbai v. MNLU, Mumbai: Here it goes. It’s down to four teams now and the first Semi final is on. The agent for the applicants has begun with a formal stating of issues and a brief explanation of his structure of arguments. This is going very well for the Applicant as so far there have been no interruptions by the Excellencies.
It seems the Excellencies just needed a little warm up. This has been a complete turn around, unlike the initial few minutes, it is the excellencies who are in total control of the flow of the proceedings, and it’s raining questions. The Agent for the applicant is doing exceptionally well to satisfy the Board, but it seems he is in a time crunch. With less than 10 minutes left, he still needs to cover 2 parts of his 3 fold argument scheme. Time Over, and the speaker still needs to deal with one more argument. The Excellencies have allowed an extension of 2 minutes. The mannerism here is exceptional and the quality of arguments has definitely laid a strong base for the second Agent for the Applicants.

The second Agent for the Applicant has taken up the reigns and perfectly compliments the contentions raised by the first agent. She begins in the same way as her Co-Agent, with a brief explanation of her argument scheme.
What just happened? The speaker has just said something fundamentally flawed regarding International Law(probably erroneously) and the Excellencies don’t seem pleased.
Time is running out and the Agent still has a contention to make.
It seemed though she would not be able to make it but somehow she was able to cover all the issues. The Applicants rise for their prayer and it’s a wrap for them.


The respondents are up next and the Excellencies have asked the Agent for the respondent to skip the pleasantries so as to conserve time for the arguments.
The respondent team is showing great team work and presence of mind. The Agent seemed to have been cornered by the Excellencies but the Researcher helped the Agent out of the crunch. There is a constant flow of chits from the researcher to the speaker.
The Agent is facing an onslaught of questions from the Board, and the Researcher is here to rescue. The speaker was able to finish her arguments, well within the allotted time (something that happens very rarely). The Researcher has been the Dark Knight of this team, time and again, throughout this competition.

The second agent has taken the dais and he has gotten straight down to business from the word go. The arguments are flowing smoothly and the extensive citation of authorities has definitely wooed the Excellencies. This is the longest perfect run by any speaker today.
Good times don’t last long and here we see another example of the same. The Excellencies have broken the flow of arguments. The agent is facing problems in satisfying the board due to lack of authority emphasizing logical over law.
The difference between good research and exceptional research is clearly visible here. The respondents would be fairly content with their performance today, they began on a strong note and ended on the same.
The Applicants begin with their rebuttals. They point out the various instances that the respondent mentioned in their oral submissions, and they are going on to elaborate reasons as to why the applicants believe that the respondents contentions were fallacious. They supplement their arguments with use of treaties and customary International law.

Semi Finals 2 – SLS, Pune v. GNLU:

Agent 1, is on the podium. The agent is precise and has in a procedural manner explained to the excellencies how they would be going ahead with their arguments.The agent seems to be a bit confused regarding the provisions so the Excellency lends a helping hand. The Speaker is facing some intense questioning regarding general principles of international law. But the Agent is not backing down and is trying to answer each and every question confidently. Calm demeanour of Agent 1 despite the continuous cross questioning from the bench, is quite appeasing.The allotted time period is over and the agent seeks permission for extension of time -as the Agent is yet to answer the question of the Excellency, which is granted. Co-agent passes chits to Agent1 in order to help the bench understand the argument in a better manner. The extra time has also elapsed, but the Excellencies still have some questions for the agent, which the agent answers with utmost confidence. The heat is now on the co-agent.

Agent 2 takes the dias and the tension and anxiety can be seen in the very first few words of the Co-agent as she wishes the Excellencies, Good-afternoon at 11 in the morning! The second speaker follows her teammate’s scheme and lays down the structure of her arguments. The Excellency ask the agent: What is the difference between hard law and soft law in the environmental laws ? Which the Co-agent answers wrongly and Ms. President has to interrupt to make the agent aware of the difference. Anyhow, there is nothing stopping the Co-agent as she moves ahead with her contentions with confidence. The point of international customary law is discussed heavily between the Co-agent and the Excellency. The continuous cross questioning from the bench has shaken the confidence of the agent as she pleads ignorance for the questions put forward. The Excellencies ask the agent to move forward with her contentions. The Speaker seems to have lost her flow in the face of a barrage of pointed questions. However, she gathers herself and continues with her submissions.. Heated discussions follow. The bench continues to bombard the speaker with numerous questions. The Co-agent somehow manages to move ahead with her arguments.The time period has elapsed, and the Co-agent concludes by saying the prayer. This has truly been a roller coaster ride for the team applicant.

The respondents are next up with their arguments. The agent is approaching the podium and outlining her arguments. She seems quite confident as she addresses the preliminary questions of the bench. The clarity of her concepts is visibly seen in the way she is articulating and laying down her points in great detail. Agent seems to be answering all the questions posed by the bench in the most satisfactory manner. She is now moving on to her second contention. Her arguments are structured and her expression is crystal clear. The agent continues with her contentions with the last one being about the jurisdiction. The Excellencies have a smirk across their face when they tell the agent that this should have been their first argument. Anyhow, she satisfies the questions of the Excellencies fairly. The time period has elapsed. But there’s a turning point in the proceedings when listening to an answer of the agent the Excellency tells the agent that, “She has dug her own grave” ! Woah! Seems like this could be trouble.

Co-Agent approaches the dais. His approach is quite structured and his initial submissions are satisfying the Excellencies. Continuous questioning from the bench does not seem to shake the confidence of the Co-agent, as they smoothly maneuver the heavy questioning. Managing the time well the Co-agent concludes with their submissions in the most precise manner.

12:15 p.m.- And that brings us to the end of an amazing semi-finals. The teams brought a level of sophistication to the Competition and it was great to witness such a knowledgeable session. Stay tuned, we’ll be back with the Final results!

12: 35 p.m. – The judges for the semi-finals are being felicitated, meanwhile the judges for the finals are being briefed.

12:37 p.m. – The much awaited finals are underway. The teams that have qualified are Symbiosis, Pune and NMIMS Law School, Mumbai. Stay tuned for the live updates, this is going to be one exciting match.

The agent 1 from the side of the Applicant has started the proceeding in a systematic manner. The Agent is clarifying the statement of jurisdiction as well as dealing with the principles of Trans-Boundary Harm, attempting to establish liability and responsibility.

The Agent is cementing her argument with the help of some of the classic cases in International Law, such as the Corfu Channel Case. The Agent seems to be in control of the proceedings, no intervention has yet occurred from the side of the Bench.
The Agent 1 of the Applicant attempts to prove that a dispute exists regarding Anora River, therefore it needs to be addressed. The Agent seems well versed with the facts of the compromis. The Agent alleges that the Respondent has breached Article 2, Article 11 of the Anora Treaty as well as the fact that they have breached their Upper-riparian duties. The Judges have finally interrupted the discourse of the Agent 1, there seems to be a conflict with regarding to certain facts as established by the Agent.
The Agent is unable to satisfy the court, even though they are specifically quoting certain cases as well as the compromis.


The Excellency has asked a question that strikes the very base of their argument and the Agent looks shaken. The Agent seems to be slowly regaining the command over the proceeding, as she is able to deflect the questions put forth by the bench. Agent 1 was raising a contention with regard to Appropriation, however they are not able to justify their argument and they seem to be caught in the web of their own words.
Agent 1 concludes but it does not seem to be a very satisfactory round. The argument revolved around the common heritage of mankind and yet there seemed to be a serious lack of any factual basis of contention.

Agent 2 is now on stage and they will attempt to establish a violation of the precautionary principle and preventive action. But the Agent 2 is under immense pressure, as they are unable to respond to any questions put forward by the excellencies.
But now we have a breakthrough as the Agent applies the principle of attribution and convinces the judges.

The agent seems to be circling around the questions put to her in regards to Customary international law but she seems to be unable to establish either state practice or opinio juris.

The excellencies move on to another question to which the agent is able to answer satisfactorily. Agent 2 has begun to gain ground and interest of the excellencies is piqued.  The excellencies are boring holes in their argument and since no causation can be proved it seems that defense of force majeure available to the respondents will sustain.

This seems like a rocky ending for a solid start to the applicants. Let’s see how the respondents fare.

The respondents are up now and Agent 1 seems to be in tune with court courtesy and possesses good oratory skills while discussing the proceeding in a systematic manner. The Agent 1 begins with the first submission, The agent tries to give clarification, regarding a statement presented by the Applicant, however it does not seem to move the Bench. The agent now proceeds with his Argument. The Agent tries to justify the joinder of issue done by them.

The Bench tries to understand the essence of the Anora treaty, and the Agent tries to answer however, it is pointed out to be a wrong Argument by one of the Excellencies. This question has seemed to trap the Agent as he seeks help of the International grundnorm- Pacta Sunt Servanda.The same question arises as it had with the applicant regarding the ‘Equitable use’ of resources. The agent seems to be on the backfoot as he is grilled regarding treaty provisions. His responses are erroneous which further causes the judges to drill further into the argument exposing more flaws.

The agent concludes due to paucity of time and Agent 2 takes the stand.

Agent 2 tries to bring some calm into the shaky proceedings of the side of the respondent. The Agent tries to address the issue with regard to the term ‘operator’ which seems to have a domino effect, resulting in several other trapping questions. The Agent tries to be receptive towards the questions raised by the Bench, however, both the Agent as well as the Bench seem to be stuck on the technicalities rather than the facts of law. The Excellency points out a major flaw in their argument, which might prove to be fatal. The question of state responsibility is raised and is not satisfactorily answered.

The judges have almost decimated the arguments of both the applicant and respondent. But both these parties have stood up to the occasion and responded in the best way they can. This will be a close match. We will be back with the valedictory ceremony soon with the results right in tow.

3:10 p.m. – The Valedictory ceremony is underway and we will be out soon with the results. The esteemed guests include Dr. Srihari Honwad, Dr. Parag Diwan, and the chief guest, Mr. Prakash Pant, Cabinet Minister, Uttarakhand.

3:32 p.m. – We are graced with speeches by Dr. Parag Diwan, and Mr. Prakash Pant, both of whom speak with the utmost eloquence and grace the students with their words. They are felicitated by the other dignitaries.

And the results are announced. The winners are –

Best Memorial – NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai who win Rs. 20000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors EBC.

Best Speaker – Stuti Dhundia, GNLU, who wins Rs. 10,000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.

Best Researcher – Johann Valladares ,SLS Pune who wins Rs. 10000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.

Runner up 1 – SLS, Pune, who win Rs. 30000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.

Winner – NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai who win Rs. 50000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors EBC.

With the vote of thanks delivered by Dr. Srihari Honwad, we wrap up this edition of the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court. We thank all the teams for participating and congratulate the winners and all the finalists. A big thanks to our sponsors, GAIL India, SCC online and Eastern Book Company.

Thank you for tuning in with us. From the UPES family and the Moot Court Association, we bid you farewell.

NLU Delhi
Law School NewsMoot Court Achievements & Reports

National Law University, Delhi will be organizing the India Qualifying Rounds for the International Criminal Court Moot Court Competition from March 17-20, 2016. The problem deals with jurisdictional issues of the ICC relating to crimes against humanity and war crimes. The University and the Moot Court Committee is looking for judges for the oral rounds of the competition. If you have worked on the area and are interested in judging, please email the University at: iccmoot@nludelhi.ac.in

Law School NewsMoot Court Achievements & Reports

Symbiosis Law School NOIDA is delighted to share the good news that Team consisting of Mr. Prayank Jain and Mr. Shreyas Edupuganti, Fourth Year Learners, Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA have won the ‘Best Memorial’ award at ‘World Rounds of The 7th Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court Competition which was held at Office of High Commission of Human Rights (OHCHR) headquarters (UN) in Geneva, Switzerland from December 8-10, 2015.

Above all SLS-NOIDA’s memorial so submitted as part of the selection process was Ranked 1 in Asia-Pacific UN Region, which they took to the next level,Best Memorial In the World.

pic

Moot Court Achievements & Reports

Reported by Aditya kumar Pandey

College of Legal Studies, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies UPES, Dehradun is organizing the fifth Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition to be held from 2nd to 5th April, 2015.

Theme: Energy Laws

Deadlines:

Registration: February 10, 2015

Memorial Submission Soft Copy: March 10, 2015

Registration Fee:

Rs. 3,500/- Indian Participants

$100 Participants from Medium and Low HDI Countries

$200 Participants from Very High and High HDI Countries

Contact Details:

Mr. Aditya Prasad Palai Convener

+91-78951-81554

Mr. Siddhant Satapathy Co – Convener

+91-75792-45712

For brochure, click Brochure

For more information click here
Moot Court Achievements & Reports

Reported by Haaris Moosa

The 4th Edition of the Dr. A.T. Markose Memorial National Moot Court Competition  is scheduled to be held from the  6th to  8th of February, 2015.

The Moot Problem is already out, and the registration which is on closes on the 1st of December 2014. A maximum of 20 teams are going to be accepted and that too on a first- come- first- serve basis. Last year  N.L.U. Bhopal and Symbiosis Noida bagged the coveted prizes.

The late Dr. A.T. Markose, Former Professor at college in whose memory this competition is held, is a colossus in the Indian Juristic pantheon. He was the Founder Director of the Indian Law Institute, Delhi and wrote the first book on Judicial control of Administrative Action in India.  He was also a Deputy Judge at the  International Administrative Tribunal. He mentored  S.P.Sathe and N.R. Madhava Menon and was even sighted by Julius Stone in his work.

For the college with such a legacy, this event is as much a competition as it is a panoply of its pedigree.

With the added responsibility that this legacy entails, it is an uphill task for the students led by Ms. Merlin Manasy, convenor (+91 9446306046 ) and  Mr. Sachin Kumar,  Joint convenor (+91 9446059690) to organize an event of this magnitude. 

For more details, click here