Law School NewsLive Blogging


The National Law University Odisha welcome you to the Virtual Oral Rounds of 7th Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot (IMAM) 2020, organised in association with the Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The moot is soon to begin and we are here to keep you updated on exactly what is going on! You can also follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook for more insights. Wishing the best to all the participating teams!

20th AUGUST 2020





VCR-1: [723 (C) v 725 (R)]

VCR 1 updates begin!

10:03: Speaker 1  of team 723 begins. She seems calm and composed. She begins with explaining the facts.

10:13: The speaker 1 goes on very smoothly with her submissions. She is able to answer the questions very tactfully.

 10:15: The judges seem satisfied with the speaker as she argues her way through the issues.

10:19: The Speaker 1 ends her arguments. No further questions are asked. The judges now look forward to listen to Speaker 2 of team 723 

10:29: The speaker 2 gets lucky as no judge grills him and he swiftly puts forward his arguments.

10:33: It’s now time for Team 725 to put forward their submissions. Speaker 1 starts. She fumbles a bit initially but then picks up her pace!

10:53: Speaker 1 ends on a satisfactory note, with minimal grilling. The floor is now open for the Speaker 2.

11:03: The judge interrupts the flow of Speaker 2 . He questions the ability of the owner to escape the said liability. The Speaker takes her time and answers the question gracefully, without getting nervous. The judge interrupts her again and asks a follow up questions. The speaker fumbles a bit and answers hoping that it satisfies the judge. She seems unsure whether the judge has bought the answer!

11:16: The Speaker ends with the prayer. It’s now time for rebuttals! The claimant Speaker 2 shoots his arguments towards the respondents!

11:17: The respondents brace themselves to sur-rebut. They look confident!

11:20: The claimants seem to be in a flow with their rebuttals! They seem to have a lot of never- ending concerns. The judge has to finally interrupt the speaker to end the rebuttals.

11:30:The first round concludes right on time! Interesting and a satisfactory round in all!

VCR-2: [712 (C) v 717 (R)]

10:05 Round 1: Fact check- The Judge asks the first claimant speaker whether the malfunctioning element was the container or the vessel

10:22: C S2 tries to establish sufficiency of notice through the impugned correspondence based on 3 conditions laid in precedent

10:33: Ticking Time: With 2 minutes left for the speaker’s allotted time, the C S2 is asked to read a clause and restructure his entire argument.

10:38: C S2 raises the ears of judges when he admits that their vessel was defective. Judges seek confirmation.

10:52: Judges grill R S1 on their due diligence measures, S1 struggles to convince that they’ve fulfilled their obligation to repair

11:11: The bench grows skeptical when the R S2 contends that notice provisions are optional and not a stipulation for the charterers.


VCR-3: [718 (C) v 702 (R)]

11:35: 718 C (S1): speaker speaks with utmost confidence and is explaining everything slowly (considering the online platform) He lays down all the issues and laws in a summary form. Other teammates listen on and respondents take notes. 

11:42: Speaker knows his written submissions and case laws and is making judges take note of the same from their compendium. 

11:45: A pretty cold bench! No questions?! 5 minutes left for the speaker 1 to present the arguments. Judges listening and taking notes, but no questions.


11:47: Speaker 1 ends well within time. Judge 1, not so cold anymore, starts to question. Speaker 1 takes the first question head on.

11:49: Speaker 2 begins. The stance of Speaker 2 is more calm and voice low than the Speaker 1. He too, like Speaker 1 lays down the issues and begins.

11:52: Courtroom seems pretty calm. Judges listen intently, however, still no questions! Researcher intently looks into all the notes and information. Speaker 2 makes judges take note of case laws in the compendium in a calm and soft demeanor explaining everything.

11:58: 5 minutes left. Speaker 2 raises a point putting respondents on their feet looking into their memos!

12:01: One minute left, counsel seeks extension to conclude his arguments. He puts forth the summary of all arguments emphasizing on the important words the judges should pay heed to.

12:05: Judges have no questions! Bench as cold as ever. But considering the interest shown in the arguments, maybe not so cold in perspective after all.

12:05:  702 R (S1): Jumps right into arguing that claimant’s arguments have no standing! Confidence and affirmation audible, but not visible. Speaker seems to read through the memo and notes.

12:14: Brrr, is it cold! Speaker 1 of the respondent’s reads through the memo. Claimant’s researcher is charged with weaponry to rebut the charges of the Respondent’s. Judge asks to clarify the jurisdiction points. Respondent 1 replies in full throttle.

12:22: Counsel 2 starts in as a calm manner as Council 2 of the Claimants. Judges ask a factual question, Respondent goes on to explain the technicalities well.

12:26: Judges are alive! Technical Maritime questions are being thrown.

12:27: Judges catch the Respondent’s arguments of buck passing. The arguments are on. Respondent Speaker 2 goes into explaining the reports and establishing itself as free of their liability

12:33: Respondent 2 seeks 1 minute extension to wrap up. The same stance of calm and composure as it was before seems to have been lost and respondent rushes to finish up her arguments. Meanwhile, claimants seem to be pretty calm waiting to charge on first command

12:36: Rebuttals begin. Judges give 1 minute relief

12:36: Claimants are on a roll. Respondent failed to establish the law, Respondent relies on cases not relevant. Respondent limits liability to which the applicable law does not apply. One has to look at the relevant documents together when enforcing the law. Respondent goes on a different tangent and “misled the tribunal”. Claimants lashing out at full force.

12:39: Claimant is charged up and wants to speak everything in the limited time frame.


12:40: Questions revolve around the technical arguments of the Claimant and the judges are asked to note the Case Study. While the Claimant had hit hard on their legal approach, the Respondent is not shy to target their technical arguments. 

12:44: The Respondent question claimant’s rebuttal on using the wrong law and responds by stating that it is an arbitration tribunal. The idea is to come to a fruitful conclusion and reference is not wrong. 

12:47: The Round ends. Judges’ Caucus begins.

VCR-4: [704 (C) v 711 (R)]

 10:11: The respondents and the claimants had a discussion as to who will go first, since one of the sides had also mentioned a procedural issue in their memorandum

10:11: However, they mutually decide that the traditional format will be followed and the claimants will go first.

10:17: 4 minutes into the round and the judges have begun the grilling session. Speaker doesn’t look comfortable with pinpoint queries and offers vague answers which the judges are not buying

10:23: The judges let the speaker get into flow, only to throw another question that leaves the participant guessing.

10:29: Speaker 2 is confident, clear and concise in his submissions

10:30: Judges seem content so far, though it looks unlikely that the hot bench will let him go without questions.

10:32: The hot bench continues its grilling streak.

10:37 Another set of questions on point of law are thrown, the speaker wisely answers, dodges, and proceeds.

10:54: The first speaker from the respondents side looks comfortable and confident. She’s trying to cool down the hot bench, taking her time and delivering her speech clearly and in a very polite manner.

11:02: The speaker is well versed with the problem and is able to assist the judges on every query

11:02: However, the judges don’t seem fully content.

11:07: Speaker 1’s precise and clearly delivered arguments come to an end. Her submissions and polite conduct seemed to have satisfied the judges to an extent.

11:11: Speaker 2 from the respondents side looks to establish his case beyond doubt, only to be thwarted by a logical fallacy in his submission. An explanation followed, however the judges explicitly registered their discontent and told the counsel to proceed with his other submissions.

11:18: In his concluding submission the respondent looks to have cancelled out the previous discontentment of the tribunal.

11:19: A very interesting timeline was pointed out, which the judges seemed to be impressed with.

11:23: An evenly contested proceedings come to an end, the tribunal seems to have their work cut out.


VCR-1: [713 (C) v 719 (R)]

14:17: The Speaker from the claimants begin with her submissions. She begins very confidently, but little does she know she’ll be interrupted by the judges in the 2nd minute of her submission.  The judges are very confident with their counter questions and are not at all satisfied with what the speaker has to say for it. To quote, “No speaker, we won’t accept this, unless you can prove or provide other documents in its support”. “Is it inadvertent or are you trying to hide it from us?” This line by a judge baffles the speaker and the courtroom!

14:45: “We have already told you that unless you provide any other document, we will not proceed”. Yet another argument rejected by the Judge. The speaker is having a hard time proceeding with her submissions. The tension can be seen in the faces of her teammates, but it is commendable how well the Speaker is dealing with such a hot bench. She’s composed.

14:27- Just 3 minutes left for the speaker, but the Speaker has not been able to start with her planned submissions, considering she is being continuously grilled from the very beginning!

14:29- The speaker seeks extension of time from the judges. Judges grant her 3 minutes to wrap her arguments. Speaker, “Should I stick to my second issue and wrap it up?” Judge, “We’ve given you 3 minutes, counsel. Argue as you wish”

14:34: The time is up for Speaker 1. She tries for an extension, but sadly the judges are curt and don’t allow her the same.

14:35: The Speaker 2 starts, obviously a little nervous considering how his Co-Counsel was just grilled. His nervousness is justified as the same thing happens with him! 30 seconds to the speech, he is interrupted.

“That’s a self serving statement, counsel. Where is the evidence?”

14:48: Judge- “I’m asking you a simple question counsel, where is it mentioned in the survey report?”

Speaker- “It’s not explicitly mentioned in the report, Sir”

J-  “If it’s not EXPLICITLY mentioned, then how can you claim it, Counsel?”

S- “It is mentioned in the report, Sir”

J- “Counsel, you just told that it’s not mentioned. What do you want to say?”

S- “Mr Arbitrator, it’s mentioned in the summary of the survey report, and not in the report itself “

A sigh of relief from the speaker as he somehow collects himself and resumes.

15:04- The Respondents have the floor now! They’ve probably taken notes on how to deal with the bench by seeing the Claimants. The Speaker 1 starts and her speech is relatively less interrupted. She’s confident and insistent.

15:28: The judges just don’t stop grilling. 

“Exactly our point, counsel. The fact that the issue has arisen, this shows the fault in part of the owners to take care and repair the vessel. Unless, you can give us any other explanation for the same, we would like to reason it this way.”

15:48: The judges don’t let the claimants breathe during the rebuttals as well! It seems like they are basically countering on behalf of the respondents!

15:51: “Just like the bananas have been rotten, our relationship with the customers have also been rotten” 713 Speaker 1.


VCR-2: [722 (C) v 710 (R)]

2:04: First things first: C S1 starts off the round by discussing the sensitivity of bananas. A fruitful discussion follows.

2:17: C S1 points out lack of ‘best endeavours’ effort by lack of refrigeration and fluctuations in temperature. Questions of due diligence are raised.

2:21: C S1 points out the need for a higher degree of care required by their goods by precedent. They use it to say that the Respondent didn’t meet their part of monitoring given in the agreement.

2:30: C S2 run the bench through the complex timeline of the problem and talks about the delay on part of Respondent. 

2:39: Time for prayers: C S2 prays to the tribunal to pass a favourable award when the judge questions the origins of the tribunal’s competence to apply justice, equity and good conscience.


2:42: Judge asks R S1 whether the Burden of Proof lies on the Claimant or Respondent. R S1 mentions it lies on the carriers through precedents and Rules.

2:47: R S1 takes a breathing minute to process as the judges point out her interpretation being the reverse of her contended authority.

2:52: Tailored to convenience: The Bench grills R S1 for using tailor-cut parts of different international rules for application to different submissions of their case. The convenience of the claimants is tipped off right at the beginning and are asked to chose one set of rules for their clients.

3:10: Who’s responsible?: The Bench corners the R S2 into asking whose responsibility arises to provide a seaworthy ship. Speaker evades and takes the discussion to containers.

3:11: Incompetence v. Negligence: R S2 differentiates between the two concepts and elucidates the accruing responsibilities.

3:15- Bench draws attention of the R S2 about the duty to notify and ‘greater’ obligations while seeking clarifications.

3:33- R claim that C stated partial facts by heavily relying on overruled case; one which was appealed to and awarded in favour of the Respondent’s submission.

This concludes the Round as the feedback session begins.

VCR-3: [708 (C) v 724 (R)]

2:18: Speaker 1 of 708 (C) begins with the facts of the case.

2:19: The fun begins! This bench is ready to pounce and already has!

2:21: Claimants to blame or not to blame? Speaker 1 goes into the engineering of the containers. Alas! He cannot go on for long, Judge intercedes and throws in factual questions.

2:23: We need to admit, Speaker 1 is pretty calm and is able to get back to his arguments despite having been detected by the Judges. Respondents busy scribbling on their notes. 

2:25: 5 minutes left. Researcher using the facts to pass the blame to the Respondents. Takes a hit on the reports provided by the Respondents and how accurately he mentions. Speaker 1 seems to know his ship and the containers well.

2:27: Did we see a factual error? Judges definitely did. However, the Claimant does not hesitate to explain his arguments.

2:30: 2 minutes. Negation expression required in order to negate something in the Charter party. Claimant is making judges go through all the facts and reports with each point. Very calmly explaining the Arbitrators. 

Judges seem satisfied! Speaker 2 moves on to next contention. Judges do not seem to be too scary now for Speaker 1. Handled well

2:31: Judge throws an obligation that Claimants have. Judge is keeping a poker face. 

Another Judge asks explicitly “Do you admit to be at fault?” 

Speaker takes a pause but confidently provides for case laws to save himself. Well played.

2:36:  Speaker 2: She begins with pointing out more about how containers work. Speaker 2 is very concerned about the temperature logs causing the bananas to become bad. She guides the judges very nicely to her compendium and case laws. She puts forth their facts and relates it to the facts at hand. Judges listen on keenly. Speaker gets back to the bananas and the temperature shock. Session is filled with engineering and technical knowledge apart from just the laws.

2:43: Did we hear a stutter? Not anymore. The Speaker 2 lost her composure but she is back.

2:44: Judge: isn’t it your responsibility too to have supplied the containers properly?  Speaker 2 going back to the bananas shows emotional attachment to them and passes the buck to the Respondents

Judge won’t let her go though. Claimants can be at fault!

2:46: Speaker 2 might as well have got herself in a twist with not taking any admission of her fault in the container. “Why take it from me if you think it is not right?” Judges take a note of that argument.

Questions might be incoming.

2:49: Judges just won’t let her go! They are all down to discuss the containers. Speaker 2 is now in a twist. 1 minute left but it does not seem likely that her time is up. It is going to be a long 1 minute.

2:50: Extension to Speaker 2 granted. “Responsibility of your servant to give you the report”. Claimants are running about for content! 

Speaker 2 still shows confidence and tries to keep self together. Judges are still on the hunt and going through the case study, ready to rip them apart.

2:52: Speaker 2: “Due diligence of crew and sea worthiness go hand in hand”. Respondents are at fault and they did not do what was agreed up. Speaker 2’s confidence is back up and she is ready with cases and is going to finally get out of this without being charred.

2:55: 724 R (S1): “It takes two to tango” and that is how it works in an agreement also. Very nicely put!

Speaker 1 very confidently and calmly explains everything to the judges. Judges being direct to the Obligations of the Respondents. Speaker 1 is ready with all the weapons to tackle the battle with the Claimants. 

The Battle of the Bananas keeps getting interesting

3:02: Respondents won’t get relief from the Judges either. Judges grill them on their duty to take due care. 

Respondent 1 answers calmly and moves onto the next issue putting the liability  on the claimants. 

3:06: if we were unsure about Respondents concerns over the Bananas, we are not anymore. Respondents stating it as “perishable” blames the containers of the Claimants.

3:07: Judges catch Speaker 1 on contractual question and the Speaker takes it and hits a run with utmost grace, but the match still does not seem to end, judge has seemed to catch hold of the argument and questions on whom the burden of proof lies.

The Respondent replies to them in confidence, maybe she did not get out after all.

3:10: Speaker 2 deals with the last issue.

“Will of the parties in the Charterparty should always be considered” 

Respondents feel hurt by the blames being passed on them by the Claimants.

3:13: Speaker 2 is as calm as ever. He makes the judge pay heed on the survey reports. 

Judges are back on the grilling board asking him again to respond on his obligation towards the Claimants. This show does not seem to get over.

3:15: Respondent is not in a fit. Unable to reply on the question of hire, he requests to move on. 

Meanwhile, Claimants – as vigilant as ever – ready themselves for rebuttals. 

3:20: Respondent 2 goes on to concluding his arguments. Judges ask him if he wants to limit his liability under any other law, getting a negative answer by him, the Judges ask him to move on. 

Judges additionally ask him about the Crew. Respondent seems in a tussle. The Judges seem to have had them.

3:24: Judge asks him a factual question, but Speaker 2 seems to be nervous and unable to answer. The Researcher tries to assist and the Speaker subtly tries to get back on track. Judges however, have taken notice of the nervousness.

3:27: Rebuttals [Claimants]:

Respondent did not monitor our cargo; cases presented towards the same. 

Claimants are not a party to mess with. They are breaking open the arguments of the Respondents in full force with full throttle.

Respondents race to get their arguments together

3:29: Sur-Rebuttals [Respondent]

Respondents won’t have any of it. And are throwing factual arguments to prove their cause. They also save themselves by bringing up the contracts and the issue of due diligence. Ending the arguments with confidence

3:30: Rounds end. Judges get ready for feedback.

VCR-4: [715 (C) v 707 (R)]

2:17: Session 2 of day 1 starts. The judges have heard the first round of submissions and are now even more clear with the minute details of the fact sheet.

2:23: The counsel begins with pointing out facts favourable and summarises the moot problem at length.

2:28: The arbitrators are asking the participants not to throw arguments in the air, but to substantiate their interpretation with case laws or statutory provisions.

2:31: The judges are leaving no scope for misinterpretations and are asking the speaker to iterate the facts of the case cited. The speaker steadies herself, and subsequently, elaborates the specifics of the case law cited.

2:37: Speaker 1 was well read and escaped the risk of not knowing the case law cited. Judges were content and did not intervene or disrupt the speaker by throwing queries.

2:39: Speaker 2 begins and picks up right from where the first speaker left.

2:42: The tribunal asked for more specific clauses and not a general clause to support the claimants argument. The speaker took his time, a moment of silence pursues, memorandum is flipped, fact sheet glanced at again. At last, the speaker was able to point out specific clauses and which one shall supersede the other. The arbitrators seemed to have agreed. Though, the speaker looks completely off track and is visibly shaken by the questions. 

Another hot bench here, they took their time to get going.

2:46: The grilling continues and the counsel ends up contradicting his own stand as per the judges.  The much arguable ” counsel pleads ignorance” phrase is used.

2:48: However, it fails to give the desired result for the counsel, he is short on words, and is completely taken aback by the tribunal.

2:54: An off day, the speaker looks dejected. 

Respondents begin with caution and are evidently nervous. Can’t really say that they shouldn’t be so, courtesy the tribunal.

2:59: A very pertinent point raised by the arbitrator, before the speaker could get into his structure of arguments, he was stopped and asked if he agrees with the narration of facts as made by the Claimants. He hurries and says “yes”. The arbitrator takes note and nods. A mistake has been made by the respondent. 

Another one goes down.

3:03: Speaker 1 from the respondent “pleads ignorance”.

3:04: The same course of action follows. Judges continue bombarding the speaker with specific questions which cannot be answered by beating around the bush. The counsel commendably keeps his calm and finishes strongly.

3:10: Speaker 2 begins and is confident and clear with his speech. The Arbitrator asked for general practice in the shipping industry. Surprisingly, the counsel was unaware of that. Nonetheless he continues and continues well.

3:14: A distinction is sought by the tribunal on clauses binding and clauses merely substantive in nature.

3:17: The wrath of the tribunal takes in another victim, speaker 2 from the respondents side looked stable and well read, however he too “pleads ignorance”.

3:20: To his credit, he too, like his co-counsel, steadies himself and delivers his submissions without panicking.

3:28: A good listener never misses a beat. Claimants point out a particular statement made by the respondents and back their case based on that. Logical and well-structured arguments are used.

Rebuttals put to good use.

3:34: The same can’t be said for the respondents.


21st AUGUST 2020





VCR-1: [709 (C) v 723 (R)]

10:05: It’s the second day of the preliminary rounds. The participants and Judges of VCR 1 are fresh and ready for the session. The Speaker 1 from the Claimants side starts. He is poised and very swiftly presents the facts of the case to the Judges.

10:11: As expected, the judges start grilling the speaker. The Speaker seems to have a well structured content and therefore even after being interrupted by the judges, he maintains his flow and doesn’t let anxiety ruin his composure.

10:14: Seems like the judge and the speaker are stuck in a never ending debate on the maintenance of the temperature log. The speaker struggles to satisfy the judge on this question, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to be easy. “Before proceeding on this, the counsel would like to state that time hasn’t been a good friend to the counsel, and therefore the counsel would seek a 2 minute extension.” When has it ever?

10:25: The time is up, yet the Speaker hasn’t been able to answer the Judges’ question. To quote the Judge, “I know, it’s a very technical question, and I won’t mark you according to that”.

10:30: Finally, the judges leave the Speaker 1 and give the floor to the Speaker 2 to argue his issues!

10:39– Silence in the Courtroom.. apparently the Claimants’ side say something on the communication issue that brings a smile on the Respondents’ face and lines on the foreheads of the Claimants. On being further questioned on it, the Speaker goes numb for a moment and then collects himself!

10:49– The speaker is very hassled and it’s clearly visible how nervous he is due to the constant grilling 

Judge- “Wait, wait Counsel, please take a breath and calm down. Go on..”

10:52– The Claimant side, done and dusted with their submissions, now hand over the podium to the Respondents. Speaker 1 starts, all confident!

11:01: “Don’t put words in my mouth, Counsel. Just refer me to the facts”। This statement baffles the speaker. She did not see this coming, neither did we!

11:05: The speaker seems confused, and fumbles. Judge- “Counsel, I advise you to take a moment to structure your thoughts.” Good advice!

11:15: The judges have a good laugh as they see the Speaker fall in one of their traps and states something contradictory to what they stand for.. The claimants are amused, so are we!

11:27: After numerous extensions, the Speaker 1 finally gets a break and the Speaker 2 takes the charge to continue defending their case! He begins swiftly.. but within a minute, he’s interrupted. He did see this coming, for sure.

11:45: Seems a never ending round. Speaker 2 and the judge get into a debate on the issue of letter of protest.. The judge is not satisfied, but the Speaker is not ready to give up! He is very confident and is not letting all the grilling get to him!

VCR-2: [726 (C) v 712 (R)]

11:04: Not doing enough: C S1 expresses worry about the lack of the owners to meet responsibility to do “everything possible”.

11:08: No beating around the bush: Judges ask C S1 to clarify “You say the apparatus wasn’t right to make the vessel seaworthy, but what was the fault?

11:14: Too long: C S2 expresses his concerns over the “100 hour delay” and no immediate action.

11:18: C S2 wraps up the case quickly and confidently with 4 minutes left on the clock. The prayer is placed on record with oral recitation and the baton is passed to the Respondent.

11:27: Judges raise eyebrows and ask the R S1 “How are you asking the entire onus of the malfunction to fall on the charterers?”

11:42: Confident counsels: R S2 declares while wrapping up his first argument “So, as the first part of my argument is submitted and conclusively proved” passing a positive self-assessment.

With this the round ends.


VCR-3: [716 (C) v 718 (R)]

10:05: 716 (C) – Speaker 1: A very calm and composed start from the Speaker 1. Respondents calmly look on. Due diligence seems to never get old in this competition. Speaker begins explaining the same and behold! Judge has caught her.

10:07: Speaker 1 goes to answer the technicalities. You think it’s over, but it’s not. Judge has a second question, “Yes or no? Justify”. Speaker 1 is responding. Do I see a smirk from the judges?

10:08: Speaker 1 goes on to explain their losses and pains. Cases are cited. Respondents seem to be polishing their weaponry in full throttle. The judges seem to have had a good breakfast! So much energy. 10 minutes in and the questioning streak just keeps going!

10:09: Judges trying to deter and making Speaker 1 question herself. We sense some nervousness but she still tries to keep her tone calm.

10:10: The heat is writing. We are sweating! Baton of questioning is being passed around between the judges and our Speaker 1 is caught between them.

10:12: 2 minutes left and Speaker 1 does not seem to catch a break! The Judges have done their preparation and they will not hesitate to throw the ball out of the park.

10:13: “Counsel, do you know about Maritime Operations? Yes or No?” A mini teaching session ensues till the judge realises the paucity of time. Speaker 1 gets back to her submissions. She has been a good warrior being able to tackle the blows in the best way she can and moves forward.

10:15: Speaker 1 gets 20 seconds to wrap up her arguments. Nervousness seems to be apparent in her. Parties and Judges look on.

10:16: Speaker 2 comes into the playground. The Judges are ready. She does not seem to be detected by the Judges and goes on with her submissions with full confidence.

10:18: Judge is very interested in talking about Maritime Operations. There seems to be a crash course on Maritime Industry. However, the Speaker 2 will not have any of the deterrence. She gets back to seeking Banana justice. But judges will not have any of it. 20 seconds in, the new teacher is on the block.

10:21: We must say, the Speaker 2 is determined to get justice. She puts forth all her arguments and also gives additional explanations on them swiftly and efficiently. Judges listen on in silence, but for how long? We sit tight and wait. “One wrong action could affect the entire bananas”. Never thought Bananas to be such attention seeking fruit. Judges ask for clarification and apparently seem to have heard a joke to make them chuckle. Intimidating much? Not for our Speaker 2. She will not get swayed by the mind games.

10:24: Judge sighs. He will not let go of the containers। “Don’t try to beat around the bush. Give me a straight answer.” He wants his containers and he shall have it.

10:27: Speaker 2 is trying to keep her cool, but the judges and their love for containers – and possibly the Bananas! – won’t let her get away from the blunder the Claimants did with their containers per the Case Study. They want their fruit and they know whom to blame for their fiber not being on their breakfast table.

10:28: Judge 1: “You are just falling into your own trap… Who is to be blamed?” Judge 2: “Your argument does not help your case”. The Judges seem to be sharing a telepathic joke and chuckling. We wonder what they are thinking. 

10:30: That was very interesting to watch. Respondents watch out!

10:30: 718 (R) Speaker 1: He goes on to putting forward his issues and moves on to the jurisdiction. Judge counters and seeks clarification. Speaker did not see it coming but he gave a confident answer. But the Judge seems to seek to have more fun!

10:35: Speaker fumbles but gets back to his submissions.

10:37: One of our Respected Judges seem to be remembering or observing a joke. We wonder what it is? “Why did you come to the Tribunal?” Oh, we now know the joke was thinking. Speaker 1 fumbles but is going on hitting his bat. “Is the Arbitrator satisfied?”. Judge: “No, but go ahead”

10:40: The Speaker 2 cited; our Arbitrator’s buddy. Our Judge will now be taking this matter personally and will be ready to defend his buddy’s statement.

10:45: the seas are calm now. And our sailor, Speaker 2, is back on sailing in a calm manner. His time comes to an end and he rushes to row his boat to the shore.
One thing we can say: This Bench means business and will have none of it by both the parties. They are the true defenders of the bananas and will make it their mission to ensure they get the wrong corrected. Their breakfast is on the line!

10:47: Speaker 2 comes to the playing field. “Council shall proceed with the arguments.” Judge: “I have a query” Where is the argument! The grilling tsunami keeps on coming and just taking arguments away!

10:52: less than 10 minutes left, Speaker 2 speaks about the survey reports and explains his limit of liability. Claimants are preparing to shatter the Respondents. We will see how that goes.

10:57: 3 minutes left and Speaker 2 goes on to discuss seaworthiness and due diligence. Finally! Judges seem to be more calmer than before. They let the Speaker proceed. Speaker uses this opportunity and regains his confidence and goes on to explain everything impeccably. But we need to watch out. Judges seem to have spotted something

10:59: And they did! The Speaker is on his A game now and answered their question spot on

11:01: 20 seconds given to Speaker to wrap up his arguments. He does so nicely. Judges seem to again be having some telepathic joke going on. They seem amply satisfied. By the joke or the rounds? Only the Judges know.


11:04: Speaker 1 of the Claimants sums up their arguments and state having them refraining from a certain law 

Sur- Rebuttal

11:06: Respondents argue the opposite making the Claimants rather agitated. Respondents also state Claimants to be at fault because of no reasonable time गिवेन। Rounds end. Judges sent to the Breakout room for scoring.



VCR-4: [706 (C) v 704 (R)]

10:05: The claimants were asked whether there is a jurisdiction issue or not. Speaker 1 said yes that there is but she will be dealing with it in the rebuttals. The judge said “give me one good reason why we should listen to your submissions, when you haven’t yet established your jurisdiction yet”. An explanation for jurisdiction followed.

10:13: Arguments are well structured , the claimants are relying on basic terms such as “due diligence and reasonableness,” and swiftly proceed with backing the explanation of each term with a case law.

10:14: Speaker 1 looks very composed and is clear with her content.

10:16: However, the arbitrators were quick to point out a discrepancy in the case law cited in the given factual scenario at hand. Claimant sharply twists the fact into her favour, the arbitrators do realise this, but they seem to have liked the innovation.

10:19: Speaker 1 continues her composed delivery of arguments and is crystal clear on the fact sheet and their links with the arbitration clauses.

10:23: Cold bench or a fantastic speaker, either one of it could be the case. It pretty much looks like that this round was a blend of both.

10:25: Speaker 2 has the liberty of a beautiful stage set for him by his co-speaker and looks to take advantage of it. He immediately proceeds with his submissions and is quick to point out relevant abstracts from the fact sheet.

10:29: The counsel, however, jumped the gun and said that “all the prerequisites for this mechanism have been dealt with”. This statement didn’t go  well with the tribunal and a question was asked that “in a dispute resolution mechanism are you aware of the modalities that need to be taken care of?” To this the counsel hurried and hassled, quoted a few obligations, however, couldn’t satisfy the tribunal. A pretty heavy statement made by the counsel doesn’t end up well.

10:36: Any thoughts of this bench being a cold have waived away. The counsel was bombarded with questions, he answered a few, skipped a few,  and lastly resorted to the excuse that he’s having a network issue and “can’t hear the honorable tribunal clearly”. One may say a smart move given the circumstances. What followed will significantly change the idea floated in the previous statement. One of the arbitrator said and I quote “tough times call for tough measures, now answer me”

10:37: The internet connectivity was normal, voice clear, disturbances very few, and questions answered. The speaker 2 did answer the call.

10:41: “All the prerequisites needed for this dispute resolution mechanism have been dealt with.”

10:46: Speaker 1 from the Respondents side looks calm and composed, and begins with a blunder. 

Yes, a blunder, the tribunal asked him whether he would like to argue the issue that the claimants have no jurisdiction. To which he responded yes the claimants have.

10:47: The arbitrators asked, then why did you raise this issue in your written submissions. The speaker panicked and said he “concedes the issue of jurisdiction”.

10:48: The tribunal is visibly displeased with the aforementioned statement, and says “if you are conceding and contradicting your own statement what credibility do you have ?”

10:50: 8 minutes into his speech the speaker cannot find his feet. The grilling from the tribunal is relentless.

10:56: The tribunal lets the speaker catch his breath, two good arguments have been forwarded, but he’s really short on time.

10:58: Time’s up. The speaker would be relieved for the moment. Deep contemplation will follow soon.

11:04: Speaker 2 is confident, for now, he seems to have ignored the first speaker’s hardships.

11:05: He looks to steady the ship, slowly and gradually he catches wind in his sail.

11:09: He looks to establish his case and is simultaneously minimising the strength of the claimants case . He says, that the authority of an interpretation in a case law by a judicial body will supersede a definition provided in a legal authority.

11:11: The tribunal asks him to provide an authority wherein the same has been stated. To which, the respondent seeked permission to proceed with other submissions.

11:15: The tribunal is having none of the assertions made by the speaker on the notice sent. Making the speaker reiterate his own submissions, the arbitrator points out flaws and does not mince words when saying that “your arguments fall flat”.

11:18: The rebuttals begin.

11:20: The claimants were excellent in referencing to the fact sheet for pointing out fallacies in the respondents submissions. The judges seemed impressed.

11:22: Sur-rebuttals begin

11:25: The respondents too, like the claimants made good use of the opportunity and confidently denied the rebuttals through the fact sheet and pointed out one particular fact which the claimants had totally missed.

With this end round ends. 

11:38: The R S2 clarifies that the correspondence was only with regards to settlement of dispute in next 15 days and takes the tribunal through the timeline of the dispute.





VCR-1: [725 (C) v 713 (R)]

2:04: After a refreshing lunch break, the judges and the participants are rejuvenated and ready to conquer! The Speaker 1 from the claimants side starts. She’s quick, but fluent and clear. Let’s see for how long she can maintain this flow.

2:10: Alas! The flow breaks. It’s not the grilling but the internet connection. While she fixes it, Speaker 2 takes the charge and presents her arguments. We hope nothing disturbs her flow, except of course the judges!

2:16: Seems like speed is one of the things that the Claimant team is really into. It’s like they have their minds made up that they’ll not compromise the speed in their speech! But the good thing is despite the speed, the fluency is maintained throughout. 

2:20: The debate on the obligations of the owner regarding sea worthiness continues…. and not to forget, the due diligence debate.

2:28: The bananas are back! Seems like the court has gone bananas over bananas!

2:41: The Speaker 2 ends her submissions on a satisfactory note! The judges now shift their attention to Speaker 1, who is back and has hopefully fixed the internet connection. She is relatively slow in her speech and presents her arguments well.

2:57: Best endeavour.. These words seem really simple to interpret and understand, but not according to the Judge as well as the claimant.. The debate on interpretation  has been going on for 5 minutes and still continuing..

Will we finally conclude on this? Stay tuned!

3:04: We don’t think that we reached a conclusion on interpretation, but owing to the time constraints, we have to move on. The baton is now in the hands of the respondents! The speaker one steps up and starts her submission. She has a pleasing, slow and a fluent voice. Let’s see if the Respondents are able to defend the allegations put forward by the Claimants.

The baton is now in the hands of the respondents! The speaker one steps up and starts her submission. She has a pleasing, slow and a fluent voice. Let’s see if the Respondents are able to defend the allegations put forward by the Claimants.

3:20: The most impressive quality of Speaker 1 has to be her patience. She carefully listens to all the questions the Judges have to ask instead of jumping to answers abruptly. She is really articulate. She seems to have a good throw of voice and has a well structured content.

3:22: The Speaker 1 ends her submissions and invites her Co-Counsel to present the arguments on the economic aspects of the issues. He is confident and crisp in his submissions.

3:25: We’re able to hear a lot of formulas and numbers in his submissions, considering that he is dealing with the economic aspects. He, through his calculations, holds that the amount of claim of the claimants is unjustified and invalid. 

3:39: The Speaker 2 was questioned on the relevance of a new issue they added. He took his time and explained the relevance. Did the judges buy it? Let’s hope they did.

With this, he concludes his submission and leaves the floor for rebuttals!

VCR-2: [717 (C) v 722 (R)]

2:12: Fastrack: Claimant S1 proceeds the oral submission by initiating a 5-point fact background, only to be asked to directly proceed to the arguments.

2:21: Judges seek answers with regards to the Claimant’s relationship with the crew. In a heated courtroom, C S1 manages to slip out from the tight clutches by greasing with a certain clause on Respondent’s liability.

2:34: Across multiple questions and raised eyebrows, C S2 fervently maintained that the containers had no inherent defect and the erratic temperature control damaged the cargo.

2:40: The judges seek answers as to the kind of claim the Claimants are seeking. After giving it some thought, the C S2 requests a claim for indemnity.

2:47: R S1 starts off by placing reliance on the facts and pointing out specifically the clarifications issued to the case study to pierce the case of the Claimant.

2:51: 6 minutes into the respondent’s oral submission, the R S1 has left the tribunal flipping through documents.

3:01: After battling through her fair share of internet connectivity issues, R S1 remains calm and poised as she rejoins the session and is surrounded by questions immediately.

3:03: The judges ask the Respondents of what nature their duty is- out of common law or contractual? The Respondents discuss this from the perspective of Bill of Lading, Charter Party and common law.

3:06: Back to Basics: Judges grill R S1 on their basic knowledge of common law of contracts. The simplest concepts are revisited in court to see whether they applied to the Respondent as a subcontractor.

3:18: A thorough discussion on the Bill of Lading proceeds. R S2 tries to shift the burden to the carriers, the claimants.

After the round of rebuttals, the round ends and judges go into caucus.



VCR-3: [702 (C) v 708 (R)]

2:08: Speaker 1 begins with the facts of the case. Judges and participants listen on.

2:11: Judge: “I think I lost Speaker 1, ya phir mera internet kharab hai?”

2:13: Speaker 1 after the responding moves on but Judge 2 has more questions. Judges question the Claimant on facts and also on the number of Arbitrators and their validity. Speaker 1 answering in a calm manner moves onto the next issue.

2:16: Judge interrupts and tests the Speaker’s confidence. Speaker does not deter. Good job Speaker 1!

2:19: Judges seem to be going easy. But don’t judge a book by it’s cover. Factual questions are making the Speaker 1 go off course. However, she gets back on track immediately and goes on to explaining her facts.

2:23: Speaker 1 finishes her argument in her last 1 minute. Judges are silent, but silence is golden and Claimants should watch out for how that turns out for them.

2:26: Speaker 2 takes over the reign in full confidence. She picks up her bazooka filled with blames and is about to fire at the Respondents that Judges interrupt her with a legal question.

2:28: Claimants all over the VCRs are showing concern over the Bananas and our Claimant is no different. She is concerned about the maintenance of the reefer by the Respondents because poor Bananas will be deteriorated.

2:30: Speaker cites a case law but Judge is not cutting her any slack. She has to explain them the facts and how it is reasonable for her to cite the said case. Judges accept, Speaker 2 sailes forward.

Meanwhile, the Respondents are busy turning pages. Has the Claimants caught them where it is to hurt? Let’s find out.

2:35: Speaker goes on calmly dealing with every question thrown her way. Judges listen on, Respondents are still running around writing and sharing information. Should they watch out?

2:38: 1 minute left, Speaker 2 is rushing to finish her arguments, however the judge interrupts her questioning her on seaworthiness. Speaker 2 is rushing through her compendiums and documents. Seems like everyone in the room is in a twist. Judges meanwhile chill.

2:41: One of the Judges asks for a refresher and goes away. We now look at a wall of books. And people looking down at their notes.

2:42: still look at wall of books

2:43: Judge is back. Speaker 1 of the Respondents comes up.

2:44: Speaker 1 goes on to talk about limitations of its liability.

2:46: Judges seem to have had a heavy lunch making us jealous.

2:51: Very curious case of Survey Reports are being discussed. Speaker 1 has got people turning pages but Judges seem to be too full with lunch to question anything. We feel a chill passing the courtroom. Brrrr. The case of a Cold Bench.

Boon or a Bane? Only the Judges can decide.

2:57: Speaker 2 takes over.

2:58: Speaker gives a confident introduction of her arguments and moves onto her arguments in detail with utmost fervor.

3:04: Speaker 2 moves onto her last issue without any questions thrown at her. One needs a blanket to sit through this session, for it is cold!

3:05: FINALLY a question from the judges on correspondence. Speaker 2 replies in confidence. Judge seeks clarification. Are the judges hinting the Speaker 2 to contest something? Speaker goes back to her previous answer and explains the same to the Bench. Speaker 2 knows her bananas. Her botany is very accurate as she talks about the bananas, it’s type and the damage. This Session is a crash course for botany as well. Are the judges hinting the Speaker 2 to contest something? Speaker goes back to her previous answer and explains the same to the Bench. Speaker 2 knows her bananas. Her botany is very accurate as she talks about the bananas, it’s type and the damage. This Session is a crash course for botany as well.

3:11: Speaker wraps up her arguments. Rebuttals begin. 


3:15: Claimants S2: Claimants are angry! The stance of the speaker makes us want to shift back a little. She is ready to pounce in full force! She feels for her bananas, she wants justice for her bananas and she will make it her life’s mission to win for the bananas.

3:17: Sur-Rebuttal

Respondents S1: unseaworthiness is on Claimants’ part as their containers were in bad shape and survey report is the evidence. There is no question of indemnity.

3:20: Rounds end. Judges Caucus begins



VCR-4: [711 (C) v 715 (R)]

2:00: Day 2 Session 4 kicks off !

2:01: The speaker 1 from the claimant sides followed the traditional model and asked if the judges needed a briefing with regards to the facts of the case.

2:02: The members of the tribunal have been here for a while now, and ask the counsel to proceed straightaway with her submissions.

2:04: A pertinent point made. Counsel wastes no time and makes the tribunal note that the respondent side in their written submission have not made any objection to the jurisdiction of this tribunal, and proceeds further.

2:13: Fundamentals definitely come in handy, however, when they may be put to test is a bit uncertain. In the instant hearing, the counsel is asked to elaborate on the very basic terms and what all elements constitute the term.

2:14: An “in arguendo” submission goes wrong. The arbitrators are looking to make the claimant concede, but she is poised enough, and dodges swiftly.

2:18: What do the basic mooting principles (if any) reiterate, read your facts. Read you facts again and read them in entirety.

2:23: Speaker 2 starts, the first impression is that he’s a bit shaky. How the rest of the round spans out will be known soon.

2:25: He’s stammering. However, facts and case laws are in abundance in his speech.

2:28: The judges sense the lack of confidence and pounce.

2:30: A set of questions are thrown the speaker ignores them and continues with his submissions. This didn’t go down well with the tribunal and the question was repeated, the counsel was stopped and told to answer the question.

2:32: The counsel fell in the question-cum-trap and contradictions to his claim and the facts as given in the fact sheet was pointed out.

2:36: A strong finish ! A flurry of facts, clauses, and case laws the judges seemed content, however, the speech was  too quick for the liking and a few words were eaten up by the speaker.

2:43: Continuing her strong start she points out a discrepancy in the claims made by the respondents in their memorial  and those worded out in front of the tribunal. Judges seemed impressed.

2:49: A free flowing and well-structured speech continues.

2:51: The tribunal attempts to thwart the flow by raising pinpointed queries and look to unsettle the so far fantastic counsel.

2:56: Specific answers and clauses follow. Every material on record was perused by the speaker be it the memorandum, clarification, arbitration rules, or the fact sheet.

2:57: The judges happily grant an extension for a minute, seems like they too were impressed by the first counsel for the respondents.

2:58: An excellent speech comes to an end. 

Speaker 2 takes over the reigns.

3:03: Judges seem content and speaker 2 conveniently makes his submissions. It has to be said that he’s reaping the benefits of the fantastic first speaker.

3:06: A loose word in such a proceeding can cause you a lot of trouble.

3:07: Speaker 2 realized the same, after he said that the information provided by the claimants in their communication was “not good enough”

3:10: The tribunal grilled the speaker and asked him to be cautious with his choice of words. 

A “good enough” speech comes to an end.

3:11: Rebuttals begin.

3:13: The claimants did take note of the judges advice and in the opening statement pointed out an instance wherein the respondents provided an incomplete fact, which as per him was done to mislead the arbitrators. Pont well received by the judges.

3:14: Sur-rebuttals begin.

3:16: The respondents clear their stance and apologise for any miscommunication. A superiority is sought to be established of standard form of contract over the arbitration classes. A superiority is sought to be established of standard form of contract over the arbitration clauses. 




VCR-1: [719 (C) v 709 (R)]

6:02: The round begins. The Speaker 1 from the claimants starts with her submissions. She is barely just done with the introduction and greetings, that she is put off track as the Judge questions her on the jurisdiction. She clearly did not see this coming, neither did we. She fumbles, and struggles hard to get on track. However, she’s not able to satisfy the judges on the same.

6:10:The speaker still seems to be caught off-guard by all this. Kudos to her efforts to collect herself but the judges aren’t able to grasp much. She tries to condense her arguments, but the grilling isn’t helping.

6:18: The malfunction debate starts.. this might take some time!

6:19: The speaker is asked to sum up her arguments within a minute, which she does. It’s now turn for Speaker 2 to continue the arguments. He seems to be under a little pressure, and therefore fumbles a bit during the introductions, but he’s good to go!

6:24: Judge Ahana Sikdar questions the speaker on the maintenance of the log book. The speaker is able to answer and satisfy her!

6:28: Speaker 2 satisfactorily concludes the second issue without any follow up questions asked. He happily moves on with the third. Sigh of relief.

6:35: While it appeared that the judges were satisfied, as the speaker went uninterrupted for quite a few minutes, he was startled when the judge asked him to explain the issue of Clause 16 of Charter Party, about which he had been speaking on for the last 5 mins. Speaker- “As far as I’m aware…….”. Judge- “I don’t want to know what you’re aware of, I want to know if you have something!” Chills.

6:41: The claimants are done with their submissions. It’s now time for the respondents to defend themselves, one last time for the date. The Speaker 1 steps up, very confidently and respectfully, to make his submissions.

6:46: The speaker seems to be on a roll here, going on with negligible grilling. How long can he go on? Any bets? Judge Ahana Sikdar, “The word is not ‘Uncontractual”, it is ‘Non-Contractual.”

6:53: The Speaker 1 wraps up his submissions, with the help of a two minute extension. He seems to have impressed the judges. It’s now time for Speaker 2 to maintain the bar set by his Co-Counsel!

7:10: The judges throw questions at the speaker, and he knocks them off with his clear cut answers! An extension of 2 minutes to wrap his arguments up!

VCR-2: [710 (C) v 726 (R)]

6:19: As C S1 kicks in after a host of internet issues, judges ask the speaker to proceed with the facts.  The judge questions regarding the claim and it is evident that the judges are particular about a structured discussion.

6:23:  The judge puts C S1 in a tight spot by asking at their initial assumption and by seeking clarity on the facts mentioned as they try to seek further answers from the participants.

6:28: Piping hot bench: Arbitrators ask different questions to test the waters of basic assumptions of the C S1. “Where do you derive the obligation of notification from?” The speaker borrows time from her co-counsel’s time before the Tribunal and defends her case.


6:30:  Clock’s ticking- C S1 concludes with a struggle against time to sum up the issue. Time and arbitrators really wait for none!

6:34: SOS – C S2 addresses the ways in which Respondents could’ve acted- sent spare parts or instructed the crew. The Arbitrator asks the viability of these acts in transit.

6:29: “Uncargoworthiness”- New dictionaries are written as tongues of counsels twists in a time-tight oral round. The pressure is showing.

6:38: Arbitrator Osama asks a question related to the facts and leaves the C S2 speechless trying to establish this as a fact. The hot Bench doesn’t let anything slip!

6:40:  Navigation maps- The Bench seeks for reference of facts on specific page numbers from C S2 to agree to asserted facts.

6:42: “The owner doesn’t care about the cargo, they only care about one thing- the vessel!” The Arbitrators narrow down the interests of the owners acutely and C S2’s pace picks up to quickly fill in all doubts.

6:44: This or That: C S2 presses that the Reports are incomplete as they don’t contain rise in temperature across dates. “Please refer to the Temperature laws.” repeats the C S2.

6:45: Logic in law is being discussed as the debates continue with C S2. When all other tactics fail, logic resuscitates!

6:48: Bullet train- C S2 rushes through the submissions breathless by the tough questions and lack of time.

6:49: “Do you think it’s humanly possible to take care of 250 containers in a vessel everyday?” Arbitrator Osama battles logic with logic head on. Iron cuts iron, after all!

6:49: Arbitrator Osama battles logic with logic head on. Iron cuts iron, after all!

7:03: Nuke attack-  Arbitrators pose the simplest yet most troubling question to R S1, with The Speaker hesitates before saying yes.

7:04: Dusting hands- “The mere fact that we used all our capacity..” says the R S2 while shirking their responsibility for gross negligence.

7:07: Knifing- The Arbitrators ask the R S1 as to what changed in 10 minutes of the submission that they went from accepting to denying a fact? “I can’t answer that.”, smiles R S1. What secrets are they keeping?

7:11: One minute into the speech, the R S2 is asked by the Arbitrator “Show me where it is.” “Answer the question right now, however long it takes.”and the counsel is asked a very pressing question. The counsel stutters and goes around in circles. This maze is spiralling him down.

7:13: Gentlemen’s Club: Judge Osama questions the R S2’s reliance on the facts by pointing out a specific issue.. The exclusivity of application to parties is leaving the R on the sidelines! Will they be let in? Only time and arbitrators will tell.

7:16: “But where is it inserted?” The R S2 directs the Bench to the relevant submission. “Okay, you may go on.” The R S2 finally takes a sigh of relief!

7:21: Medium Rare – The faces of all Speakers stand testimony to the grilling in the furnace of the courtroom.

7:24: Colour inside the lines- The Arbitrators lay down their strict rules for the teams to address their rebuttals. The teams are taken aback but wing it, nonetheless.

7:25: Blame Game- Claimants rebut the case of the Respondents saying they mistook the question of jurisdiction. “My learned friends were confused and were misleading the court. They are claiming something they aren’t aware of.”

7:28: “We needed notification, we needed immediate notification” The R aren’t letting go of their primary interest even in sur-rebuttals!



VCR-3: [724 (C) v 716 (R)]

6:08: 724 (C) – Speaker 1: With utmost confidence and calm, the Speaker explains the facts within two minutes, and moves onto jurisdiction.

6:09: “It takes two to tango”. Classic Speaker 1. She moves on to stating Respondents did not fulfill their part of the contract. Respondents calmly look on.


6:10: Judge Prahalad questions the contractual obligations and the Speaker with full awareness and agility goes on to explain and directs the judge to the case study. Judges take note. 

6:12: for seaworthiness, having machinery is not an obligation, obligation is also for it to work. The Speaker will not take any negligence from the Respondents and directs concern of negligence on their part.

6:16: Judge Prahalad Bhat is all in on questioning Speaker 1 but she keeps her calm and merely replies to him and justifies her answers.

6:18: Judge Kriti Ranjan asks the Speaker about the time and distance between the two destinations. Now this has got the Council in a twist! But wait, has it? Seems not because she is back and explaining doctrines with full force.

6:20: Speaker 1 seems to have lost connection, but we can hear her. Some confusion but we are back on track.

6:28: Speaker is very calm and slow in explaining all his submissions. He moves onto a new issue and Judge Prahalad Bhat is ever present and questions him on contractual and tort law. Respondents are busy communicating and gathering arguments.

6:41: Speaker 1: She very confidently and clear manner lays down all their issues. Judge Prahalad Bhat is the voice of the Bench going right to business. He questions the Council on case laws cited and compares the same with the facts at hand and the allegations against the Respondents.

6:44: “Owners do not have duty apart from taking superficial care if the goods”. “Cargo had inherent perishable quality”. Poor fruit is stuck in a tennis game between both the parties. We feel deeply for the fruit.

6:46: Speaker 1 is in control. 2 minutes left, she very calmly concludes: “If it works, quacks, acts, talks like a duck, I will prefer to call it a duck.” And this is how Respondents hit the ball back to the Claimants court! We are looking forward to the rebuttals

6:49: Speaker 2 takes over. She is as confident as ever and with apt pauses explains the her arguments

6:52: Speaker fumbles but is calmly answering questions of the judges deeply against the fruit

6:56: Speaker’s arguments seem undisputed by the Judges. The Respondents however, think otherwise. They are busy getting their arguments ready. They can’t losse against a fruit!


6:59: Claimants are back on the stage! They hit right on the ship. Ship never thought to have it’s credibility questioned because of the Bananas getting rotten. But seaworthiness as an argument does not seem to get old

Sur Rebuttal-

7:01: Respondents won’t have it. They are going to save their ship. Literally and figuratively. Speaker 2 very softly passes the buck back to the containers of the Claimants. It’s Bananas v Ship now. Let’s see who ends up winning

7:08: Round ends. Judges’ Caucus begins.


VCR-4: [707(C) v 706 (R)]

6:05: The final session for the preliminary stages begins. Session 5 Day 2 between teams 707 C v 706 R.

6:08: Facts are the first and foremost in a moot court competition, to be used to tilt a case in your favour. Speaker 1 from the claimants side keeps this thing in mind and asks the Tribunal to narrate the facts of the problem. The Tribunal obliges and asks him to narrate the facts.

6:11: The counsel starts off strong but the bench will not let him have his say with ease.

6:16: A flurry of questions are thrown at him and the counsel tries for 30 seconds if he could dodge the questions. ailing in his attempt, he was quick to “plead ignorance”. One of the arbitrators had a wry smile on his face. Though the plea was accepted, there’s a high chance that this instance will not be ignored while allotting the final marks.

6:20: Judge Aishwarye was quick to ask whether the counsel was relying on a fact, which is nowhere mentioned in the fact sheet? The counsel replied that the said fact is mentioned in one of the annexures to the fact sheet.

6:22: Speaker 1 had his transitions. Freely flowing arguments and stammering in equal proportions. An extension was sought by him for 1 minute. However, the tribunal being particular of the schedule, allowed 30 seconds only.

6:23: Those 30 seconds were put to good use. Speaker 1 quickly yet elaborately summarised all his points, and left the floor open for the second speaker.

6:26: Speaker 2 starts off by extending a greeting to the members of the tribunal and that his party is glad to have this arbitration proceedings amidst this pandemic.

6:29: The bench appears to be a hot one, speaker 1 was lucky enough to get away with so called “ease”. Judge Aishwarye asked a practical question and when answered with a vague argument said that “don’t beat around the bush, I’m asking you a very simple question, answer me don’t waste the tribunals time” .

6:31: The counsel was visibly shaken by such a confrontation and he too pleaded ignorance. 2 in 2 for the judges own little streak. The counsel gathers himself and proceeds further.

6:33: When asked for a practical solution to the cargo damage, he resorted to drawing an analogy to a hypothetical situation.

6:34: Not a wise choice, he was told to “halt his essay writing urges and provide a prudent solution if he has any”.

6:36: To his credit he didn’t panic and made his submissions. A tough round, well contested by the counsel comes to an end.

6:38: Speaker 1 from the Respondents side looks to calm the air. She begins politely and confidently.

6:44: Questions were thrown and her rhythm sought to be disrupted. The speaker did stammer for a few seconds, but she kept her poise and continued with her submissions.

6:48: The counsels submissions give an impression that the conditions of the bananas was a matter of sour grapes for her party.

6:52: Judge Saurabh made an observation that there lies “an implied duty”  for the well-being of the cargo. To which it was replied by the learned counsel that clauses  pertaining to the same are explicit and leave no room for interpretation. The judges did not seem content with this argument. A well balanced speech ends.

6:56: To her credit, she did not plead ignorance and managed to navigate her way to safety.

6:58: Speaker 2 feels confident about his case and uses the base created by the first speaker to build further.

7:00: The hot bench bombards him with technical terms, to which the counsel was totally unaware. He tried, tried again, and finally gave the tribunal what they were seeking for, he  too “pleads ignorance”. Seems like the tribunal are here to make this session a memorable one not only for the participants but for themselves too. Make the score 3 in 4 .

7:07: Judge Aishwarye is having none of the counsel when he said that the claim was not substantial enough to act upon. Judge Aishwarye replied “when a claim goes up what do you do? You sit idle with the ripe bananas or make an attempt to negotiate?”

7:09: The second speaker was caught off guard time and again. He couldn’t complete his submissions.

7:10: The rounds so far look evenly balanced. The tribunal is really particular about the schedule and asked the courtroom assistant to tell the extra time taken by both the parties which was roughly a minute. After which the tribunal decided to take 30s away from the time allocated for rebuttals.

7:11: The decisive rebuttals and sur-rebuttals follow.

7:13: The claimants begin.

7:16: He begins in a hurry, points out a discrepancy in the memorandum submitted by the respondents. He hurries, to particular fact concealed by the respondents. He hurriedly then references a case law. 1.5 minutes full of substance but severely lacking any voice modulation or clarity to be understood. All one could hear was allegations.

7:20: The respondent adopted a totally contrary approach. She calmly went on with her submissions denied the allegations made in the rebuttals and concluded.

7:21: An evenly contested affair comes to an end.



22nd  AUGUST 2020


Welcome to Day III of the 7th Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot, 2020.


We shall now be announcing the teams who have made it into the Quarter-Finals!


The teams who have qualified, in no particular order, are:

School of Law, Christ (Deemed To Be University), Bangalore
Government Law College, Mumbai
NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
Institute of Law, Nirma University
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Symbiosis Law School, Noida


We heartily congratulate all the teams and wish them the best of luck for the upcoming Quarter-Finals. The stakes are about to go a notch higher so stay tuned!

We shall return with the live updates for the Quarter-Final Rounds shortly.



VCR-1: Institute of Law, Nirma University (C) v Symbiosis Law School, Pune (R)

3:17: After a nail biting preliminary rounds, it now time for the Quarter-Finalists to give their best to reserve their spots in the semi-finals. The Virtual Courtroom is presided by Anubhab Sarkar, Deven Choudhary and Rishabh Saxena. The Speaker 1 from Nirma University steps up and steps up confidently and begins presenting her issue.

3:20: It seems like the arbitrators were waiting for the Speaker to mention ‘Small Claims Procedure’. From the moment she mentioned , the arbitrators have been fixed on that. 

When the speaker is not able to provide enough explanation for the same, she shifts the responsibility of explanation to her co-counsel. (Smart Move) 

However, the arbitrators, being the smart men they are, ask the 2nd Speaker to step up and give the answer to the same. They clearly didn’t see this coming. 

Sadly, he isn’t able to. The arbitrators smirk and move on!

3:27: Pressure builds up on the speaker as she now knows that she won’t be able to slide any statement in her speech without having a great backing for it! Arbitrator Deven Choudhary ensures the same by interrupting the speaker almost every 30 seconds.

3:35: Speaker- “I am so sorry, I misunderstood your argument.” Arbitrator Anubhab Sarkar- “Counsel, you’re the one arguing, we’re only asking questions!” Laughter follows

3:40: The speaker is said to sum up her arguments within a minute. She does that beautifully and fluently. The arbitrators listen to her intently without any further questions. So far, so good!

3:42: Speaker 2 from Nirma has to fill the shoes of Speaker 1 now. He begins with providing a roadmap for his submissions and issues. Little does he know that he won’t be able to stick to that little roadmap drawn by him. Arbitrator Rishabh Saxena interrupts the Speaker by questioning him on the correspondence and communication. He fumbles but tries hard to collect himself.

3:48: Speaker- “Sir, the opposing counsels haven’t raised this issue”. Arbitrator Deven Choudhary- “How can you be so sure that they won’t?” A smirk and a moment of laughter follows.

3:54: Arbitrator Deven Choudhary questions the Speaker on the reason for applicability of the Hague Visby Rules on the facts of the case. The speaker tries, but isn’t able to provide a reason for the same. Arbitrator Deven Choudhary- “Do you want to plead ignorance?” Speaker- “No Sir. I know the answer. But I don’t know the reason.“ Arbitrator Anubhab Sarkar- “(laughing) How??? I mean How can you know the answer but not the reason”. Looks like the speaker has no reason for this question, as well!

4:00: Eyes turn to the researcher as Arbitrator Deven Choudhary asks him if he knows the reason of applicability of Hague Visby Rules on the facts. Sadly he doesn’t and the Court moves on to the next issue.

4:04: Looks like the Speaker is not a fan of pleading ignorance, even when it’s clear that he doesn’t know the answer. Speaker- “I can’t…”. Arbitrator Deven Choudhary- “If you don’t know the answer, plead ignorance and move on”. Speaker- “I don’t know the answer…”. Arbitrator Deven Choudhary- “ No no, plead ignorance!” Speaker- “ummm” Arbitrator Deven Chaudhary- “Plead Ignorance!”  Speaker- “(hesitantly) The Counsel pleads ignorance” Arbitrator Deven Choudhary- “Fantastic! Move on!”

4:10: It’s now the time for the respondents, SLS Pune to defend themselves. The Speaker begins swiftly and is interrupted by Arbitrator Rishabh Saxena for a quick rapid fire on the facts of the case.

4:14A question is asked to the Speaker related to Arbitration in which she requires an authority to back up. When she as well as her co-counsel is unable to do so, eyes turn to the researcher.  Researcher- “According to me, Arbitration is between two parties and it runs as and what they stipulate……..” Anubhab Sarkar- “We know that, Ma’am. Do you have an authority to back it up or not?” Arbitrator Deven Choudhary- “Well she did start stating ‘According to her’ so maybe…haha!”

4:33: The Speaker confidently wraps up her arguments with the help of an extension of 2 minutes. The baton is passed to the second speaker who shall deal with the 3rd and 4th Issues.

4:41: The speaker claims that the presence of the owners during the survey is a customary practice. Eyebrows raised, eyes popped. Seems like ‘customary practice’ is a wrong choice of words. Arbitrator Anubhab Sarkar asks if the respondents have any case law to show that it is a customary practice. The Speaker denies the same and thus proves her claim wrong!

4:46: Did we just hear the word “perfect” at the end of an argument? Kudos Speaker 2!

4:56: Seems like the Speaker has fallen in the trap of the arbitrators and Arbitrator Deven Choudhary can’t control his laughter.

4:59: The speaker realising this confidently tries to reason her way, but we can’t comprehend whether she satisfied the arbitrators or not! Also, with this the time ends and it’s time for the rebuttals.

Round ends.


VCR-2: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow (C) v Symbiosis Law School, Noida (R)

3:10: The quarter final round at VCR 2 starts off in full swing with the C S1 initiating her oral submission. She charts out the factual matrix while guiding the arbitrators across the pages of the case study.

3:14: Discussions ensue as to who the crew will listen to and who can instruct them. The arbitrators guide the C S2 and make them review their submission. The deliberation ends in C S2 maintaining her original stance but admitting “There were some instances”.

3:18: Deliberations on the timeline of the factual matrix takes place. C S1 confidently and calmly works to satisfy the arbitrators.

3:20: Arbitrators break fundamental assumptions in the Claimant’s case. The questions of “Who’s servants?” cloud the courtroom. The C S1 takes a minute to process and moves to the second part of the submission.

3:26: The claimant submits the reason they are pushing for application of certain Rules. Under time constraints, they quickly try to address the third submission.

3:27: “It is their responsibility, they had to provide everything.” “It was because of their incompetence that the goods were damaged.” The C S1 throws in her final additions in the submission.

3:30: Extending on the foundation laid by C S1, C S2 proceeds his submission with addressing how the servants were under the instructions of the charterers. The arbitrators ask the C S2 for pinpointed facts in the problem.

3:35: After a smooth sailing submission thus far, C S2 points the Arbitrators to different parts of the compendium and refers to certain “reasonable assumptions”. Arbitrators seek clarifications.

3:37: The Arbitrators questions about a certain material fact. C S2 mentions boldly “That is a disputed fact, if the Arbitrators could keep that aside for a minute…”

3:45: C S2 is questioned about the receipt of Reports by them. Their response leaves the Arbitrators nodding.

3:48: The tribunal asks the C S2 if it can take cognizance of the notice. The counsel tries to satisfy the Bench with a fact. The Arbitrator seeks the legal point instead.

3:53: R S1 initiates her submission where she will cover the first legal issue in the dispute. She mentions “Our responsibility is defined but also limited”.

3:56: R S1 explains the working of the monitoring system and mentions that the failure of Claimant to explain it is the very basis of the dispute.

3:58: Arbitrator Prabhita Dutta shoots three questions directly at the R S1 that they had previously asked the Claimant.

4:03: R S1 fiercely puts it out there “Due to the power trip, your container couldn’t take the power.” After shifting the blame, she asks the Arbitrators “If this malfunction is clear, I would seek permission to move to the next malfunction.”

4:06: R S1 breaks the court into a technical analysis of the containers. They blamed the C for lack of coordination with technical logs.

4:09: “We have fulfilled all obligations casted upon us by the charterers.” R S1 declares without inviting any questions.

4:14: The R S1 concludes her submissions two minutes before the reserved time. The Bench comes up with residual questions. The case sounds convincing.

4:19: “If the tribunal is with me?” echoes across the courtroom throughout the submission of the Respondent. They hold the attention of the Bench tightly.

4:24: R S2 refers to an Indian judgement. “How does it bind us?”, asks the Arbitrator Amanpreet Gosal. “I didn’t mean to bind the tribunal, I’ll not refer to it in that case.”, the R S2 chuckles in response.

4:28: “The tribunal will agree that this is a fairly elaborate Report”, the R S2 states, breaking down into different parts of the Report that they’re paying heavy reliance on.

4:32: “It was my client, only my client, my client…” R S2 very proudly defends the Respondent case.

4:38: Lonely Boy- “I’m not saying you invite me, you have no obligation” R S2 answers to a question posted by the Arbitrator Anuj Dhowan. But goes on to contend it on other grounds.

4:42: Tug of War- “Is the tribunal with me?” echoes in the speech of the Claimant too. The courtroom has turned into a tussle for the Arbitrators’ attention.

4:46: Whataboutery- Claimant rebuts the case of Respondent by contending that the goods were safe in all other containers. It was the refrigeration’s fault.

4:47: 20 seconds of the sur-rebuttals are reserved by a discussion on whether the plug was correct or not and how the plugging and unplugging was problematic instead.

4:49: “It has been completely misinterpreted” the Respondent sur-rebuts. They cover technical grounds to say wrong inferences have been drawn.

Round comes to an end.


VCR-3: School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore (C) v Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala (R)

3:21: Speaker 1, Rounds start. Some technical setbacks, but Speaker 1 after all of that is able to start her speech with complete calmth. She explains to the Arbitrators the facts. Today we have on the Tribunal Arbitrators Mr. Prateek Sibbal, Ms. Aditi Maheshwari and Ms. Tripti Sharma.

3:23: The bench listens on keenly. They also seem to be going through their documents as the Speaker 1 goes on. Other parties keenly listen.

3:25: She lays down her case laws and guides our Arbitrators skillfully to the clauses of the contracts and the case study in order to explain the Respondents liability and the fault in the damage caused to the goods.

3:27: Arbitrator Tripti Sharma asks a factual question to the Speaker. She takes a pause and the answers in a straightforward manner. She sights the dates of correspondence and seeks permission to move on. Madam Arbitrator looks satisfied and allows.

3:30: Arbitrator Aditi interrupts the speaker asking about citing cases from a different jurisdiction. A direct and confident answer from the Council let’s her move onto her submissions.

3:34: Speaker 1 goes on comparing each and every important clauses of the Charter party to put the blame on the Respondents. Madam Arbitrator Tripti catches her and questions her on the Master Servant relationship between the parties. The Speaker seems to have seen the question coming and with brilliant confidence goes on to directing the Bench towards answer. Madam Arbitrator is nodding her head slightly.

3:37: Speaker 1 moves on to her next argument which makes her argue about clauses leading to Respondents look utterly guilty. Respondents are seen skimming around their documents cross checking our Speaker 1’s arguments

3:40: Arbitrator Prateek Sibbal asks the Speaker about their Containers. Speaker again seems to have seen this coming and she is very nicely answering referring to the survey. Her speech is stopped as Arb Aditi goes on to attributing fault onto the Containers but our Speaker 1 is ready.

3:40: Everytime we seem to assume that the Speaker may be able to get out of this conversation, the Arbitrators get her back to it. The Speaker is calm and asks for a 5 minutes extension which is granted. She guides the Arbitrators to the case study and the Survey Reports and shows evidence attributing blame onto the Respondents.

3:42: She is now wrapped around in her own argument by the Arbitrators. Speaker 1’s co-counsels look on. Our Arbitrators are in sync with each other and are questioning her on the containers and their power supply. The Speaker speaks of a complex electrical engineering in the Ship and is allowed to move on to her next argument. We cannot be sure if the arbitrators are satisfied but the Speaker is very smoothly able to go about presenting her remaining arguments.

3:47: 1 minute more extension grounded for the Speaker to wrap up her Seaworthiness arguments. The arbitrators seem to be keenly paying attention to the Speaker. The Speaker confuses the Tribunal with a Court but she comes back to present and gracefully wraps up her arguments

3:48: Speaker 2 – She checks her audibility and moves in confidence to explain her issues.

3:52: Our Speaker 2 receives no questions from the Tribunal 5 minutes into her arguments. She is very clearly and nicely going about sighting cases and is slow enough for letting our Arbitrators go through their documents

3:54: As we blog our aforementioned statements, Madam Arbitrator Tripti asks her a question on Charter party which Speaker 2 answers in a very composed manner. The Researcher seems to have full trust in our Speakers and is seen calmly observing the arguments. The team argues smoothly. Respondents look on.

3:58: Only one question by the Tribunal, our Speaker moves onto her next issue calling for invoking the Arbitration clause and issues dealing with claims and determination of liability. 

4:02: Madam Arbitrator Tripti questions Speaker 2 on consultation clause in the charterparty. Here our Researcher is sitting upright and is assisting our Speaker with the arguments. Speaker 1 looks on. Speaker 2 confidently tackles this and Madam Arb lets her go forward to discussing Survey Reports

4:04: She sets forth the documents they put their reliance on and the Tribunal looks on. In her concluding remarks, Speaker 1 holds the Respondents completely liable. She relies on a Convention whose applicability is questioned by Madam Arbitrator Aditi Maheshwari. Our Researcher is again quick on his feet assisting the Speaker 2 and Speaker 2 is a little hesitant but is trying to keep her calm while answering. Respondents seem to have sat back comfortably, overlooking what is being unfolded.

4:07: Madam Arb has caught her on the applicability of the Convention and the Speaker 2 is trying to get out from the situation with as much confidence and prudence that she can. Madam Arb seems to have caught her in a limbo. Speaker 2 pauses. The Researcher and Speaker 1 is up on his feet reaching towards his laptop assisting the Speaker 2.

4:09: 2 minutes extension granted and Speaker 2 concludes her prayers but is caught again in a cross fire by Madam Arb. But now, our Speaker 2 seems to be back in control. She explains her arguments as the Tribunal listens. The moment we feel that she might be able to move on, a twist in the rounds happen Mr. Arb Prateek Sibbal comes in to question her as well. Speaker 2 is gracefully trying to get out of the limbo. 2 minutes more granted. Speaker 2 goes to conclude her prayer first. Granted.

4:12: it seems to now be a conversation between the Arbitrators. Speaker 2 is still caught up in the middle. Our Arb have been waiting for this moment and they seem to have caught her. Speaker 1 and Researcher look on. Speaker 2 is now stuck in a labyrinth of questions. She tried to go around it however, nothing seems to work for her to get out of it.

4:16: Heavy Grilling is sti going on. Finally Speaker 2 gets to go back to her prayer. Maybe 3rd time would be a charm and she can finish it! She goes back as confidently as she has started and calmly finishes her statement.

4:18: RGNUL (R) Speaker 1- Checking his audio, he begins with laying down his issues.

4:20: Our Madam Arbitrator Tripti is clearly charged up with the previous grilling and two minutes in she goes on to throwing questions at the Speaker 1. He however, goes into giving simple and calm answers. He sounds a little nervous but his composure is pretty calm.

4:22: Madam Arbitrator Aditi also joins in the feast. Researcher is running in assisting the Speaker 1 with the questions.

4:24: speaker 2 finally escapes the gunfire and moves onto his further submissions limiting his liability in settlement of the claim.

4:29: with less than 10 minutes remaining, the questions have decreased and the Speaker 1 very nicely seeks permission to move onto the next contention. Granted. Speaker 1:” Thank you thank you”

4:30: Malreef and Container reports are now being discussed upon. Speaker 1 very accurately recalls all the container numbers! Good memory. He moves on to citing case laws and guides the Arbitrators to various clauses of the Charterparty trying to establish a Master Servant relationship and pinning the blame back on the Claimants.

4:32: Arbitrator Tripti has caught him on the same.

4:35: with one minute left, the Arbitrators have caught our Speaker 1 in a limbo. Researcher and Speaker 2 both are up and at assisting him. Speaker fumbles but tries to keep together and goes on to answer the questions.

4:38: The Arbitrators will have none of it. Time does not seem to be the concern of this Tribunal. Granting 5 minutes extension both the Speaker and the Arbitrators go onto looking into various clauses and discussions in the charterparty.

4:39: Speaker 1: The worthy opposing Counsel was very smart to state the rider clause shall not apply, but it shall apply. Opposing Counsel subtly receives the compliment and goes onto shifting through her notes.

4:41: Madam Arbitrator Tripti questions Council on a certain clause of the Charterparty considering all the liability lies on the opposite party

4:42: Speaker 2 takes over. Our Speaker 2 is as confident as ever. He calmly sits and has a very soft voice. He point by point lays down the arguments for the convenience of the Tribunal.

4:44: He goes on to discuss agreements dealing with the reefer and Container maintenance and its logs. Arbitrators keenly listen on. Researcher sits ready to charge in at the time of need

4:48: Bring in the Master Servant relationship, Counsel talks about customary industry practices and moves on with his submissions.

4:49: Mr. Arbitrator Prateek asks him about the extent of Master Servant relationship among the parties. How flamboyantly does our Counsel respond! Our Mr. Arbitrator seems satisfied.

4:53: Due diligence is a two way street and Claimants did not follow theirs and hence are to be liable as well.

5:00:  Rounds seem to get extended. Our Arbitrators are ready with questions on the issue of the survey reports. Speaker 1 and Researcher are racing towards assisting our Counsel. He does not seem to be deterred at all and is keeping a good poker face.

5:01: Arbitrator Aditi questions the Counsel on factual matters. Madam Arbitrator Tripti seems to get Aditi’s hint and joins in. Mr Arb Prateek looks on. Seems like he won’t be quiet for long either. The grilling keeps going. Claimants too seem to be conversing among each other.

5:02: Two minutes left and Arbitrator Aditi questions Counsel on the applicability of certain rules. Counsel after all that grilling needs hydration. With a few seconds pause, he moves on.

5:03: discussing the applicability of certain rules, Arbitrator Aditi allows extension of time and asks the Counsel to clarify. Speaker 2 seems to be losing his poker face now. He tries his level best to keep himself together. Claimants calmly sit and observe.

5:08: Counsel 2 seems to be apologising for the past few minutes. Finally he is given a chance to move forward. Let’s see for how long.

5:10: Counsel makes excellent observation regarding the cargo before it was boarded. Arbitrator Aditi seems to agree, but Arbitrator Tripti goes on to going back to blaming the Respondents.

5:12: 1 minute extension granted. But it will not be enough. Our Counsel 2 maybe can now understand the plight of our Claimant’s Counsel 2. Counsel spends the last ten seconds apologising and seeking extension for wrapping up his arguments.

5:14: Finally Counsel arrives to his final contention! His confidence and calm demeanor is back and he goes on to calmly explain his arguments

5:16: Arbitrator Tripti asks the Council if he wants to raise another issue with regard to the losses. Respondents clarify and we move on

5:17: Rebuttals

5:20: Speaker 1 of Claimants has accused the Respondents of misleading the Tribunal. Respondents won’t have any of it and are polishing their weaponry. Respondents did not communicate any issues during the voyage and claim the crew and the vessel to be not seaworthy. The crew is being questioned here.

5:23: Our Claimants do not seem to catch a break! We never thought she would be caught in crossfire again even during the rebuttals. We sit and quietly observe. We wonder how the Sur Rebuttals will go.

5:26: Extension on extension, extension on extension.

5:28: This is a very interesting Bench so far. Questions after questions. No argument, no word is a safe space. This will be a close call. The participants are seen to be engaged in dancing on their chairs moving back and forth trying to communicate with their teammates. Meanwhile, Speaker 1 hopes to sail to shore despite being in a boat so turbulent.

5:31: Sur Rebuttals. Speaker 2 of Respondents take the risk of going into the Bermuda Triangle as well. He calmly and carefully uses his words watching out on sharks ready to pounce. We look out for our fellow Counsel, the Sharks ready to pounce. He sails on discussing the Cargo and inspection of goods. We expect a question coming.

5:34: Respondents sail well. 

5:35: Rounds over. Judges’ Caucus begins.


VCR-4: Government Law College, Mumbai (C) v NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad (R)

3:12: And so it begins! Quarter final 4 starts with NALSAR and GLC Mumbai going head to head for a prestigious semi-final berth.

3:15: Arbitrator Miranda stopped the claimants less than a minute into their submissions and said that if there is a jurisdiction issue the respondents must go first and argue the same. The fellow arbitrators agreed.

3:16: It’s been decided that the time that the speaker from the respondent side takes for arguing the jurisdiction issue will be subtracted from her total time.

3:17: Right off the bat one side’s flow is broken and the other side is called into action before than expected.

3:22: Arbitrator Sughosh, counsel “don’t you think that the present forum operates with a fair mechanism for dispute resolution, if yes then don’t argue that there is a prejudice”

3:23: The respondents finish their jurisdiction issues which is pretty much left in an ambiguous position.

3:24: The claimant now, takes the floor and argues that how this tribunal has jurisdiction.

3:27: Speaker 1 from the claimants side answers the first few questions and within a couple of minutes moves to her subsequent submissions.

3:28: Arbitrator Sughosh asks, “which case is this” speaker 1 from the claimants side, “it is a maritime case Mr. Arbitrator”.

3:29: Arbitrator Sughosh “obliged counsel, thank you for letting me know it is a maritime case”.

3:30: Every aspect of the case law cited was then questioned, the facts, the ratio, the type of goods, the duty imposed. Counsel answers a few and apologises for her lack of knowledge on the other aspects. Safe to say that letting the tribunal know that the case cited was of “maritime law” was not a smart choice.

3:37: A certain survey report relied upon is scrutinized by Arbitrator Miranda and the counsel was questioned on the same. Counsel smartly dodges the questions and proceeds. Only to be stopped by Arbitrator Damayanti, asking her about her “specific duties”, she again manoeuvres her way around and looks to proceed. However, the questions don’t seem to stop. Arbitrator Miranda throws a fresh set of questions.

3:39: The counsel relies on the first and foremost document, the fact sheet, and is managing well with the onslaught of queries by the tribunal.

3:44: The tribunal asked for the pin cite of a fact iterated by the counsel in her submission. The counsel fails to help the tribunal to the exact page where the same is mentioned.  Researcher for the claimants was asked for help, however he too, couldn’t help the tribunal with the same. More than a minute is wasted in this search, time definitely not well spent.

3:46: Resulting in the counsel short on time even to begin her second contention.

3:47: The tribunal obliges her by granting a minute’s time to wrap up the submissions.

3:51: She finishes confidently, only to be stopped again by the arbitrators to guide her to the page where one of the facts submitted by her is mentioned. She flips the pages of her material, points out the page(s), which unfortunately was not what the tribunal was seeking.

3:52: Speaker 2 from the claimants side starts.

3:54: As we blog our aforementioned statements, Madam Arbitrator Tripti asks her a question on Charter party which Speaker 2 answers in a very composed manner.

The Researcher seems to have full trust in our Speakers and is seen calmly observing the arguments. The team argues smoothly. Respondents look on.

3:58: Only one question by the Tribunal, our Speaker moves onto her next issue calling for invoking the Arbitration clause and issues dealing with claims and determination of liability. 

4:02: Madam Arbitrator Tripti questions Speaker 2 on consultation clause in the charterparty. Here our Researcher is sitting upright and is assisting our Speaker with the arguments. Speaker 1 looks on.

Speaker 2 confidently tackles this and Madam Arb lets her go forward to discussing Survey Reports

4:04: She sets forth the documents they put their reliance on and the Tribunal looks on. In her concluding remarks, Speaker 1 holds the Respondents completely liable. She relies on a Convention whose applicability is questioned by Madam Arbitrator Aditi Maheshwari. Our Researcher is again quick on his feet assisting the Speaker 2 and Speaker 2 is a little hesitant but is trying to keep her calm while answering. Respondents seem to have sat back comfortably, overlooking what is being unfolded.

4:07: Madam Arb has caught her on the applicability of the Convention and the Speaker 2 is trying to get out from the situation with as much confidence and prudence that she can. Madam Arb seems to have caught her in a limbo. Speaker 2 pauses. The Researcher and Speaker 1 is up on his feet reaching towards his laptop assisting the Speaker 2.

4:09: No bluffing is working today, the tribunal has gone through the entire fact sheet line by line.

4:13: Speaker 2 should be commended for his keeping his cool. His time is up.

4:14: Respondents speaker 1 takes the floor for the second time after previously arguing the jurisdiction issue.

4:16: The jurisdiction issue was not contested particularly well. However, the counsel looks calm and composed and she has answered the initial queries of the tribunals satisfactorily.

4:20: The so far fantastic speech continues, references are made to facts, then cross-reference is made to the arbitral clauses to be read together, and subsequently a case law backing the submission is provided.

4:26: A “bonafide intention” is argued and Arbitrator Miranda was quick to reiterate his questions totally ignoring the intent.

4:27: The fantastic speaker 1, seeked an extension for a minute to answer the question, and did so in a very concise and polite manner. The tribunal seemed content.

4:28: Speaker 2 takes over the reigns.

4:33: The counsel states that in case of maritime law, it is a general practice that a particular clause “takes precedence over” the other type of clauses. Arbitrator Damayanti stopped the counsel then and there and asked for “any authority which observed this general practice”.

4:34: The counsel stammers, takes his time and innovatively comes up with a American case law which had some bearance with his “general practice” argument. 

4:37: However, Arbitrator Damayanti, said there is a “landmark case law w.r.t the same and the seat of this tribunal is in U.K so she’s not bound by an American precedent”.

4:43: Counsel heavily relies on a particular legal document. Arguments seemed well connected and clear. An unfortunate event that followed was when asked by the tribunal to read a particular clause of that legal document. The counsel apologised for his inability to do so as he doesn’t have a copy of the same.

4:46: The tribunal straightaway asked to move to his next submission, since he doesn’t have a copy of the document based on which he’s substantiating his arguments.

4:50: However, the tribunal was considerate enough and duly noted the crisp and logically flowing arguments of the respondent and didn’t take into account that the relevant material was not with him.

4:53: The respondent speaker 2 finishes off confidently and the arbitrators seemed content with his arguments.

4:54: Rebuttals begin.

4:55: The claimants realising that they have cover a few yards to finish the round at a balance started off swiftly and precisely. 4 points were rebutted by the claimant speaker in her speech. 4 points which the arbitrators took note of.

4:58: Utilising the full potential of the final few minutes the last gasp efforts seems good enough to balance out the odds.

5:02: The Respondents sense the efforts made by the claimants and start off with a sense of urgency of their own and within 2 minutes time finish their arguments.

Round comes to an end.


With this, we come to an end to the Quarter-Final Rounds. The results for the Semi-Final Rounds will be streamed Live on our Facebook Page at 6.30 pm today! Stay tuned.




NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

School of Law, Christ (Deemed To Be University), Bangalore


We extend our hearty congratulations to all the teams. As we build up to the Semi-Final and Final Rounds to be held tomorrow, an enthralling battle is in store as teams will compete for a place in the final round.



23nd August 2020





Welcome to the Fourth and the Final Day of the 7th NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot, 2020. It promises to be a thrilling day and we shall be giving you live updates on the Semi-Final Rounds and the Final Round as they unfold through the day.

VCR-1: School of Law, Christ (Deemed To Be University), Bangalore (C) v Symbiosis Law School, Pune (R)

We have made strides and have now reached one step closer to the Finals, i.e. Round 1 battle of Semi-finals begins. We can see that all the participants are calm by faces yet nervousness can be sensed in the room. 

9:15: The Arbitrators after contemplating decided to opt for traditional method, i.e. Claimants go first. The speaker 1 of claimants started by explaining the facts of the case in a calm and steady manner.

9:19: Speaker 1 has explained the facts to the bench in the best manner possible and proceeded with her submissions regarding mishandling of the reefer and how due diligence is not adopted by the Respondents. We can see the Researcher of Respondent taking notes for the submissions made by Speaker 1. The arbitrators continue to listen to Speaker 1 for now. The arbitrators are also keeping a keen eye on the documents submitted by the parties.

9:22: Speaker 1 continues without any interruptions from the Arbitrators. She submits her contentions by navigating the Arbitrators through compendium and case study and seems to satisfy the bench for now by her first-fold argument.

9:23: The Arbitrator interrupts the flow of Speaker 1 as he ‘lost the track of clauses’ cited by the Speaker 1 and thus clarified to confirm. The speaker 1 clarifies the query by arbitrator well and proceeds with her second-fold argument for first submission. 

9:25: The speaker 1 continues with her second fold argument and points out the temperature sensitive nature of bananas. The arbitrators seem satisfied for now. The researcher of claimants seems confident about her team-mate and has taken a back seat for now.

9:28: The one of the arbitrators does not seem satisfied with contentions of Speaker 1 and therefore interrupts her to verify the contention she is making. He especially pointed out that as per the charterparty her contention does not stand. The researcher of claimants is on feet but by mistake he sends a private message supposed for Speaker 1 to everyone. Speaker 1 continues to answer the Arbitrator with a calm posture yet it is evident that she is fumbling. She answers the arbitrator regarding the seaworthiness argument.

9:30: The arbitrator again puts a question to Speaker 1 and directs her to another clause as he wasn’t satisfied by the previous answer by the speaker. The bench seems kind and helped the speaker identify the clause for which the arbitrator seeks an answer for. Speaker 1 is poised before answering. Must say, she handled the question well. And continues with her third submission.

9:32: Speaker 1 is interrupted again in the flow. It seems the arbitrators have attacked her with bullets of questions. The speaker seems impatient as the questions have eaten her time and she might not be able to finish her third argument within time. Yet she takes the questions well and is about to answer calmly. The researcher of claimants is on his feet to leave no leaf unfolded to help his speaker.

9:33: Speaker 1 tries to answer the Arbitrator however she couldn’t as arbitrators ask her not to deal with the sea-worthiness argument for now. For the second time speaker 1 tries to submit her third submission. But arbitrators do not seem interested in listening to the submission and interrupt her again. No doubt the questions took a lot of the time of speech and a 3 minute extension is granted to her. She concludes third submission briefly where she points out lack of due diligence and failure on part of respondents to maintain logs. Also speaker is prudent to point out the claim by respondents in memorials and negates it by her submissions and pass the buck for breach of duty to respondents.

9:38: The researcher and speaker 1 of respondents are seen worried and taking notes for submissions made by speaker 1. The bench seems to have many queries and the arbitrator is not satisfied by submissions and uses facts to hold responsibility on part of claimants.

9:40: The second extension is denied and now the mic is shifted to speaker 2 of claimants. She is known for her coolness and calm nature. She carries and answers the preliminary questions put to her speaker 1. The arbitrator asks her not to deal in argument of sea-worthiness as it will save her time and ask her to accept the argument as it is, i.e. problem being at their end by saying ‘avoiding the argument can be of more meat’ to her.

9:42: Seems like speaker 2 failed to take the hint and continues with submission by pointing out the complex system of containers’ power supply. Speaker 2 correctly points out that sea-worthiness is the same as cargo-worthiness.

9:44: The arbitrators are well versed with the clauses and they question Speaker 2 on the same. Speaker 2 answers the question with grace and is able to satisfy the bench. She continues with her further arguments of implied duty on part of the respondents. Also she is well-prepared with facts and has the skill to play with the facts in her favour.

9:47: The arbitrators seem to be fully charged with their morning tea and pounce with questions one after another to the speaker. The question has put the respondents also to think. They can be seen flipping the pages to check the argument usage maybe in their favour.

9:50: Speaker 2 has maintained her calm throughout and taken all questions of the bench with zeal. Yet one of the questions by the arbitrator made her fumble. The researcher of respondents might have sensed a mistake on part of Speaker 2 as ‘ smile says it all’.  She immediately informs her speakers of the same.

9:58: Speaker 2 is seen to emphasize on delivering prayer yet the bench is uninterested in the same and Arbitrators use the time well to put as many questions as possible. The Arbitrators question on Time-barred aspect of the issue. The speaker denies the same.

10:00: The Arbitrators are in full mode of questioning and have put a difficult question to Speaker 2 based on the clause of Bill-Lading. She is granted time to find the answer for the same. She might be able to come back and answer with flying colours in her rebuttals.

10:01: Now finally after much anticipation, the Speaker 1 of respondents start with her speech. She is calm and slow. She tried to navigate the bench through her compendium.

10:04: The arbitrators fail to spot the navigated spot. Eventually it is realised that there was a mistake on part of the speaker in directing the panel. Finally we all are on the same page with the clause which the speaker 1 was pointing out.

10:13: The speaker 1 continues her submissions slowly now. She goes on uninterrupted till now. The arbitrator points out that her argument is weak and she can go ahead leaving this argument. Yet the speaker seems determined in making the bench understand her take and thus continues with her submission. 

We can see that the last question put to speaker 2 of claimants has left her without an answer, thus the entire claimants’ team is on their feet to find the answer for the same. The Researcher is the only hope for Speaker 2 now.

10:17: The arbitrators are aware of the memories of the party and are kind enough to ask Speaker 1 to avoid a part of the first argument as it will not help her case and ask her to proceed to the second issue.

10:18: Speaker 2 is clever and takes the suggestion of the arbitrators.

10:20: The arbitrator again interrupts the flow of the speaker and says ‘It is a bit of a stretch to say so, it is a matter of email, not a big deal.’

10:24: The speaker 1 tries to answer the bench composedly. She is able to finish her arguments within time, which is surprising considering the time wasted in beginning for wrong navigation and the questions put to her.

10:25: Speaker 2 of respondents starts. She is calm and confident.

10:30: Seems like she is making good arguments, our hot bench is silent. Well not for long, the arbitrators were mostly waiting for her to settle down and present her arguments. It is now a heated room. The arbitrators are looking for straight answers – ‘Yes or No’ and not beating around the bush.

10:36: A certain hesitation can be sensed in the voice of Speaker 2 by the questions put to her yet she continues with her arguments. The questioning from arbitrators continues. Speaker 2 is prepared and has anticipated the questions. Her answers are convincing for the bench. Thus, she continues with her arguments.

10:42: The arbitrators again questions Speaker 2 , breaking her flow. The arbitrator seeks to know the clause relied upon by respondents. Speaker 2 fumbles yet answers. She again didn’t answer straight and arbitrators asked her to answer straight. The arbitrator asked for granting a 2 minutes extension. We sense more questions coming her way!! Also we can see speaker 2 mentally preparing herself for questions. It can be seen that speaker 1 of respondents has put her faith in the researcher, who is on her feet to help Speaker 2 in her best capacity.

10:45: Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 of claimants can be seen to prepare for the rebuttal. Seems it was a tough battle and respondents gave good competition to claimants.


10:46: The rebuttals started. Speaker 2 of claimants is ready to put all on a plate to negate the allegations made by respondents. She presents her points by legal arguments and arbitrators seemed satisfied yet had a few questions which the speaker 2 handled well. The arbitrator provided her 1 minute extension to get his answer which was put based on Bill of lading clause put to her prior. The speaker answers well, but the arbitrators are not really satisfied.

10:53: The arbitrators are reducing the heat in the room and put a jovial question to both the parties ‘When is our fee to be paid?’ – Claimants’ speaker 2 is witty to say that the blame is on part of respondents and thus they shall be liable for the same.

Sur- rebuttals

10:53: Speaker 1 of respondents starts slowly and gradually picks up the pace. She is confident and tries to aid the bench how the points put by claimants are not true. The bench is in full-swing. Seems like extension of time is provided only so that arbitrators can pose questions to the speakers. The speaker 1 was able to answer all the questions put to her with confidence.

11:00: The Round 1 for the Semi-Final has ended. The judges are in caucus. Both the teams can be seen nervous yet it was a commendable round on part of both the teams.

VCR-2: NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad (C) v Symbiosis Law School, Noida (R) 

12:36: We have just started and there is a twist in how things are going to work in this court. The Respondents shall be presenting their arguments first. 

12:38: Today we have Arbitrators Ramya Dharmaraj, Siddharth Ranka and Prathamesh Kamat on the Tribunal.

12:38: Despite there being a full reversal in the ideal working of the rounds, the Speaker 2 of the Respondents begins.

(With the permission of the arbitrators, Speaker 2 of the Respondent shall begin first)

Speaker 2:

12:40: Speaker 2 is very confidently and slowly explaining his issues to the Tribunal. He jumps into explaining the issues of the Claims of the Claimants.

12:42: Speaker 2 directs the tribunal towards primary consultation and reads and explains the Clauses of the Charterparty and the case study. The oratory skill of Speaker 2 is spot on. He is very confidently moving on when he is interrupted by Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka. The arbitrator questions him on the relevancy of certain clauses to the issues of claims.

12:44: Speaker 2 takes a pause and begins explaining. His team mates look on having a perfect poker face. Claimants are seen running around in their seats skimming through their notes getting ready for their turn to fire.

12:46: The reversal of rounds has made us confused and it seems to be more of a challenge for the bloggers, rather than the teams to maneuver around.

12:48: Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka interrupts Speaker 2 again on the relevancy of a Charterparty clause towards bringing forth the claim. Speaker 2: “It is not just prior consultation, it is about a fair consultation that has not happened to me in the process”.

12:49: Arbitrator Prathamesh Kamat catches a contradiction argued by our Speaker 2 with regard to the Survey Reports and asks a straightforward question regarding Speaker 2 disputing the same or not.

12:52: 10 minutes remaining for our Speaker 2. He is simply asking for the Claimants to have consulted them. There seems to be utmost sadness and disappointment from the respondents towards the same.

12:53: What is happening in this courtroom?! The Tribunal has now called upon Claimants to reply to the arguments of the Respondents. Speaker 2 of the Claimants comes on. (With the permission of the Arbitrators, Speaker 2 of the Claimants shall now proceed)

12:55: Arbitrator Prathamesh Kamat is in his element. He asks Claimants regarding the validity and correctness of the survey reports. He is now swinging towards protecting the interests of the opposite party. Our Claimant is very much ready to counter back and gives a sensible and calm reply leading to the Arbitrator being satisfied. “Point Taken”. Speaker 2 is asked to move on.

12:57: We like the demeanor of the Courtroom. It seems to be hot and filled with suspense. What will our Tribunal ask next? Who will be asked to Speak? Who will end up being grilled incessantly by the Tribunal? Our Humble reporter is happy to observe the conversations going on.

12:58: Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka is back and is questioning our Speaker 2 regarding their first correspondence. “It seems like prejudice. Is the Tribunal obliged to look into a document marked with prejudice? We don’t feel it should be evidence. Kindly explain it to us. Why should we consider it on the record?” It is not a moot court anymore. Our Humble reporter is on the edge of their chair and reporting as fast as a bullet train.

1:01: We seem to have come back to the ideal format of our moot court. Our Speaker 1 of the Claimants comes forth and very politely and softly goes onto discuss the jurisdiction of the tribunal claiming the Charterparty to be negotiated and stating that the Respondents have conceded to the same.

1:04: Arbitrator Prathamesh Kamat asks our Speaker 1 to move forward as there is no need for discussing jurisdiction. We now observe her discussing the merits of the claim and the technicalities of the Cargo.

1:05: Madam Arbitrator Ramya Dharmaraj, though a silent observer, is very keenly seen to be looking into her documents and assessing and analysing the same. Respondents are seen to be having a conversation among themselves. The Claimants have laid their trust onto our humble Speaker 1 while they quietly observe.

1:06: Our speaker is now providing point by point observation of the temperature in the reefer through the survey and Malreef report leading to accusing the respondents of negligence in monitoring the same and providing them a notice.

1:07: Arbitrator Prathamesh Kamat asks a question, which our humble reporter has been hearing since Day 1. He questions our Speaker 1 as to whose container was it? Speaker 1 too seems to have seen it coming and is directing Arb Prathamesh to the same. Other members of the Tribunal follow. 

1:09: Respected Arbitrator Prathamesh accepts her contention but asks about clarification on monitoring of the containers of the ship. Speaker 1 replies very calmly.

1:10: This round has been unique in its own way so far. We have forgotten the ideal schedule of the Court. We also observe the parties focusing more on the facts rather than case laws to prove their point.

1:11: Speaker 1 goes on to take up the Respondents on their failure of continued power supply. 

1:14: The discussion on power supply and condition of the goods is going on when Arbitrator Kamat interrupts her on a factual clarification regarding the maintenance of the reefer Containers.

1:16: We finally observe a case law being cited. Our humble Speaker 1 explains their entire argument and Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka asks her about an ultimatum regarding the management of the vessel. “Are you saying there is a failure in the management of the vessel?” For a nano second Speaker 1 seems to be taken aback but the way she goes on to answer the question leaves our humble reporter impressed. Good going Speaker 1! 

1:20: Another argument which has been brought up since Day 1 comes up for discussion. Speaker 1 speaks of unseaworthiness and Hague Rules. She now goes on to explain the applicability of the same to Arb Siddharth Ranka. 2 minutes left, the Arbitrator is again trying to understand the mention of Hague Rules. He seems to have understood and Speaker 1 moves on.

1:23: 1 minute extension granted to further argue the issue.

1:24: Arbitrator Prathamesh Kamat again asks about the argument of unseaworthiness. Speaker 1 discusses the technical aspects of the container and the ship’s role in the same. Our humble reporter is learning a lot about the vessel and the reefer. Further extension granted, Arb Ranka again brings the issue up. Speaker 1 keeps on explaining with confidence.

1:27: Arbitrators are satisfied and ask them to move on. Speaker 2 is back. He deals with the issue of respondents not advising the Claimants on reefer malfunction.

1:30: Our Tribunal is keenly listening and looking into case laws and areas directed. Madam Arbitrator Ramya asks Speaker 2 to explain to her the Malreef reports.

1:33: Arbitrator Prathamesh questions him regarding his claim being in tort or contract with regard to the master servant relationship raised by our speaker.

He very calmly explains his arguments.

1:37: Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka questions our Speaker 2 on refrigeration on the containers which makes Speaker 2 take a pause but he is back now.

1:40: Speaker 2 concludes his submissions. 

Respondents take over. Speaker 1 comes and explains the facts of the case in a nutshell.

1:42: She goes on to discuss the plugging and unplugging of reefer Containers. Arbitrator Prathamesh asks her a question that she requests to answer in the forthcoming arguments. The arbitrator has noted the same and will be anticipating the answer ahead.

1:45: Speaker 1 post arguing her issues remembers the previous question asked and goes onto guiding the tribunal towards the same.

1:48: She seems to be engaged in a conversation and Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka has caught her at one of her statements and we see her fumbling. Mr. Ranka chuckles and asks her to move on and to deal with it later. Speaker 1 composes herself fast and is guiding the Tribunal towards reports in the case study.

1:51: A side note by our humble reporter: Both the parties know their arguments and are ready to put forth their issues with utmost authority and observance. We find ourselves to be filled with interest and are enjoying it fully. Speaker 1 sounds very aware of her reports and her facts. She is responding in full confidence and it seems to be more of a conversation between the Tribunal and her rather than questioning and answering. The situation seems to have become very comfortable and easy.

1:53: We observe The Tribunal and Speaker 1 discuss the monitoring and plugging unplugging of the Cargo. The tribunal asks our Speaker to narrow down her issues to one aspect of the Charterparty. She does so and moves on.

1:54: Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka: “Are you saying there is no duty of care?” Speaker 1: We require you to properly care for the cargo in accordance with a sound system in place. 

1:55: Arbitrator looks on and Mr. Kamat follows up from there and questions on Respondents checking the temperatures once daily. And asks regarding two clauses to be read together.

1:56: Speaker 1 asks to answer the same in multiple layers and goes on. Going via the Charterparty she pins the blame on the Claimants. The opposite party is seen to be active and very calmly have a conversation against the same. Other members of the Respondents look on.

1:58: she is now being grilled on the monitoring issue. She fumbles a little. Arbitrator Prathamesh Kamat will not leave her. We observe our co-respondents trying to assist her. Mr. Kamat is seen smiling on Speaker 1’s arguments. Madam Arbitrator Ramya also seems to be amused.

2:01: Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka ends up trying to clarify and answer the doubts. Humble reporter is observing and is loving the beautiful conversations taking place.

2:03: Tribunal seems to be satisfied and requests her to move on. Speaker 1 insists on extension and the tribunal jokes, “We might hold it against you, if you keep asking”. 

We then move on. 

2:04: Speaker 2 of the Respondents is back.

2:06: Despite having been asked to speak before, Speaker 2 once again shall present with his arguments. 

2:07: Our Speaker is referencing and cross referencing too much. He is humble enough to apologise for the same. The tribunal certainly does not seem to mind. We move on.

2:09: “There is a process. Temperature list to event logs to client. The moment we see something happen, we undertake repair and inform the Claimants. We do so in good faith though there is no express requirement.”

2:10: Arb Siddharth Ranka asks him about power malfunction. Speaker seems to have hit the ball out of the park and how pleasantly does he blame the Claimants. But wait. Maybe Arbitrator Sir caught his hit. We see more clarifications on the issue going on.

2:13: Madam Arbitrator Ramya: Are you saying there is not a reasonable expectation from a crew as trained as yours with the containers regarding taking care?

2:15: Speaker 2 asks to address it one by one. He is very well versed with the issue and how beautifully he is submitting his arguments. We seem to be blown away by his calmness. It is seriously interesting to listen to the same.

Speaker 2, just like Speaker 1, seems to have now made us look at the current situation as a conversation between the Tribunal and the Speaker rather than a mere semi-final round. We are learning a lot about Maritime facts and issues with the contracts. Humble reporter will surely be going back to brush up her Maritime basics after such a hearty session!

2:24: Arbitrator Siddharth: “Why did you not try to limit your liability under the Bill of Lading and what will be the consequences of the same?”

Speaker 2 got caught in the middle. 

Arb Siddharth: “Does the co-counsel have something to say?”

Speaker 1: No Mr Arbitrator

Arb Siddharth: okay. (chuckles) I’ll just leave it to the Respondents to answer the same.

We move onto speaker 2 concluding his submissions.

2:26: Arbitrator Siddharth Ranka is testing our Counsel’s technical knowledge by asking about the alarm list. 

Our Speaker 2 tries to show that he knows his ship pretty well. But Mr. Ranka takes his point and asks him again about the limitation. 

Speaker 2: I’ll take a second

Mr. Ranka: We’ll give you a minute

Silence in the courtroom.

2:29: Light conversation ensues and Speaker 2 wraps up.

2:30: No rebuttals. Rounds end. Judges Caucus begins.

Reporter side note: Indeed a hearty session. We sit tight to see who comes out as a winner.




NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

Symbiosis Law School, Pune



NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad (C) v Symbiosis Law School, Pune (R)

Finale! The word which gives us mixed feelings of joy and nervousness, feelings of butterflies to our stomachs. Yet the winner is just a step beneath the title. It will be a tough tussle between two of the strongest opponents of the 7th NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. IMAM 2020. No doubt, the arbitrators are soon to witness the best of teams competing. Let’s see who wins the coveted prize!

4: 38: Everyone is here in the room. The participants are filled with joy to make to this road of finals. We started the session with a video which is a summary of case study. Everyone is seen as enjoying the video. That rewards the hard work put by the team in making the video.

4:43: The rounds started with the introduction of our finalists.

Speaker 1 of claimants starts in a poised manner. She begins with her submissions as the judges are already briefed by facts, thanks to our video case study. The speaker focuses on the point that the owner failed to take due care in the part of their agreement to the charterparty.

4:46: Speaker 1 directs the bench through the charter-party agreement Clause 17. The Counsel brings the focus on the words used in the clause, emphasising on values on the agreement towards the consignment.

4:47: Speaker 1 lays her roadmap of arguments and starts with her first submission. She is calm and slow to ensure the bench is following her. She is well-versed with the charter-party agreement and uses its clauses in her best favour. The respondents’ researcher is seen taking notes. She navigates the bench through case study and ensures that the arbitrators are with her. Quite impressive!

4:51: Speaker 1 points out how the owners failed to inform TCL for temperature fluctuations observed as she draws an analogy from a case law. The arbitrator is particular with the case and seeks the citation for the same from the speaker. The speaker is thorough with her compendium and is able to take the arbitrators through the relevant portion.

4:56: Speaker continues with her submissions and the arbitrators are satisfied. I think the speed is her best friend for the rounds.

4:58: Finally the arbitrator – Miss Janani starts grappling the speaker with her questions. The 2nd case cited by the speaker has not really yielded fruits to her. Speaker fumbles yet continues to hold herself to answer. Yet she fails to satisfy the Arbitrator in her query that the power shortage is not to be blamed as the reefer in itself, one supplied by the TCL, was malfunctioning and would fail to attain power supply.

5:00: Madam Arbitrator is bombarding questions to the speaker 1, yet she continues to answer the question.  She agrees partially with the arbitrator very subtly that there is mistake on both sides. She requests the panel to continue with her other submissions and come back later to Madam Arb’s query later as her submissions will suffice answers.

5:04: Madam Arbitrator lets the speaker continue however Madam Arbitrator does not take a back seat. She continues posing questions to the speaker. The Arbitrator points out that the duty to provide a sound container worthy of cargo is on TCL and when the Owner checked they found it in good condition, although Owners were never in position to open the container and it is not wise to blame them for malfunctioning of the reefer.

5:06: Speaker tries to answer by her compendium, thanks to the Researcher who assisted her. Arbitrator Amitava is very keen towards compendium referenced and ensures that the speaker is able to substantiate the claims. 

5:08: Oh No! The speaker walked into the trap and she admits that the pre-shipment issue did exist. Tough time for speaker 1. Yet she tries to use the facts to answer that pre-shipment issues are merely a possibility as the bananas were packed in vacuum bags and had ethanol pipes to maintain temperature to make sure pre-shipment issues are minimal.

5:11: Arbitrator Amitava joins Arbitrator Janani, as he pounces on the issue of sea-worthiness on part of the Charterers.

5:13: Speaker 2 begins. He is resilient and uses the factsheet to make his case. The navigation of the team is splendid.

5:15: Speaker 2 brings the focus of the bench towards the conscious malafide on part of Owners while drafting of Charter-party citing clauses of the charter-party.

5:16: He continues that any neglect on part of the crew directly held the owners liable and cites the clause for the same.

5:17: The bench has taken a back seat, the speaker 2 must be good enough to satisfy the hot bench.

5.18: Speaker 2 lays roadmap for his arguments and continues with his submissions. He states that the acts indulged by his clients – referring to email is well within time frame. Well the facts shown by the Speaker 2 does not seem to be in his favour and brings questions from the Arbitrator Amitava. The speaker is prudent and moves to his next submission which deals with the query of the Arbitrator.

5:22: The bench interrupts the flow of Speaker 2 submissions and directs him to facts which talks about the claim raised by the Claimants. That the email was asking for reimbursement and they failed to inform the respondents before paying.

5:24: Madam Arbitrator continues along the same line of questioning as put by Arbitrator Amitava. She posits that there was no legal duty imposed on respondents to pay the claim.

5:25: Speaker 2 is gritty and tells that the opinion of owners would have made no impact on the payment of claims and thus the claimants are correct in making the settlement.

5:26: The bench is not satisfied with the argument made by Speaker 2.

The respondents are keenly listening to the questions put to the claimants. The respondents’ researcher and speaker 1 are also put to look down and check the facts, the questions by judges might turn out to help the respondents.

5:28: Arbitrators are shooting questions and thus speaker 2 is not to be left so easily. The questions regarding emails are being put. The Speaker 2 despite interruptions continues calmly.

5:30: The bench disagrees with the argument made by Speaker 2 regarding the statement made that the opinions of respondents are still of importance. We think that the speaker must take a hint and subdue but he seems adamant in proving that his clients were correct in settling the claim without consulting respondents. Thus he directs the bench to the fact sheet. Well he is trapped again, the Arbitrator asked him to focus on facts as a whole.

5:32: Speaker 2 requests the bench to identify the two claims, however, Arbitrator Amitava is not ready to buy the argument. The Speaker slyly puts that the other claim is as a result of the first claim.

5:34: Speaker 2 continues with the same contention and Arbitrator Amitava asks him to provide defence for the same. Time extension is sought for answering the query. Speaker 2 goes on with answering the same, just in a different manner. The Arbitrators are smart and are not willing to settle for contentions provided by the Speaker 2. Speaker 2 tries to rely on submissions made by Speaker 1 however fails again. Arbitrator points out that they never accepted the contention of Speaker 1 that the perfect condition of container were submitted’.

5:38: Researcher of claimants seems clueless too. And Speaker 2 continues explaining the quantum of claim as Madam Arbitrator asked for.

The nervousness can be sensed in the eyes of Speaker 1 of respondents as speaker 2 of claimants proceeds to concluding his submissions.

The ending line of speaker 2 is impressive as he said that he will give 3 numbers to his submissions – 16,17 and 23. 16 as date of shipment,17 as clause of charter party and 23 as clarification for number towards payment of claim after informing the respondents.


5:40 Speaker 1 starts calm and directs the bench to facts and charter-party towards her favour and then begins with her three fold submissions. She denies the duty of respondents towards malfunctioning of reefer, will establish the crew was competent and logs were timely provided.

5:45: Speaker 1 slowly and taking the bench with her starts establishing how the respondents are not to be held liable for malfunctioning of reefer and she directs the bench to ARF report. The bench has no questions for now, surprising!

5:48: Finally Arbitrator Sunip poses a question to the Speaker as when they learnt malfunctioning, ‘what were you doing for 30 hours?’.

Speaker 1 sets that they were not provided with logs management. And thus buck passes the blame. She further establishes how overheating led to evaporating heat coil and affected cooling supply to consignment.

5:50: As speaker 1 continues, Arbitrator Amitava interrupts her and asks ‘the damage could have been avoided in case you have been monitoring daily.’ Also he emphasized since you claimed that the owner had a competent crew, so you must have managed the loss once you learnt about the fault.

5:53: Speaker 2 again passes the buck to claimants as temperature and monitoring logs were not provided timely to the respondents. Madame Arbitrator joins in the query and points a pertinent question that the respondent has been focussing on not having logs, in case they had, then what?

Speaker 1 handles the questions well but the answer made questioning the competency of the crew.

5:55: Speaker 1 directs the bench that the respondents did manage to repair the reefer. But Arbitrator Janani is not to leave her easily, and questions on technicality of reefer. We must admit the Speaker is prudent and answers wisely that ‘there was no technical expert on the survey board and thus the matrix is silent about the same’. Madam Arbitrator is satisfied now and Arbitrator Simon Baughen poses the question to the speaker regarding electricity supply to the containers.

5:58: Speaker 1 confidently answers and shifts blame to default of containers. Other Arbitrators can be seen as scrolling through documents. More questions on there way?

6:00: The lined up questions by Arbitrator Simon are well addressed by the speaker. Mr. Simon is satisfied now and thus Speaker 1 continues with her arguments.

With permission of the bench she proceeds to issue sea-worthiness of the vessel. She presents the same in two fold – physician sound worthiness and competence of crew on board.

6:03: The hot bench continues to bombard the questions. Arbitrator Amitava seeks to have evidence on part of respondents that the vessel was sea-worthiness. Speaker emphasis on Part 3 of charter-party. But the answer does not satisfy the arbitrator as he is looking for evidence and not just obligation.

Speaker seeks extension to submit her answer and issue 2.

6:06: Was it the duty of the owner to advise the charteres in case of reefer malfunctioning. She lays that for a sound business transaction, obligation lay on both ends. The obligation on vessel owners was to just repair the reefer in case of default and putting more duty on them would just enhance their burden.

6:07: The Arbitrator’s last question regarding bailment was put to the speaker. Well she is versed with bailment law too. She satisfies the query well.

6:08: Speaker 2 of Respondents starts, she is loud and clear. She lays her roadmap and proceeds with her first submission. She wisely uses the facts, charter-party, towards the payment of claims. She is prudent to use the disadvantageous statement of claimants in her favour – that the opinion of respondents was of no relevance towards claim payment.

6:11: Speaker 2 continues her arguments citing the case and navigating the bench through the compendium for the same. She correctly points out that the email was sent just informing about the payment, which is incorrect and should have been pointed out in first notice. She also brings the contention of adequate time to be provided for the same. She does point out the extraneous amount of claim which claimants shouldn’t have paid without consultation, she correctly points out the terms of email – pay in full and agreement – showing a seek of concurrence and not consultation.

As speaker 2 proceeds, the claimants’ speakers are seen discussing over chat and preparing for rebuttals.

6:15: As speaker 2 continues, Arbitrator Simon puts a query as to where is deriving her argument from? Speaker directs the Arbitrator to the facts, email exchanges. Arbitrator Amitava joined in and said that even if the claimants asked for agreement and mere concurrence from you, claimants did provide you for documents and asked you – help to pursue the recovery.

6:18: Speaker 2 tries to outsmart that no such details for documents are silent. Madam Arbitrator joins in with Arbitrator Simon that you had the information and it is given the documents were attached.

6:19: Speaker 2 tries to answer and further the argument that without our discussion, the charterers closed the file.

Arb bombard again, they tell speaker 2 she is interpreting wrong, it was very open for discussion, and you never did it.

6:21: Speaker is shaken yet maintains her poise and answers well. Arbitrator Amitava questions again that ‘What were your proactive steps? Apart from replies of Sorry and Bye?’

6:22: Speaker replies but the Arbitrator is not satisfied and points out the email reply in which respondents didn’t act towards discussions and that they had closed the file.

6.24: Arbitrator Simon also adds to it. Speaker 2 while laying down her argument is interrupted again by Arb Amitava, he is witty and is looking for just one line answer which is in her support, yet the respondents are unaware of that line which says that the claimants are at fault for not being expressive enough about the discussion for claim settlement.

6:26: Speaker 2 points out that the claim was already paid and thus no window open for discussion. Madam Arbitrator questions again that as you never provided for feedback, what would they have done?

Speaker 2 points out that claim was raised post 5 months after delivery of consignment.

This brings the question of time-barred and making us look into Hague rules and HVR. Arbitrator Amitava took the opportunity to ask the same. Speaker 2 calmly answers and is finally left off hook after answering the time- limitation issue.

6:29: Speaker 2 with due permission of the bench continues with her further submission yet not really left at ease, another question put to her regarding time- barred by Arb Amitava.

Speaker 2 points out clauses and Himalaya rule to argue that the owners were to be informed.

6:31: Speaker 2 concludes with the prayer.

6:32: Arb Amitava, not done yet, he points out council to read clause 9 correctly. He clarified that it isn’t a question, just a suggestion.


6:33: Speaker 2 begins with rebuttals, he starts with citing facts that respondents claimed that they were not provided with monitoring logs. But he says that the crew was to check the temperature daily. Cargo in itself was temperature sensitive. He continues that respondents cannot claim malfunctioning of the reefer as they had to ensure that it is not before starting voyage.


6.35: Speaker 1 of respondents starts slowly and points out to arbitrators the facts, saying that the owners have already established how charterers failed to perform their part of obligation. And also how they failed to inform respondents about the settlement of the claim.

With this, we finally come to an end to the lively and hotly contested final round. 



















As we conclude our successful journey through the four days of intensive rounds, we would like to take this opportunity to thank Barış Soyer, Amitava (Raja) Majumdar and our event sponsors Institute of International Shipping & Trade Law (IISTL), Swansea University and Bose & Mitra &Co. for their unwavering support during these testing times. Our Knowledge Partner – Eastern Book Company and SCC Online. We would also like to thank our Vice Chancellor Shri Krishna Deva Rao and our Registrar Yogesh Pratap Singh for their unwavering support.

We would especially like to thank our Live Bloggers – Atharva Koppal, Prasoon Tiwari, Khushi Bhardwaj, Toshaar Trivedi, Toshika Soni, Anamika Jha, Sonia Mangtani, Palak Aggarwal and Troeeta Bhuniya for their unwavering efforts that made this live blogging possible. We would like to thank all the member of the core committee of IMAM 2020 and the members of The Moot Society for making this event successful.

We are now signing off and we hope to see you again next year!



Law School NewsLive Blogging

DAY 2:


Live Proceedings:

Court Room 1 (115C v. 104R):

12:03 PM: The Rounds Begin. We can see the nervousness and confidence on the faces of all the participants. Judges asking the claimant and respondents to discuss among themselves first about the procedures. Judges asked the participants as to who wants to go and present their arguments first along with their time slot. Claimant are saying that they should first go with the jurisdiction aspect and respondents agree on that. Claimant just started with arguments but judges asked them about the important facts of the case. Claimant are asking judges to refer to different pages to prove their case.

12:16 PM: The judges start with their grilling questions. Judges are asking if we have the alternative jurisdiction, why aren’t the parties approaching that forum. Claimant have put all the blame on respondent as that they are not understanding their issues. On that note judges asked the claimant to refer to mail send by respondents. Claimant states that the stringent attitude of respondents didn’t bring them to an amicable solution.

12:25PM: Time is over but the judges are still grilling the speaker 1 with their tricky questions. Claimant said if arbitration won’t work here, they will go to the court to get their rights. Claimant’ first speaker asked for one more minute to summarise her issues. Judges asked the time keeper to deduct the rebuttal time as speaker one exceeded the time by 4 minutes.

12:30PM: Speaker 2 started with her impressive arguments by cutting her time so that they speak for rebuttals. Judges asked the claimant whether they gone through the minute points or judgement which they are submitting or not. Respondents are discussing among themselves about the flawed points raised by claimant.

12:42PM: Judges give 1 minute to the claimant for them to summarise their arguments. Judges asked the respondent about the judgement raised by claimant whether it is overruled and if claimant are misleading the court. Claimant closing their arguments said that they are not liable to pay their damages. Judges gave 2 min to respondent to start.

12:48PM: Here the respondents started throwing their arguments to save themselves. The judges started grilling them about on the procedures. Respondent looking tensed on the questions asking by the judges. But she regain her confidence and answering judges with their arguments. Respondents ask to let them move to their second submission to prove the 1st argument. She is stuck in the question asked by judges with the definition of freight.

13:03PM: Judges throwing questions on respondents and now respondents are in fits. Counsel seeks permission for extension of 2 min to prove their points against claimant. Now the speaker 2 of respondents started to solve 3 issues. Judges asked the speaker 2 to refer to problem to get them stuck them in their own argument. Judges confirming the procedure and law quoted by claimant to respondents. Judges asked whether you know the procedure, answer YES or NO. They say YES it’s given in the manual. Judges asked to show the manual but sadly they don’t have that.

13:23- Judges said that they are not agreeing to the point states by respondent . And the rebuttals started with points from claimant side in one mint they have to rebutt the points quoted by respondents. Due to shortage of time and a lot to speak, Claimant speaker is running like Rajdhani express. And here the respondent superfast express also started for one minute to clear their way to win the prelims.

13:29- And TIME OVER

13:42- Feedback session begins.

COURT ROOM 2: (107C v. 112R)

12:10- The court room 2 started with the first session of the day.
As soon as the Claimant’s first speaker started, she was soon interrupted. Not by the judges, but by the noises of the fan. Quite funny.
She had a calm and very peculiar way of speaking. As if she’s explaining a 3 year old. And the speaker seems to be very well acquainted with her issues, she had all the time to explain her arguments. Judges just inquired a bit so as to check the knowledge and grip of the speaker. She tackled every question calmly. Judges appeared to be satisfied.

12:25: Contrary to speaker one, speaker two is very bold in the manner of putting her arguments. All her arguments revolve around the matter related to loading. The bench interrupted with a few factual questions, which the speaker has already anticipated. Yet, it can be observed that facts aren’t in their side, hence they had problems in convincing the judges.
But the 2nd judge asked practical and analytical questions. “indeed Mr. President, but Mr. President”, that’s how the speaker two of the claimant side gives clarifications.

12:50- Speaker-1 of the respondent’s side started with a question apparently. Speaker didn’t have a great start, he seems to stumble with his arguments, the bench didn’t leave the chance to exploit this. He has to be careful, because his loudness is bothering the judges, beware! Don’t get too friendly with the judges, the bench made this very clear by repetitive questioning. It takes a turn into a debate, his partners are worried. Judge 3 gives a warning! “you should be clear in your submissions”.

1:15- 2nd speaker started with her issues. She speaks with an authority. The bench has started to ask a lot of questions, hardly giving time to the respondents to put forth her arguments. It can be noticed that the issues which respondents take up, seem to get attention of the judges as if they are incorrect or objectionable, hence a lot of interruptions from them. Respondents and judges share a lot of smiles while the session continued. The respondent side is very adamant on what they are saying, neglecting what judge questions. It took hardly any time for the judge’s to figure this out.

1:30- Claimant started with the rebuttals, with paucity of time, she hurried through her arguments. Document submission added to her misery. Judges were satisfied as they smiled towards respondents. Grilling wasn’t helping them at all.

1:40- The respondent mentioned the claimant memo as soon as they started the rebuttal. “master should not be a man of ordinary prudence”, mentioned the respondent.

COURT ROOM 3: (109C v. 110R)

12:33-Proceeding has started in CR3 Claimant are given the chance to present their side first although they seems to have prepared but speaker one seems little nervous but is trying to answer arbitrator in all possible ways.

12:35- Speaker two of claimant side has started arguing and its interesting to see that she is very confident with what she speaks

12:39- Speaker one of respondent has started arguing. But speaker is not able to answer exact answers of arbitrator but have answers for all possible questions the issue arbitrator is sticking on is whether the moot problem is English law or Indian law.

12:55- Speaker two of respondent has started arguing but when arbitrator questions about section 28 of Indian contract act the respondent was not able to answer. But one thing is clear that researcher of respondent is well aware with problem and throughout helping speaker when judges knocks with any question.

13:05- Speaker one of Claimant has started arguing in rebuttal.

13:08- There was one moment when arbitrator asked from respondent side for copy of an document and respondent denied by sarcastically speaking of financial issues and everyone started laughing. It was so needed to change the atmosphere of moot hall.

13:10- Rounds one in CR3 finishes.

COURT ROOM 4: (124C v. 123R)

12:11 PM: 124(C) speaker 1 starts and seems quite calm, confident and well versed. The Judge tries to confuse the speaker and the speaker successfully manages to stick to what she said before. The judge points out the speaker’s failure to understand the crux of the matter she is presenting. The speaker admits and moves on to the next point. The Judge says that the party hasn’t satisfied Article 49(1) which has to be satisfied before going to Article 49(2) due to which they can’t hear them on merit.

12:24 PM: The judges point out the paucity of time that is just 2 minutes and therefore ask the party to mention their arguments on merits. The judge questions the speaker on the point of reasonable care. The judges don’t seem to be fully satisfied with her answer.

12:38 PM: The Second speaker, that is, the Co-Counsel finally gets her chance to start after extended time of Speaker 1. The judge claims that the party hasn’t submitted the documents relating to the Pumping logs, i.e., the most important law. He again explains it by giving an example that “If you go to the Visa Office and submit every document other than the most important. So you can’t claim it by arguing that you have submitted 10 other documents.”

12:46 PM: The Judge being hilarious says, “Fine we are ready to accept your persuasive argument, but at least persuade us.” Later, the judge points out that the speaker deliberately isn’t disclosing a fact because it is against the party to which the speaker hesitantly agrees.

12:55- The Complainants conclude their arguments with the Prayer.

12:55- Team 123(R), the speaker 1 starts but in a low voice. He seems stressed out due to the grilling which the Complainants faced. The Grilling continues. The speaker battling hard to maintain his composure.

COURT ROOM 5: (119C v. 103R)

12:13 PM: The speaker from the claimant is a bit shaky, he was stopped by the judge as soon as he started He is being constantly questioned. The judges were satisfied with the answer which the speaker gave after looking out in his memo. The speaker is constantly referring to memo and reading out from it. The speaker has gathered composure and is fluently arguing on third issue. Judge posed a question but now the evermore confident speaker was able to answer it without looking for the same in his notes.

12:26 PM: Persistent questioning by all three judges has pushed the speaker on back foot, he is taking his time. The speaker was asked to move on to the next issue for he was not able to answer the last few questions. The questions continued from the very beginning of the new issue. The speaker was able to hold on and answered answered most of them .a judge approved his efforts by exclaiming “good job”.

12:43 PM: Speaker two was helped by the first speaker in between, last question posed remained unanswered by both the speakers, so the judges moved on to the respondents. Speaker from the respondent side looks well versed, he was asked a question related to authority of a case, and his response left all three judges chuckling.

12:51 PM: Oopsie! The speaker from respondent side gave a self-contradictory argument. Judges spotted it. He still is beautifully arguing. Must seem impressive to the judges. He is answering the questions with utmost confidence and a smile on his face. Judges seem interested.

13:17- Smooth round of question and answer going on between arbitrators and the second speaker.

The Round Ends.

COURT ROOM 6: (108C v. 127R)

12:10: And the round starts! The speaker from side claimant seems to be nervous. One of the judges abruptly asks the speaker to move on the issues.

12:14: The judges have begun to grill the speaker with just 3 minutes into the round. The speaker is becoming easily flustered.

12:18: Side respondents are listening quite intently to the arguments of the other side and are frantically taking notes. On the side, the speaker is almost done with her first issue.

12:19: With only 5 minutes to go, the first speaker from side claimant has moved on to the second issue. The judges are asking questions to test the fundamentals of the speaker.

12:22: Two minutes to go! The speaker still remains nervous and her confidence is being tested by the judges.

12:24: Time’s up!!! The speaker tries to make a quick exit, but the judges aren’t quite ready to let her go.

12:28: The first speaker after some questioning from the judges has concluded her case. The second speaker has from side respondents has begun and seems to be more confident than her co-counsel.

12:30: The second speaker is well versed with the facts of the case. However, in the face of increasingly complex questions, she is becoming flustered and confused.

12:33: With ten minutes to go, the judges are still questioning the speaker on her knowledge of the technical aspects of the case.

12:36: Oops! Here’s a bouncer of a question from the judges! The speaker has requested the judges to give her some time to answer the question.

12:40: With two minutes to go, the speaker seems to have answered the questions posed by the judges satisfactorily.

12:41: The speaker has requested the judges to grant an extension of thirty seconds, which the judges have agreed to. She has moved on to her second issue.

12:44: The judges have been repeatedly interrupting the speaker and she seems to be unprepared to answer the questions. Her co-counsel is frantically passing her chits.

12:50: Side claimant have begun with their arguments, and their speaker, in contrast to side respondents seems to be very, very confident with her facts and the law associated. She keeps pointing out to the facts and the relevant sections.

12:53: With five minutes to go, the speaker from side respondent is moving confidently with her arguments. However, in the face of incessant questioning from the judges, she is beginning to lose her cool and is getting perturbed.

12:59: Time’s up! However, both the speaker and the judges have ignored it.

1:01: The timekeeper keeps waving her placard, which is ignored again. Funnily, more than the speakers, it is the timekeeper who seems to be frustrated!

1:03: Finally! The second speaker has begun with her arguments. She definitely needs to work more on her mannerisms and demeanor.

1:08: Ten minutes to go! The judges seem to have found a serious contradiction in the arguments of the speaker and are grilling her heavily on it.

1:12: As expected, the speaker pleads ignorance to the questions and directs the judges to the compendium. She seems to be disappointed at herself.

1:11: The judges are on fire! They are questioning the speaker on the applicability of laws and it looks as if the speaker is ready to give up.

1:13: Due to the paucity of time, the speaker requests an extension to put rest of her points forth.

1:19: The speaker requests for an extension of six minutes, and the judges look amused at this. They grant an extension of three minutes.

1:18: The atmosphere in the courtroom is tense as both the judges and the speaker are getting heated up. This clearly reflects in the demeanor of the speaker, and the judges are not pleased by this.

1:23: One of the most repeated words in this round has been ‘extension’. Since its time for lunch, the timekeepers trying to get the judges to complete the round.

1:27: The speaker has requested an extension of six minutes. The timekeeper, realizing that there is nothing much she can do, smiles sadly at this hungry courtroom reporter as well, who returns the smile.

1:29: In the face of difficult questioning, the speaker pleads ignorance and tries to make a quick exit.

1:37: This round, which was supposed to have ended over fifteen minutes ago, has finally moved on the rebuttals. The claimant have three rebuttals, and the respondents seem to be prepared for it .

COURT ROOM 7: (126C v. 125R)

12:12- Team 126 as the claimant in CR 7 has started strong on law, though they seemed to fumble a bit with the facts. However, they regained the footing soon.

12:45- TEAM 125 (R) – While the judges started grilling the claimant at a later stage, they opened fire on the respondent from the very beginning.

COURT ROOM 8: (120C v. 101R)

12:13 PM: The counsel for the petitioner begins with briefing judges on the facts of the case. The judge questions the counsel on the difference between a seat and venue of arbitration, and the counsel answers with little success in convincing the judges. The counsel is perplexed as to what is the applicability of Indian and English law in the instant case. The question of venue and seat of arbitration the judge has brought in seems to have fazed as the counsel. The judge grills the counsel on the same and also with respect to the applicability of the English and Indian law. He is caught in one argument and the judges are again grilling him on the same.

12:27 PM: The second counsel has started with her arguments. And the judges have brought her back to the facts of the case. The counsel is left perplexed by a question asked by the judges. She asks for the permission to answer the question in the end. However, she’s denied of it. The judge asks the counsel a question that she seems to have predicted, and answers the judges confidently. She’s further questioned on facts, and she’s left perplexed. She takes time to collect her thoughts.

12:39 PM: The time for the petitioners is up.

12:40 PM: The counsel for the respondents begins with his arguments, and is showered with questions with respect to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The Counsel is asked the same question with respect to the difference between the seat and venue and arbitration, and applicability of English and Indian law in the instant case which the counsel answers to much satisfaction of the judges. The judges grill the counsel on the facts of the case with respect to the reply of emails.

13:04 PM: The co-counsel for the respondents begins with his arguments. The judges ask the counsel certain questions that leave him baffled. He takes a few moments and collects his calm to answer the questions put forth. The counsel is questioned in respect with the applicability of a particular case law in the instant case which fails to answer convincingly.  The counsel concludes with the arguments following which the counsel for the petitioners starts with her rebuttals.

13:40: The co-counsel for the petitioner makes an argument, which the judges find extremely contentious, which they say is contentious to the power of infinity. The co-counsel is grilled further on the argument he makes.

The Round ends.

COURT ROOM 9 (118C v. 106R)

12:04- The speaker asked the Judge to proceed with their opening statement. After speaker made the opening speech the Judge asked the the speaker to state the facts in 5 pin points. The Judge is concerned about the rebuttals and sur rebuttals and explained it to the parties.

12:07- The Speaker 1 of the Claimant put down the argument that the arbitral tribunal has no Jurisdiction. The judge seems to be curious to listen this argument. The Judge asked the difference between may and shall . However, the Judges seems not satisfied with the answer of the Claimant.

12:13- The Claimant put forward the argument for jurisdiction. For this again the judge feels not so satisfied with the arguments and asked for the case laws for which speaker submitted the Cable and wire case. The Judges grilled the Speaker 1 on the applicable law before the bench. The Speaker submitted that the substantive Law will be dealt with English Law and the procedural part will be dealt with the Indian Law.

12:18- The Judges were not at all impressed by the speaker 1 as she interrupts the judge while they ask questions. Also, she is heavily relying on the Black law’s dictionary which the Judge finds to be not appropriate.

12:19- Due to paucity of time the Judges asked the speaker to come to her second issue. The Claimant submits that the master is incompetent. It seems that judge are here to ask a lot of question as they again started to ask the question as to how the master is incompetent. Here, the speaker manager to keep her calm and satisfies the judges by her answer.

12:21 The judges asked to summarise the point as the speaker is running out of time.

12:23 To the surprising, The judges asked the Respondent to address the issue of Jurisdiction as has been submitted by the Claimant also. Before that the judges also ask to state the facts of the case in 5 pin points.

12:24 The speaker started with the issue of Jurisdiction and the judges seem to be interested in the argument. The judges ask the party to explain the applicable laws in this case.

12:26 The speaker cited a case of 1992 where the Judge question that the arbitration law is of 1996 then why we accept the case of 1992. The Speaker has no answer to this.

12:33 The Judges said that we don’t have Jurisdiction as you first have to go to a amicable settlement before coming to this tribunal. For which the speaker for Respondent submitted that the Claimant were not ready for that.

12:37 Time’s up for the speaker 1 Respondent.

12:38 The Speaker 2 of the Respondent made the opening statement by stating the structure of the arguments to be submitted before the Court.

12:42 The Judge asked the speaker 2 to explain the Standard Industry Practice. The speaker answered the question was calmly and the judges also feel satisfied with their research. The speaker also cited a case for this.

12:54: The speaker started with the second issue and it seems that the judge is ready to grill the Respondent on this issue. However, the speaker 2 being very composed and confident about his issues and facts of the case answered every question very politely.

12:59 The speaker 2 of the Claimant started with the opening statement. Speaker 2 explained the structure to the judges and proceeded with the 4th Argument.

1:02 The Judge put down many question to the speaker 2 of the claimant and the judges were very impressed by the advocacy skills of the speaker 2.

1:12 The judge asked the speaker 2 to address the cost issue before the bench. The speaker submitted before the court and judge seems satisfied with the arguments made by speaker 2.

1:20 God save the teams! This was really a hot bench and the judges were so inquisitive. From the under confident 1st speaker of the claimant to the great 2nd speaker of the claimant. From the panicked 1st speaker of the Responded to the highly confident 2nd speaker of the Respondent the round ended here.

Round Ends.


COURT ROOM 1 (128C v. 105R)

14:53 PM: Claimant started with its arguments after taking permission from the judges. Claimant started with its arguments after taking permission from the judges. And here the judges started with their grilling questions which the claimant are answering confidently. Claimant pleads ignorance on the question asked by judges. Not answering the question, counsel asked to move to other time due to paucity of time.  Claimant request the judges to refer page of fact sheet to prove their case

15:02 PM: Claimants cited a case without reading the whole case which bring th judges in fits. Judge asked the claimants to refer to factsheet to clarify their position

Claimants talking among themselves on every questions judges are asking and judges are taking note of that. Judges asked what is contract. Reply to it: IT IS CONTRACT.

15:17 PM Judges asked the speaker 1 to clarify the point of speaker 2

And here the grilling starts.

15:19: Respondents starts. Judges asked another question for grilling asking to clarify the first answer. Respondent states the case which judges asked the facts. The respondent quoted that facts are not ok but the law is relevant. Respondents asked the counsel to refer to memo to win their situation. Respondents stuck in the papers to search for the answer on the question asked by judges. Judges gave one more minute to sum up their arguments.

15:26 PM: Judges said that they were supposed to follow the procedure to claim the damages. Judges gave one solution to the problem but respondent refuse to take that solution. Now the judges asked the same solution. From claimant which claimant agree. Judges gave one more minute to respondent. Respondents asked for few seconds to get the facts. Second grilling with speaker 2 of respondent starts

Claimants are listening very carefully to the arguments of respondent and ready to rebut. Claimants asked for rebut. But respondents refused for sur-rebuttals for exceeding the time.

COURT ROOM 2 (102C v. 114R)

3:05 PM- Claimant’s speaker started slowly with the facts, judges soon asked the speaker to go on with the arguments. Speaker started calm and steady. The speaker cited a struck down case to back his argument which the judges pointed out. The speaker, even when unable to give passable arguments, has not lost her calm. As and when the claimant brought the notice of the arbitrators to the things incorporated in the memo, probably considering the fact that they may help her justify her stance, things actually got worse, as judges started grilling. Now her every argument was being questioned by the bench as the speaker failed to give a satisfactory answer. Judges, asked the claimant to move further with her points. But to her dismay, she seem to have lost the confidence and was stuttering a lot, while the judges kept on questioning.

3:20 PM- Speaker 2 gave a broad structure of his speech, of how he would be proceeding with his arguments. He was quite confident, even when the questioning started. He rushed with his issues so as to cover all the points her partner couldn’t complete due to continuous grilling. The judges probably thought that the speaker can surely not be questioned on his knowledge of the laws or on the facts of the case, as the manner in which he spoke showed them that he knew whatever he was possibly dealing with. Although, he was struck down by a minute long question, which he tried to answer in a systematic manner, but the argument took an unprecedented turn. Judges after getting an unsatisfactory reply, grabbed the opportunity to question the same point. But he found a way to collect himself and successfully faced the further question.

3:45 PM- Before the respondent could start, the court room was dead silent. With judges going through the submissions, respondent tries to recollect whatever he has planned.

3:50 PM- The Speaker 1 from the side of the respondent takes the stage, and begins to make his submissions in a calm and steady manner after due permissions from the judges. The speaker makes several references to the fact sheet as well as the written submissions made by them. Argumentations were quite confidently put, with ample references to case laws which help him substantiate his submissions. The speaker faced all the queries of the judges in a very calm and satisfying manner. He was prepared for such grilling, it seems.

4:10 PM- Speaker 2 respondent started off by stating the facts that correspond to the issues that he was dealing with, after which he justified as to why their stance was better and more justified in nature than that of the claimants. As the day progressed, it was observed that the judges chose not to interrupt the speaker in the beginning, they gave a few minutes to the speaker so as to let them put for the argument. He did a great job and maintained an organised and structural speech all across his allotted time, but he failed to give the authority behind his last issue, which might back lash on the scoring.

4:25 PM- Rebuttal started for the claimants. He again pointed out some scientific facts from the problem and connected it with legal intricacies.

4:27 PM- Before rebuttals for respondent, judge asked a question which they failed to provide a satisfactory answer to.

4:29 PM- It started with a heated argument with speaker looking at the claimants. He pointed out the opposition’s citations and argued about the jurisdiction of the courts.

Round 2 ends.

COURT ROOM 3 (111C v. 121R)

14:58 PM: Speaker one of claimants’ side has started arguing but judges again ask the same question of whether Indian law or English law should be applied. Arbitrator asks the question of why the claimants went for the last resort of arbitration when they had the choice of resolving dispute amicably

15:02 PM: Two minutes of the allotted time is left but speaker one of claimants side is speaking

15:11 PM: Speaker 2 from claimants’ side starts arguing

15:14 PM: There is issue of maintain temperature in voyage but claimants are of the view that it was just because of the product being shipped and they always maintained the required temperature.

15:17 PM: Respondent starts.

15:26 PM: It seems that speaker one of respondent is not aware of the facts mentioned in imam preposition itself. And taking lot of the time to answer the facts.

15:45: Rebuttal for round two starts

15:50: Round two end.

COURT ROOM 4 (117C v 115R)

14:45 PM: 117(C) Speaker 1 Starts. He’s calm and is slow and deliberate in keeping his points. But the Speaker retracts from his submission.

15:01 PM: Speaker 2 from the Claimant side starts with questions being shot at him by the judges. He seems a little nervous. The judges are giving a hard time to the speaker on grounds of Jurisdiction. They stress upon a factual background of the case before entering into the arguments. The Judges ask the Speaker to prove that there was a failed negotiation before they came for arbitration.

15:17 PM: The Speaker 1 from team 115(R) starts with a flow. But the speaker fails to address first things first. The Speaker loses her flow as she confuses the facts thus giving the Judges chance to question.

15:30 PM: Speaker 2 from the Respondent side gives wonderful arguments but it somehow does not apply.

15:52 PM: Rebuttals begin. The judges make it clear that all the Rebuttals would be on the law and not on the facts. After a long argument with the Speaker 2, the judges finally agree to her after she cites authorities.

COURT ROOM 5 (104C v. 107R)

15:00 PM: Round 2 starts

Speaker 1 from claimants started on a good page but has been losing confidence with each question being posed to her. Persistent questions. Stammering, too much blinking, much less eye contact. She is trying hard but has gone shaky. Arbitrators provided a much needed relief to the speaker, just listening to her, questions are stopped.

15:10PM: Time’s up but the arbitrators are still left with one or two questions. Speaker 1 handled the last question quite well. Speaker 2 starts.

15:27 PM: The speaker is being questioned on some technicalities. Judges doesn’t seem to be much moved, but he calmly answered most of the questions. Speaker 2 mentioned a manual to prove his point. Arbitrators wanted to have a look at the same. Speaker 2 was praised a bit by the arbitrators. Now the respondents will start.

15:40 PM: Good start for the respondents, the arbitrators are patiently listening to the speaker. Not much questioning, just a few questions; that too are being comfortably answered by the speaker. Speaker 2 calmly lays out the structure for her arguments.

Debate begins between arbitrators and the speaker regarding obligations of ship owners. Reasonableness of the ship employees was also discussed. The judges are extremely lenient.

16:07 PM: The time has elapsed but the arbitrators still provide few extra minutes for letting the speaker 2 conclude. Rebuttal starts. Speaker from claimants 1 was asked to slow down a bit by the arbitrators so that she can be properly heard. The problem she pointed out was praised by the arbitrator.

16:27 PM: Judges were really impressed, both teams did quite commendable jobs. No need for feedback for teams that were this good. Just appreciation given by the judges.

COURT ROOM 6 (112C v. 109R)

2:52: Welcome to Phase II of the Preliminary Rounds of the Fourth Edition of the Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot, organized by National Law University Odisha. The speaker from side claimants has begun confidently, however, his manners and demeanor for sure leave much to be desired. He will certainly be marked down for it.

3:03: The second speaker for side claimants has begun with her arguments. Meanwhile, the judges have made it explicitly clear that they are not satisfied with the first speaker’s performance.

3:06: The judges have begun grilling the second speaker with only two minutes into her arguments. The speaker has conceded ground and this has not been taken well by the judges.

3:18: Time’s up! In the face of the incessant questioning for the past ten minutes, the speaker has conceded considerable ground. The demeanor of the speaker has suffered severely, and she will be certainly marked down by the judges for it.

3:19: The speaker from side respondents has begun, but has already pleaded ignorance to the questions posed. The judges have rejected most of his arguments, and he seems to be flustered.

3:25: The atmosphere in the courtroom has considerably heated up in spite of the air conditioning running at full blast. The speaker has cited a Swedish case law, however, the judges have rejected it on the ground that the case belonged to a common law jurisdiction. This has not been taken well by the speaker, who tries in vain to convince the judges as to the relevance of the case.

3:26: Two minutes to go, and the speaker has moved on to his second contention. He looks extremely frustrated at the questions and has lost his cool. The judges seem to be in a bad mood as well, and are not ready to accept any of the arguments.

3:35: The first speaker from respondents has completed, albeit on a bad note. The second speaker tries to begin, but is interrupted immediately by the judges. Their dissatisfaction is evident on their face, and one of the judges looks almost bored of the proceedings.

3:42: One of the points put forth by the respondents has generated considerable interest and activity on the claimants. Notes and chits are frantically passed, and they keep referring to their memorials.

3:45: The speaker is definitely frustrated and makes contradictory claims, which is immediately picked upon by the judges. Two minutes to go!

3:47: The speaker tries to begin with the counter-claim, but time’s up! The judges however, ask the speaker to continue.

3:50: The judges have asked the speaker to conclude and summarize her arguments in one minute. The speaker is unable to answer most of the questions posed by the bench, and looks confused and muddled.

3:55: The judges try to test the understanding of the speaker’s understanding by putting forth questions based on  hypothetical situations. She pleads ignorance to one of the questions, and moves on to the prayer. Even here, the prayer is ridden with contradictions, and the judges pick on it immediately.

4:03: The round has moved into the rebuttals, and the judges seem to be satisfied with the rebuts made by the claimants. The speaker from side respondents earnestly tries to begin, but is immediately interrupted and is asked to move on to another issue. Must be frustrating indeed.

4:07: Time’s up! The round has ended, and the judges have huddled into a discussion. That is it from Court Room 6, stay tuned for the next phase!

COURT ROOM 7 (110C v. 124R)

The Judges send their regards to their fans on the SCC blog.

15:00 – Amped up from their previous round, Team 110 (Claimant) started very strong and confident, both in terms of presentation and content. Even though the judges started grilling immediately, the speakers were able to keep their calm and answer without fumbling!

15:20– While the speaker was confidently answering the rapid-fire questions, she was unable to manage her time properly and ended up having to summarise an entire issue in 1 min, which she still did admirably even when the judges questioned on that issue further.

15:40 – The speakers of team 124 (Respondent) started off much more calmly and professionally than Team 110. Over the course of the speech of the first speaker of team 124, it was evident that she had the conceptual clarity to answer and satisfy the judges on most of the aspects!

16:00– the second speaker had a similar presentation style as her co-speaker, though a bit more nervous. But she was still able to satisfy the judges on most of the areas of concern. However, Team 124 exceeded their time limits by a greater margin than Team 110.

Overall, the second round was far more engaging and fruitful as both the parties as well as the judges were proactively participating in the rounds. This allowed for a much more comprehensive discussion!

COURT ROOM 8 (123C v 119R)

15:35 PM: The counsel for respondents begins with his arguments on jurisdiction, and is grilled on the same. He fails at convincing the judges with his answers, and thus, has to concede. He is felt baffled as he is asked to skip through most of his arguments, and is asked to come to the conclusion. The co-counsel begins with his arguments, and is flustered for most part of his speech, as the judges shower him with questions that he seems unprepared to answer.

15:40 PM: The counsel for the petitioners begins with his arguments, and is caught up in a plethora of questions on arbitration, but manoeuvres his way through them smoothly. He then yields the floor to his co-counsel. The co-counsel begins arguing on the weight of the cargo and other details, and struggles to answer the questions of the judges convincingly initially, but eventually succeeds in answering the questions successfully.

16:19: He is flustered as the judges grill him on the limitation and their claim in the instant case, and is further grilled on questions of law regarding arbitration and an interesting head to head is observed. He eventually concludes his arguments, and rebuttals are followed by it.

The Rounds End.


COURT ROOM 1 (103C v 108R)

16:52 PM: Round 3 start directly with grilling questions

Judges asked the claimant about the clause in the fact sheet. They said they are aware about it. Judges ask the speaker 2 from where they came to know whether it is there in Singapore or not. And claimants said that they do not have it.

Claimant ask the judges to clear the questions as they didn’t understand it. And judges are elaborating it. Judges asked the claimants to read the clause loudly to bring them to the point. They asked the claimants to clearly listen to question and then answer. Claimant asked judges to please allow them a moment to clarify themselves.

17:31 PM: Judges asked them to not to give brief of the facts but proceed with arguments

Respondent starts.  Judges asked the respondent whether they want to argue that whether the 3rd arbitrator is not neutral? Judges asked the speaker 2 if they want to clarify the point of speaker 1.

17:48 PM: Judges asked the elaborate in standard industry practice and whether they complied with it or not. 2 claim ignorance 2nd time. Respondent didn’t gave the sur-rebuttals.

Round ends.

COURT ROOM 2 (127C v 126R)

5:20- Speaker 1 of the claimants began with her arguments in a quite impressive manner. She gave a thorough briefing of the facts and moved swiftly towards her issues. She seems to have structured her issues very well. It can be understood even by a person who has no interest in this particular case. Speaker has been inclusive of every possible aspect of the issue. With her thorough understanding and eloquent manner of portraying the situation, she tackled the questions of the tribunal in an effective way. Puff!! The speaker starts raising allegations against the respondents according to the facts, that too in an aggressive way. And the time’s up!

5:40- Speaker 2 takes over the duty. She will be substantiating the further arguments, just like her co-counsel, she too, has a persuasive way of speaking. But as soon as the 2nd minute started, judges started the grills. The composed manner of dealing with the questions seems to have made even the judges silent or maybe it’s just been a long day! But the judge 3 keeps on interrupting the co-counsel. Both the speakers are so well versed with the facts, provisions, issues involved, it’s commendable. Speakers got away with only a few questions to face. Although the round was extended for a minute or two, which surely might turn into there favour!

6:06- It can be seen one member from the respondent side is missing. With only 2 people, Speaker 1 from the respondent side initiates his attacks! on the contrary to their claimants, has a sangfroid demeanour. Just when he started, he was asked to give a brief on the facts of the situation, he stumbles to his first issue. First minute into the issue and he pleads counsel’s not aware. It isn’t good for them! Their opposition already have an upper hand with eloquent speakers! But he finds his feet and moves in a fluent manner. He has been quite sure of whatever he is saying, with a few queries from the tribunal, he puts forth his issues.

6:17- Speaker 2 got no time to gather himself and has to go ahead with his arguments. He aims at extending what his co-counsel had just said. The tribunal kept on intervening, it’s not looking good! It’s certainly not going according to what they might’ve planned. As the grilling continues, the claimants seem to enjoy the questioning, but subtly paying attention to what judges are pointing out. As live bloggers we can totally relate to what judges are going through! For a whole day, wearing formals and bombarding questions on the poor participants!

6:40- Claimants rebut in a very short way due to shortage of time. speaker-2 of the claimant, without wasting any second starts raising question. The thoroughness with which they have read the respondents memo, seems to have impressed the judges.

6:42- Respondents have rebutted each an every point during the course of their issues.

COURT ROOM 3 (125C v 120R)

16:35 PM: Round three starts

16:43 PM: Speaker one of claimants’ side starts arguing there are some instance where speaker is left blank and arbitrator suggest them to cope up with time. Judges have told claimant not to use the term imam preposition and to go just with preposition.

17:04 PM: Speaker two of the claimants starts and is not able to answer the tricky questions of judges.

17:12 PM: Speaker one of respondent starts with introducing themselves but judges ask him to jump to the issue.

17:24 PM: Speaker two of respondent argues.

17:33 PM:  Nothing much to say but speaker was quiet good and judges are impressed by the respondent performance

17:33 PM: Rebuttal starts.

Round three ends

COURT ROOM 4 (101C v 118R)

16:50 PM: 101(C) Speaker 1 starts. He seems to be very good speaker and takes his time while speaking.

17:08 PM: The judge mentioned that though the Argument advanced by the speaker was good, it couldn’t be held because it was not related to the context of Cargo.

17:30 PM: The Speaker 2 battling hard and trying his level best to convince the judges

17:32 PM: 118(R) Speaker 1 starts.

17:40 PM: The Speaker has a well-structured content and therefore even after being interrupted so many times by the judges, he maintains his flow and doesn’t let anxiety ruin his composure.

17:59 PM:  BAM! A confusing question! But the speaker takes a moment and answers. The judges seem satisfied.

18:15 PM: What seemed to be a never ending round finally comes to an end.

The judges were highly impressed with both the teams due to their innovative arguments. The repetitive words during the Feedback session was Brilliant! And Amazing!

The magnitude of the arguments advanced by both the teams was something that even our judges hadn’t anticipated.

COURT ROOM 5 (106C v 128R)

17:15 PM: Round 3 gets under way.

17:26 PM: Counsel hasn’t timed his argument well, first issue took most of the time, he faced a lot of questions, he was able to comfortably answer most of them, but was he able to persuade the judges, can’t say so.

17:30 PM: and time’s up, but the questioning continues, an extra minutes is given. Yet another time it is reminded that time’s up but it seems that the judges are not letting go the speaker without a satisfactory answer.

17:34 PM: Finally the co-counsel gets a chance to speak, she lays put the structure of her arguments. Speaker one is looking troubled, as if he forgot to say something that he only remembers now. He is just blankly looking around. The second speaker is confident in her approach. The speaker is laying out factual arguments.  The respondents are keenly interested in the question-answer between the speaker and arbitrators.

17:40 PM: The speaker has facts at her finger tips, questions based on facts were easily answered by her. Speaker 1 intervened to answer a few questions posed by judge. No time left. The judge is lenient regarding time and the argument continues. All three judges are bombarding questions. The speaker remains structured and calmly answers the question, but his every answer is leading to another question by the judges.

17:53 PM: The argument still goes on. Two judges pouncing upon him at the same time. I won’t say they are doing any grilling, they are just looking for satisfactory answers.

6:20 PM: Co-counsel started with an assumption, judges won’t allow that, moreover that assumption was contradictory to the argument put up by his own co-counsel. The judge asked to let go the submission, because it was not helping the respondents.

Poor speaker one, he is rubbing his eyes, shoulder all drooped down, it seems he wasn’t really ready for all this.

6:20 PM: I must say this speaker was grilled, it ended when he was asked to find something in the preposition while the co-counsel gets a chance to speak.

6:30 PM: Respondent counsel starts the argument. Even before the speaker could have said anything, he was asked a question which made him baffled, he was forced to move on to the next issue, he is not getting any chance to get back, another question, and yet another. Judges are much involved in questioning, Court room 5 hasn’t witnessed this frequently questioning since the commencement of first session. Speaker 1 seems to be fighting a lost battle, he finally gave in, asked the judges that he wants to move forward to the third issue. Somehow he still manages to keep his face frown free. It must be really hard for him to even continue.

6:41 PM: I know that maybe the respondents were not well prepared, but still he is playing bold, he is still arguing, during rebuttal time. More questions, more answers, and yet again more questions. Judges are enjoying this, time is up but they still want to hear more. It went on for one more minute.

Finally the slaughter ends.

COURT ROOM 6 (105C v 102R)

5:16: Welcome to the final phase of the preliminary rounds of the 6th Bose & Mitra International Maritime Law Moot organized by National Law University Odisha. While the judges and the claimants look rested and relaxed, the respondents do not, owing to the grueling Phase II round they went through, which lasted close to two hours.

5:16: The first speaker from side claimants goes off to a strong start, and seems to be well prepared. Her demeanor is pleasing, and answers the questions posed by the judges confidently.

5:20: The judges keep grilling the respondent speaker over Section 29 of Indian Arbitration and Negotiation Act, and its application to the facts of the case.

5:30: Time’s up, but the speaker hasn’t lost calm yet. Admirable indeed, considering the barrage of questions she has faced.

5:34: The first speaker has been asked to clarify as to side claimants’ calculations. The judges continue to grill the speaker, but her answers seem to be backed by a strong knowledge of the facts and the law.

5:41: Well, the time’s been up for ten minutes, but not the interrogation, and it does not seem to end anytime soon. The speaker hasn’t lost her calm yet, and that is a good thing for side claimants.

5:45: The speaker has been asked to move on the third issue and she proceeds confidently. Her answers are well substantiated with the facts and keeps quoting the relevant sections of the Acts.

5:50: The first speaker should have finished over twenty minutes ago, but the judges continue with their questioning. This time, it relates to the application of law, whether English or Indian.

5:52: Finally! The second speaker is allowed to begin, and like her co-counsel, she gets off to a good start.

6:00: One of the points made by the speaker from side claimants as to the expertise of the master seem to have put side respondents into a fix, and there is a slight expression of defeat on their faces.

6:09: The air conditioning is working too well, and it is freezing inside the courtroom. But there is a heated debate between the judges and the speaker, and neither side is willing to cede ground.

6:16: Finally! Speaker from side respondents has begun, and starts off with the argument that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the case, due to the use of ‘may’ over ‘shall’. The judges do not seem to be satisfied, but permit the speaker to continue.

6:21: The judges are grilling the speaker over the conflict of laws in the present case, and the speaker keeps referring them to the compendium.

6:40: This has been an exceptionally long round and does not seem to end anytime soon.

6:44: For the first time in the round, the speaker from side respondents looks dumbstruck and flustered.

6:46: The second speaker from side respondents begins with his arguments, and is immediately questioned as to whether they can ask the tribunal to decide over a cautious claim, to which the speaker claims ignorance.

6:50: The respondents claims that the crude oil in question is similar to all other crude oil. Two of the judges look almost shocked at this suggestion, and begin to grill him on this point.

6:54: The judges have begun to exploit the unsubstantiated claims made by the speaker and seem to be amused at his suggestion. The grilling has been so hard that even his co-counsel looks at him with pity.

7:00: The speaker provides an example of a person who opens the hatch of a petroleum tank, which almost everybody in the courtroom, apart from side respondents finds amusing. This provides a much wanted touch of humor, albeit unintended.

7:06: This has been a very, very long round with much grilling. Both the sides look almost relieved. Goodbye, but stay tuned for the quarter finals!

COURT ROOM 7 (114C v 111R)

5.15 PM – The first speaker of Team 114 (Claimant) started with such a flourish (emphasising on the applicable law and party autonomy) that he had sufficient time to finish one argument before the judges could fully process them and ask questions. However, the judges soon got a hang of it and could successfully stop the speaker’s flow of speech! One of the fresh arguments brought in this round by the Claimant is that since the wording of the pre-arbitral tier of amicable settlement is uncertain as to its initiation, duration and at what stage can it be exhausted, it cannot be unenforceable. However, for quite some time, the speaker was unable to grasp and answer some questions that all the three judges kept rephrasing and asking.

5.40 PM – From the beginning, the second speaker of Team 114 (Claimant) was stumped by the questions of the tribunal as the judges kept bringing him back to the terms of the charterparty. Such consternation on part of the speaker was evident by the fact that his volume of speech lowered after being referred to the charterparty. The peculiar part to be noted is that whenever the judges ask a question twice, the speaker immediately becomes apprehensive of his answer and starts consulting his papers again, to the point where he had to check when the voyage itself had started! He even said that “a simple Google search would show-” before the judges picked it up and made a few remarks.

6 PM – The first speaker of Team 110 (Respondent) started as if no storm could quicken his pace. However, with one minute in, the judges resumed their grilling. At one point, the judge asked if the Respondent is willing to try an amicable settlement – the speaker replied ‘if the tribunal so wishes’. The tribunal had to point out that amicable settlement is on the parties and the tribunal has no role it; that slowed the speaker a bit, but he soon resumed his steady pace of speaking.

With two rounds completed, the judges were easily able to zero in on the most confounding issues, like the claim of time bar, easily evident through the escalating fumbling of the speaker. Even so, the speaker had the determination to maintain his pace, which he surprisingly did most of the time.

6.20 PM – the second speaker finally started, amply spacing her statements with nervous fillers. It was almost as if she was still rehearsing to convince herself. The judges were asking a lot fewer questions, as if they had exhausted their reserves on her co-speaker previously. At the same time, they are unwilling to wait for the speaker to gather her bearing as she tries to answer. The last preliminary round is over!

COURT ROOM 8 (121C v 117R)

17:07 PM: The judges begin the rounds by asking if the parties agree on the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the case. The claimants disagree with the same, and both the parties are left baffled as the judges refuse to listen to the claimants pursuant to the same.

17:16 PM: However, the claimants later concede to the fact that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties in the instant case, after which they’re allowed to argue. The counsel begins with his arguments, and is grilled on the issue of demurrage charges.

17:07 PM: The judges begin the rounds by asking if the parties agree on the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the case. The claimants disagree with the same, and both the parties are left baffled as the judges refuse to listen to the claimants pursuant to the same. However, the claimants later concede to the fact that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties in the instant case, after which they’re allowed to argue.

17:24 PM:  The co-counsel thereafter takes over, and argues on the facts of the case. The judges continue to grill the co-counsel as well, on multiple occasions.

The respondents then begin with their arguments, and are caught up on one point of law with respect to the jurisdiction, and the judges continue to grill the first counsel on the same for most part of his speech.

17:53: The judges seem flustered as the first counsel argues further on the same issue, still standing firm on his claim and refuses to concede. The co-counsel now takes over, and maneuvers through the questions of the judges successfully, with convincing arguments. The counsel begins with his arguments, and is grilled on the issue of demurrage charges.

The quarter-final match ups are:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Law v. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
Symbiosis Law School, Pune v. National Law University, Jodhpur
Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi v. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
Government Law College, Mumbai v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

Congratulations to all the teams who made it through and we applaud the fantastic effort of every team who fought it out bravely in the prelims.

Court Room 1: Rajiv Gandhi University of Law (Claimant) v. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi (Respondent)

8:35 PM

As the teams have qualified the preliminary rounds, they have a lot of pressure which is visible outside the court rooms. They must be trying to incorporate as much as they can, after all the feedbacks might be useful in this round.

Teams enter into the room, a little chit chat with the judges, then they proceed towards their respective issues.

8:45 PM

The respondent approaches the bench in a very delicate manner, he was very careful as it was evident in the way he spoke. Being well versed with the facts and cases related with the facts, he takes no time in furthering his submissions. Judges observed the speaker very keenly, and then the questioning started, in the 3rd minute. During the course of the speech, the claimants duly noted all the points made by the respondents. He seeks permission and is very careful in the course of his arguments, he spoke with utmost respect towards the bench. The tribunal agreed while pointing out certain issues raised by the respondents. Although, maintaining a calm demeanour throughout the course is difficult, he finds that his time is up! He asked for 30 seconds more, but the bench kept on intervening to his dismay. Judge 1 seemed to be very curious about the knowledge of the respondent and asked details of a case in the last few seconds. Being well versed with the facts, respondent secured the ball in his court. The bench in a way, found it unsatisfactory that the respondent didn’t answer what they had asked and was asking more time to conclude his arguments.

9:01 PM

Speaker-1 of the claimants, started his submissions after having a little chat with the clerk. After all, the time is very crucial. The very moment he started, he was bombarded with the questions by the judges. “The quality of arbitrators is very well in India”, bench shared a light moment as the speaker moved on. The speaker is very clear in his manner of speaking. The council pleads ignorance when the judges ask where ICC is, the International Chamber of Commerce (as submitted by the speaker). The incessant questioning has seemingly unnerved the counsel and comes off as slightly confused, the same being observed by the honourable bench.  The judges continued with their queries. This heated questioning went on for about 15 minutes of while the counsel stood his ground despite the questions posed at him.

9.41 PM

Judges are questioning the claimants. Not satisfied with the argument of claimant, judges asked to move to next submission.

10.09 PM

Judges asked the claimant speaker to open the bare act to clarify their stance on law. Judges questioned them continuously on their arguments. Respondent saying that they are willing to come on an amicable settlement with claimant.

10:16 PM

Respondent asked that he wants to move on second issue but it seems like judges are not willing to give up on issue 1.

COURT ROOM 2: Symbiosis Law School Pune (Claimant) v National Law University Jodhpur (Respondent)

8:40: Welcome to the much awaited quarter finals of the 6th edition of the Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot organized by National Law University Odisha. The first speaker from the side of claimants has started off good and seems to be prepared, which is evident from her tone of speaking.

8:44: The judges have, however, started off with their questioning pretty early into the rounds. Their line of questioning has been incessant and they are not ready to accept any argument made by the side of claimants.

8:50: The counsels have been making continuous attempts at convincing the judges with respect to the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and the validity of the invocation of arbitration by the claimants in the instant case, but to no avail.

8:54: The judges have discovered a contradiction as to side claimant’s calculation as to costs, and they do not seem to be convinced with their arguments. However, they have permitted them to move ahead to the other issues and arguments.

9:02: The bench has made it explicitly clear that they are unable to accept their arguments relating to the weight of the cargo, and the liability with respect to the cause of solidification of the cargo.

9:10: The judges have maneuvered their way through the issue on the weight of the cargo, and the liability with respect to the solidification thereof, back to the jurisdiction issue, which the counsel seems to have answered much to the satisfaction of the judges.

9:12: The counsel has begun with the next issue, and is already being thrown questions at. The judges have even made it very, very clear that they do not accept the arguments posed by the side of claimants. The good thing is that the speaker has not lost her calm even in the face of this incessant grilling.

9:25: At this point, the judges have questioned the speaker as to awareness of a fact present in the moot proposition, however, the speaker pleads ignorance.

9:41: The co-counsel for the claimants has now taken over, and has begun with her contentions..

9:48: The incessant grilling has flustered the claimants as notes and chits are frantically passed. The speaker is losing her cool, and this is not a good sign. The questions relate to the nature of the crude oil, and the judges have managed to reveal their lack of research.

9:54: The judges have asked the speaker from side claimants to summarize and conclude in five minutes.

10:00: The respondents have taken over, and have now started with their arguments. They have started with the their first issue, and that is with respect to the difference between arbitration dispute and arbitrability.

10:10: The judges are continually grilling the counsel on the same issue, even after ten minutes of the initiation of the arguments by the respondents. The counsel continues to stand firm on his stance even after all this while and sticks to his argument with respect to amicable mutual discussion.

10:19: The judges are still throwing questions at the counsel in regard with same issue, and the counsel has now asked for some time to gather his thoughts. He has been trying to answer the questions, with little success at convincing the judges with his arguments.

10:35: The judges look unimpressed at the speaker’s arguments and keep interrupting him. The speaker, however seems to be unfazed.

10:42: The speaker for side respondents announces that he would like to yield the floor to his co-counsel. The judges then ask him as to who would be addressing the issue of delimitation, to which the first speaker replies that it would be handled by his co-counsel. However, the next moment, he begins with addressing the issue. This makes the judges visibly upset, who ask him to clarify again as to who would be addressing the issue. He looks shaken and yields the floor to his co-counsel.

10:50: The second speaker is facing a barrage of questions from the judges, who are going ballistic. The demeanor of the speaker is worsening by the moment, and this is not a good sign.

11:00: “What is a prudent standard? If a car is dirty, what does a reasonable man do? Does he take a cloth and clean it, or go to the paint shop and get it painted? Maybe only an expert would do that. And here, only an expert would keep it above 55 degrees!” a judge says. The speaker is now extremely nervous.

11:03: The judges asks the speaker to not to presume any facts, and stick to what has been stated in the moot proposition.

11:05: The speaker concludes the case from side respondents, and the claimants do not opt for rebuttals due to paucity of time. The rounds are over for today, but do come back tomorrow for the semi-finals. Signing off for today.


COURT ROOM 4: Government Law College, Mumbai (Claimant) v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (Respondent)

20:45 PM- Government Law College Speaker 1 starts. She seems to have a good command over her arguments and has a well-structured content.

20:50 PM- The most impressive quality of Speaker 1 has to be her patience. She carefully listens to all the questions the Judges have to ask instead of jumping to answers abruptly. She is articulately able to answer the questions.

21:00 PM- The Judges in the best of their knowledge are trying to halt and confuse the speaker, but little do they know that the speaker is in her best state of calmness and is absolutely confident.

21:22 PM- The Speaker 2 starts. She faces the questioning from the very beginning. She seems to be handling it well.

21:52 PM- Question- Answer… this is the prevailing process for the past few minutes. It seems to be a never ending process.

10 PM – The first speaker of the Respondent team starts off with the arguments. From the very beginning, the Respondent was forced to move to a defensive position. The speaker tried to maintain her speech style and pace, and maintained her composure as the judges sought clarifications and tried to find any loopholes in the speaker’s arguments. She however engaged with the tribunal by ensuring that they keep returning to the case study. As the judges put questions as well as provided the context for the question, time took a distant backseat as compared to the session itself. While the speaker tried to move forward, the tribunal brought her attention to the very facts she referred to initially, such as the issue of amendment of the dispute resolution clause to reflect the parties’ intention.

10.45 PM – The tribunal immediately brought her attention to the case study and were persistent in their questions. Nevertheless, the boisterous speakers were able to hold their ground as well as they could, given the questions hurled at them. The Quarterfinals are finally over.

COURT ROOM 3: Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (Claimants) v National Law School of India University, Bangalore (Respondent)

20:45: And the time starts. Although team have cracked to quarter finals the real battle begins. Speaker one of respondent has started arguing. Although he seems to be calm while arguing the judges in one way or the other are putting more complex questions.

21:07: Speaker one of claimants has started arguing. Confidence is all that matters at last and it can be seen in this speaker. Speaker one seems to be a good speaker and have answer for all questions posed to them.

21:16: Speaker two of claimants start. She has facts on her fingertips and is exuding confidence. It seems claimants have already anticipated the questions which may be asked and they are readily answering them.

21:28: Time is always a problem and it can be reflected in this case too although both the parties are provided with hefty sum of time but there are some instance when parties need to refer in some documents and that is really time consuming. Factual arguments, authorities, composure they have it all.

21:50: Claimants got six extra minutes and judges have decided to same time to respondents too. The co-council for claimants argued really well and for quite a long time. While she was very well versed with the facts, still she wasn’t able to answer a question in the end. This really got her all worried. She addressed the prayer and sunk in her chair, still worried a bit. However, she did her part as well as one can.

22:00: Speaker one of respondent side has started arguing and at the very first instance he started attacking the claims of the claimants. While the arbitrators are putting forward very twisted questions as expected in any maritime law moot, still the respondents are providing exact answers which the judges are looking for. Judges seems pleased.

22:04 In order to compensate the additional time given to the claimants, extra time is also provided to the respondents. Most of the issues are substantiated by valid arguments, only leaving a little scope of questions, still the arbitrators are consistently coming up with questions. It seems the co-council for respondent has caused a factual error, he has been asked to refer to moot preposition, and further questions are being asked regarding the facts now.

22:30 Both teams have submitted their issues. We just witnessed a comprehensive battle despite the questioning from the judges, the counsel was able to answer with utmost composure.

22:35 The Rebuttals have started. Claimants took their time to pose the questions and further strengthen their claims. Respondent was calmly able to answer them.

22:40 The judges didn’t interfere much and thus, a fiery Quarter Final comes to a close.

After the completion of the Quarter Finals we are proud to announce the 4 Semi Finalists. The qualifying teams are:
1. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
3. Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
4. Government Law College, Mumbai

We wish all the teams the very best for the Semi Finals.

Fixtures for Semi Finals scheduled for 31st March, 2019

Semi Final 1: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Semi Final 2: Law Centre 1, Faculty of Delhi, University of Delhi v Government Law College, Mumbai

That’s it for Day 2. The competition resumes tomorrow. Thank You and Good Night.

Welcome back! Day 3 of 6th NLUO IMAM 2019 is about to begin in a few minutes. We wish the teams all the best as they fight for a place in the finals.


The first semi-final will be between Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune  

The 1st Semi- final proceedings begin. 

  • 1:20- The Judges entered the Courtroom. The participants were very enthusiast as they will be arguing before the bench who are an authority in the Maritime arbitration itself.


Claimant- Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
  • 11:22- The speaker 1 of the claimant is speaking in a very well mannered and organised fashion. The speaker is well versed with the subject matter of the case.
  • 11:24: Speaker 1 explained the structurisation to the judges which he is going to argue before the court.
    11:27 Speaker 1 put up the issue of amicable settlement before the court and argue that the amicable settlement will go on forever and hence is uncertain. The bench throw the questions on which the speaker very politely and calmly tries to satisfy the Judges and also cite the case laws for the same.
  • 11:29 Speaker 1 also submitted that the charter is liable to the owners and outline two sub-issues. The Judges seems to be interested in the arguments and keenly hearing the arguments of the Claimant.
  • 11:35 The Judge asks about the Notice of protest and questions on the timeline which is before 6 hour or after 6 hour. For which, the claimant reads out the provision from the factsheet and addressed the concern of the Judges.
  • 11:38 Claimant submitted before the bench relating to the owners are awaiting the charters. Speaker 1 starts with the arguments in a very polite and confident manner and by the arguments put forward it is clear that there research in the maritime arbitration is quite wide and have a pretty good knowledge about the subject area.
  • 11:42 The Bench ask the speaker 1 about the Notice of Arrival and Notice of departure and the difference between them. The speaker seems to be successful in answering the question of the Bench.
    11:44 Speaker submitted the second issue regarding the defect in Cargo. The claimant submitted that the delay is reasonable in nature. The principal relied was the principle of reasonable conduct. The Judge 1 asked from where the claimant has derived this principle for which the claimant cites the 1990 case. Claimant seems to be successful in addressing all the concern of the Bench and the bench also seems to be satisfied by the arguments made by the claimant.
  • 11:48: Speaker 1 for the claimant concludes his arguments in a very fascinating way.
  • 11:49-  The speaker 2 from the  claimant’s side takes the stage after his co- counsel and starts speaking in a calm and confident manner. She presented her submissions in the form of two well structured points.
  • 11:50 Speaker 2 submitted the issue before the bench that the charter does not provide sufficient notice.  Speaker seems to be so confident and using her compendium in the best way. She is bombarding the bench with the case laws for every question that is being asked by the Judges.
  • 11:55 Judge 2 asked the question about the adequate temperature. Speaker 2 rightfully said that the adequate temperature is 35 degree Celsius. The Judge 1 asked whether the claimant is maintaining the adequate temperature for which the claimant tried to answer the Bench through the fact-sheets.
The tribunal for the Semi Finals
  • 11:58 Claimant submitted other two limbs of her arguments before the bench. Judge 1 asked the claimant to read clause 24 of the charter party agreement. Judge 1 asked the question on that clause for which the claimant submitted that the facts are silent about the fact.
  • 12:03- The claimant addressed the bench on the issue of incessant laws.
  • 12:05 Speaker 2 concluded her arguments in an efficient way.
  • 12:06 The bench asked the claimant to interpret Article 4 Rule 2 (a) of the In-transit laws. Claimant satisfied the concern of the bench by her answer.


Respondent- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  • 12:07 The Speaker 1 on behalf of the respondents begins by laying down her arguments with a calm and composed demeanour. The speaker 1 begins with the 1st issue regarding whether the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction or not? Respondent submitted that the present tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
  • 12:14 Respondent submitted the second issue regarding whether CACL is liable to charter party. Respondent submitted the arguments in four limbs to substantiate their case.
  • 12:16 The Bench asked the speaker 1 as to whether the free petty a requirement in Europe. The speaker answered in affirmative.
  • 12:21 Respondent submitted the third issue that the pumping logs were not provided to support the laws. Respondent backs her argument by citing the case law for the same. Speaker 1 seems to be so calm and polity while submitting the arguments and judge might also be impressed with her demeanour.
  • 12:27 Speaker 1 submitted her last issue before the court. The judges seem to be satisfied with the arguments submitted by the speaker 1 and did not question her on this issue.
  • 12:28- Speaker 1 concluded her argument in a very good gesture and give the stage now to her co counsel.
  • 12:28- The co- counsel (speaker 2) made the structurisation of her submission before the court and proceeds with her arguments. She also seems to be quite confident on her submissions and facts.
  • 12:31 Speaker 2 submitted her 1st argument before the bench that the obligations (statutory and other obligations) have not been complied by the claimants. Speaker 2, while making her submissions used a lot of the facts of the case and it was quite impressive as it was also easy for a layman to understand the case at hand.
  • 12:42 Speaker 2 is dealing with the issue of temperature. Speaker 2 addressed the concern of the bench in very confident manner and asks for if any other concern the bench has. This shows the confidence of the speaker 2 upon her in depth research.
  • 12:44 The bench asked the respondent what would happen if Bach Ho deviate from standard industry. Respondent addressed the concern of the bench through the standard industrial practice.
  • 12:49- The bench, after hearing this submission made by the Respondent, asked the respondent that their 1st argument should be related to the mitigating factors as the Bach Ho oil is sensitive in nature and has very little knowledge about the nature of the oil.
  • 12:51 Times up! Respondent ask the bench for few minutes to conclude her last issue. The bench graciously granted time to the respondent to summarise their arguments.


  • 12:54 Claimant allowed for 1 minute of rebuttals as per the discretion of the judges. The judge clarifies the party to be very specific to the points they are raising.
  • 12:57 The counsel on behalf of Respondent clarifies their position with respect to certain arguments made earlier in rebuttals by the claimants.

Semi Final 1 ends. 


Semi Final 2 proceedings begin

The second semi-final is between Law Centre 1, Faculty of Delhi, University of Delhi v. Government Law College, Mumbai


  • 2:03 It’s time for Semi Finals! Round 2! It is expected to be a thrilling and exhaustive show for the part of the participants and the judges alike. The Participants gear up for the last minute of preparation. The claimant in very fluent and confident way started to explain the structure of their arguments before the court. The claimant looks to be confident in their submissions and the advocacy skills they have is really impressive.
  • 2:05 The first submission made by the claimant is the seat of the tribunal. The claimant submitted that the tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.  The claimant argued that the claim of respondent for damage of cargo does not cover the provision of 49.2. Hence, the Respondent has no Jurisdiction before the court.
    2:08 Claimant being confident in their submission tried to negate the contention made by the respondent in their memorial. Claimant submitted that the provision of 49.2 must be read separately and the claimant has the jurisdiction to adjudicate only the claims of the claimant but not the respondent.
  • 2:12 This is very first time that instead of Respondent, the Claimant is negating the arguments of the Respondent through the Respondent memorial they got last night. It seems to me that they did a lot of research yesterday’s night and really in mood to defeat whoever comes in their way.

  • 2:16 The speaker 1 referred to their memorial to substantiate her arguments on arbitration proceeding and that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction. With this, the speaker 1 ends her argument that deals with the procedural part of the case and now her co- counsel will deal with the substantive part of the case.
  • The issue of time bar- our demurrage claim is prevented within the time period clause 20 of the charter party
  • 2:18: The co-counsel holds the stage and explained the structure of arguments to the bench. Speaker 2 submitted her first issue regarding Time- bar. The claimant submitted that their demurrage claim is prevented within the time period as enumerated in the clause 20 of the charter party. Claimant also submitted that the pumping logs is irrelevant to the demurrage claim. The judges seems to be interested in the arguments and they are eagerly hearing the counsel on behalf of the claimant.
  • 2:25 Claimant submitted her 2nd issue before the bench regarding laytime. Claimant contended that majority of their demurrage claim lies on this issue.
  • 2: 28 Claimant is  taking help of the fact-sheet to explain the issues to the judges and it might give a good impression as they are very well versed with the facts. The speaker 2 also seems to be so confident and trying to address each and every concern of the Bench.
  • 2:31 Claimant, now addressed the issue of Notice of readiness and submitted that all claims of demurrage should be allowed.
  • 2:33 The claimant again counters the written submission of the Respondent and submitted that the right temperature was maintained. Claimant conceded that they have the duty to maintain the right temperature and they complied with their duty.
  • 2:37: The Judge asked the claimant about the temperature of the tank. The speaker 2 very amicably answered the concern of the judge and also referred to their compendium to further substantiate her point. However, the Judges were not able to find it in the compendium and it took 2 minute to find it in the compendium.
  • 2:41 Claimant argued that the duty to maintain and inform about the temperature is upon the Respondent as they are the owners of the cargo and the Claimant has no duty as they are not the owners of the cargo.
    2:43 Times up! The speaker asked the bench very politely to grant 2 minutes to conclude her arguments. The bench very graciously allowed the Claimant 2 minute time to conclude her arguments.
  • 2:44 Claimant addressed on the point of incessant laws. As soon as she started, the judges started questioning her  on that issue. However, she maintained her calm and composure and addresses each and every concern of the Judges.
  • 2:47 Time is up! Claimant concluded the argument and now its time for the Respondent to begin.


  • 2:49 Respondent begins with her 1st submission and from her very first word it is clear that the Respondent is clear that they are here to win no matter how good the other team is. Respondent started her arguments in way of negating the arguments made by the Claimant. Respondent submitted that this tribunal has no jurisdiction. Respondent also raises the issue of amicable settlement . The Respondent argued that no such steps for amicable settlement has been made by the Claimant. The counsel on behalf of the Respondent blamed the Claimant that they blatantly lied before the court on the issue of amicable settlement.
  • 2:54 Respondent cited the case of Fiyona Trust v Privalov case to substantiate the issue raised before the court. Respondent tried to interpret the clause and argued that liberal interpretation must be inferred from it. Respondent also cited the exception to the liberal interpretation.
  • 2:59 Respondent cited various cases to made her case in front of the bench regarding the amicable settlement issue and the Speaker 1 seems to be so confident in her voice that judges are so fascinated and hearing to her arguments very silently.
  • 3:01 The claimant argued that the tribunal is empowered to direct the parties to the amicable settlement which the Respondent were denied earlier.
  • 3:04 Speaker 1 of the respondent concluded her arguments and give the floor to her co-counsel.

  • 3:05 Speaker 2 submitted that demurrage claim is time barred. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent substantiate her arguments through case laws and facts of the Moot problem.
  • 2:12 Respondent submitted her 2nd issue regarding whether the  lay-time is correctly construed. Claimant argued that whether or not the submission of “NOR” with the letter of protest is valid or not? The Respondent submitted to it that NOR is invalid. Speaker two took a second, maintained her calm and tried to address the concern of the Judge.
  • 3:17 Respondent tried to differentiate between the Notice of arrival and Notice of readiness. The speaker seems to be quite nervous in making her submissions.
    3:19 The Respondent moves to the other issue regarding the Cargo operations. The counsel submits that according to HM 40 Guidelines the minimum temperature must be maintained at 55 degree Celsius in any case. The standard industry practice also enumerate that Claimant must maintained that temperature. The Judge interrupted and clarifies that according to Standard Industry Practice it must be at port point. The judge also pointed out that why, at the very first place, the respondent did not supply the claimant regarding the information of the cargo to be maintained.
  • 3:24 The counsel cited the exception of some rule to substantiate the claims before the court. However, the judge seems to be not satisfied with this argument as the respondent failed to inform the Claimant about the temperature that must be maintained.
  • 3:28: Through the factual matrix of the case, the respondent argued that the claimant knew about the sensitivity of Bach Ho oil and the temperature that must be maintained. Respondent argued that they have exercised due diligence in knowing about the Bach Ho oils. However, they have not taken reasonable care.
  • 3:30 The counsel on behalf of the Respondent concludes her arguments. The counsel prayed before the court.


  • 3:32 Claimant started with the rebuttals. The bench made it clear to be very specific to the points while making the rebuttals and sur-rebuttals.
  • 3:34 Respondent started with their sur-rebuttals and tried to negate the points made by the claimants.

With this ends the Semi-Final Rounds. 

Now it’s time for the Finals of the 6th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition. This is the time we’ve all been waiting for, where the top two teams shall be fighting for the pinnacle – the Winner’s Trophy.

The Finals shall be between Symbiosis Law School, Pune and Government Law College, Mumbai.

The proceeding is being streamed live on the official NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition Facebook page. Follow it in real time as the battle between the teams begins!


The judges forming the part of the tribunal are:


Mr. Amitava Majumdar




Mr. Joy Thattil Itoop



Mr. Hari Narayan


The teams are here. In the finals, we have –

Symbiosis Law School, Pune 




Government Law College, Mumbai


There is some meticulous questioning underway as the judges carefully sift through the arguments. 


Speaker 1 from the claimant presents her arguments


Speaker 2 from Claimant argues


After an extensive round of questioning and counter-questioning, the claimant rests their case. 


Now, Speaker 1 from Respondent begins


Speaker 2 of the Respondent presents her arguments


After rebuttals, the round has finally ended. It’s been a grueling final and the judges have thoroughly tested the participants on every aspect. The participants can take heart from the way they dealt with the barrage of questions, no matter the outcome.

We now begin with the valedictory ceremony of the 6th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition 2019. Among those present are the Chancellor of the University Hon’ble Justice K.S. Jhaveri, Vice Chancellor of the University Dr. Srikrishna Deva Rao, Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Joy Thattil Itoop, Mr. Hari Narayan, Registrar of the University Registrar Mr. Yogesh Singh and Hon’ble Judges from the Odisha High Court.


The Citation for the Best Memorial goes to:

Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University Lucknow


The Best Speaker Award goes to:

Priyanshu Jain, National Law School Bangalore

And the Winners of the 6th Edition of the NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition are

Symbiosis Law School, Pune


Hearty congratulations to the team!


We also congratulate the runners -up team from Government Law College, Mumbai for their valiant efforts.

We further congratulate all the teams for their efforts throughout the competition.


With this, we come to an end to this Edition of the NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition. We thank all the blogging volunteers who made this blog a success with their constant updates and we thank the viewers for following the blog. We hope to see you again, next year. Till then, we bid adieu!


Law School NewsLive Blogging


Hello and welcome to the live blog of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM). The competition begins today with the registration and inauguration followed by exchange of memos and draw of lots. 24 teams will be battling it out in preliminary rounds, followed by quarterfinals, semifinals and the much awaited finals.
Schedule for Day 1(30/03/2018) :
15:00 – 16:00 hrs – Registration
16:45 – 17:30 hrs – Inauguration Ceremony
17:30 – 18:30 hrs – Penalty Appeals
18:30 – 19:30 hrs – Draw of Lots & Exchange of Memos
20:00 – 21:00 hrs – Dinner

Stay tuned for all the live updates and highlights for the next 3 days.

16:00 hrs

The teams are here in the seminar hall and registrations have begun, the opening ceremony will be starting at 16:45 hrs.

Registration Desk
Registration Desk IMAM 2018

16:55 hrs
The opening ceremony is under way and the Faculty Adviser of The Moot Society Dr. Ananya Chakraborty starts with the welcome note to all the participants talking about the different opportunities Maritime law has to offer and the experience participants will gain from the interactions with the highly qualified panel of judges.

17:00 hrs
The Convenor of The Moot Society, Anmol Gupta, started with briefly laying out the schedule for the 3 days and also answering the queries of the teams regarding the draw of lots. She also explained the system of Penalty Appeals to the participants which further increases the transparency quotient. The Convenor ended by declaring the competition open.

17:30 hrs
Let us know about Penalty Appeals directly from our Convenor-

As a recent participant in a moot, I remember losing my mind over a two mark deduction that potentially affected my team’s best memorial citation. There are often times that moot court competitions have been also criticized for being unfair. It is only after having had such experiences and realizing that moot court competitions in India should be more transparent that we wanted to follow this practice. Penalty appeals are nothing new but we do hope that all institutions take similar initiatives so as to improve the mooting culture in India and bring more fairness and transparency in the process.”

Penalty Appeals
Penalty Appeals

18:00 hrs
Match ups are announced and Memorials are exchanged as the teams find out who they are up against for the Preliminary rounds tomorrow.

Draw of Lots
Memorial Exchange



That’s it for today, we will be live with you tomorrow morning with the first session of preliminary rounds. Till then Goodbye!


Day 2
10:15 hrs

Courtrooms are set

A very good morning to all, we are back with all the updates from the second day of NLUO IMAM 2018. The courtrooms are set, Teams all ready and the Preliminary rounds will begin at 11:00 hrs in 8 courtrooms. Following are the 23 teams battling it out in the preliminary rounds.

  1. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)
  2. School of Law, UPES
  3. ILS Law College, Pune
  4. Government Law College, Mumbai
  5. University school of law and legal studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
  6. National Law University, Delhi
  7. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
  8. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  9. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  10. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
  11. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  12. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
  13. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
  14. Pravin Gandhi College of Law
  15. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  16.  Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  17. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  18. Lloyd law college
  19. Faculty Of Law, Delhi University
  20. Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
  21. Madhusudan Law College, Cuttack.
  22. Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
  23. Jindal Global Law School

11:30 hrs

The first session is underway as the teams battle it out in the first round with the humid climate of Cuttack and the barrage of questions from the judges, they surely have their work cut out.

The Applicants contend on the of jurisdiction of the Honorable Tribunal and put up a compelling case in front of the judges and finish their submissions on a high. The Respondents contend that the claimants were aware of the zero tolerance policy of plastics and waste. Both the teams end up with a satisfying look on their face.

13:00 hrs

The first session of Preliminary rounds culminate, Judges take a 10 minutes break before the second session is underway.


13:30 hrs

The second session of preliminary rounds are now in progress.

Session 2 underway

14:30 hrs
The teams now concluding their arguments for the second session of preliminary rounds.

Session 2


16:30 hrs
The teams and judges have taken their seats for the third and final session of the preliminary rounds.

Session 3 in progress


18:15 hrs
We are now done with the Preliminary Rounds and will be announcing the Top 8 in a few minutes.


19:15 hrs
The results for the Preliminary Rounds are out, Following are the top 8 teams.

  1. ILS Law College, Pune
  2. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  3. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  4. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
  5. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)
  6. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  7. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  8. National Law University, Delhi

19:45 hrs

The Quarter Final rounds have now started with the teams vying for a top 4 spot.

Quarter Finals

Court Room 7

20:06 hrs

The judges are extensively grilling the Claimant on jurisdictional clauses, the counsel tries to deal with the questions through case laws and contends that the claimant’s silence does not amount to acceptance. The judges proceed to the next issue where the claimant is dealing with conceptual differences between indemnity and guarantee vis a vis damages but she fails to convince the bench with her submissions.

20:22 hrs

The bench questions about the fraud with respect to the letter of indemnity which means that the claimant’s haven’t come to the court with clean hands. The bench is not convinced with the submissions and asks the claimants to not beat around the bush and concede to the wrong in good faith.


Court Room 6

20:10 hrs

The Claimant started with Citing a case from US Jurisdiction which the bench was hesitant to accept, the Counsel tried to justify his claim by stating that the international arbitration depends upon the intention of the parties.

20:17 hrs

Second speaker discusses about the 3 contaminants and tries to justify the word contaminant as opposed to substances, he also tries to justify the scope of warranty.



Court Room 5

20:18 hrs

The claimant start their submissions by pointing out to the letter which is the core of the issue, the judges ask about the letter being a letter of indemnity or letter of warranty as contended by the respondents.

20:30 hrs

The respondent started their submissions asserting that the letter is a letter of warranty. He argues that the addendum to the contract was signed without prejudice, hence cannot be used as evidence.


21:15 hrs

With this the Quarterfinals are done. The teams and the judges head for dinner. Results of the Quarterfinals to be announced post dinner.

22:00 hrs

The top 4 teams in no particular order are

  1. ILS Law College, Pune
  2. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  3. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  4. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

With this we come to the end of proceedings on day 2. See you tomorrow for the Semi Finals and Finals. Goodbye!

Day 3

10:30 hrs

Hello and welcome all to the final day of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM). We will bring to you live updates from the Semi Finals and the Finals.

Semi Final 1 (RMLNLU vs RGNUL)

Arbitration Panel (left to right) Ms. J D Rajan ,Ms. Natasha Sailopal, Mr. Sameer Shah

10:35 hrs

The Respondent start with challenging the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and for the same justify it by stating that the disputes relate to the letter and not the charter party.

11:00 hrs

The Respondents are now being asked to take the tribunal through a timeline of the events so as to further facilitate the submissions, further the question of Contaminants is being posed by the tribunals which is dealt by the counsel by furthering the factual circumstances at the time of loading. The tribunal asks the counsel to move to his next submission.

11:10 hrs

The Counsel now moves forward to the submission regarding the charter party and how the addendum in the contract was without prejudice.

11:25 hrs

The Claimants now start with stating that the arbitration clause is broad enough to establish the claims. They claim further that their was no indication if they were previous remnants of the cargo. The tribunal questions the amount of due diligence necessary and was it carried out to ascertain no previous remnants of cargo were present.

11:35 hrs

The Tribunal further asks who the master is answerable to and questions the survey report and asks for the origin of 3 foreign objects in the cargo. The Tribunal cracks upon the claimants submissions so as to having too many presumptions. They further ask the Counsel to sum up his arguments.

11:45 hrs

The Second speaker starts with the issue of Counter Claim being time barred, The tribunal grills the unawareness of the authority cited and relied upon, regarding set off by the speaker. Tribunal questions the claimants on damages arising due to the presence of lumps of Tar in the cargo, the speaker contends that the respondents are responsible for any damages and liabilities arising out of loading which is the issue was in this case. The tribunal states that according to the charter party, it is the responsibility of the owner to check the ship before unloading.

11:55 hrs

The Counsel is questioned about the difference between demurrage and detention and further what was imposed in the present case. The Claimants are asked to wind up the arguments in a minute.

12:00 hrs

The respondents now proceed with rebuttals and lead with situation where the claimants have mislead the tribunal. They point out the wide disparity between the damages claimed.

12:10 hrs

This brings us to the end of the first Semi Final.

Semi Final 2 NLIU vs ILS

Semi Final 2

12:50 hrs

The claimant starts with stating about the letter of indemnity responding to the question of the bench on the nature of the Letter in question. Further the question is regarding the subject matter of the warranty.

13:01 hrs

The claimant goes on to submit about the letter of warranty and what the implied warranty was as the shipowner. The tribunal asks about what the warranty actually was and where does the scope of compensation come from. The Counsel goes on defining warranty but is unable to convince the bench for the same.

13:16 hrs

The Bench though not satisfied asks the Counsel to move onto his next submission. Counsel now moves on to ascertain the liability of the respondent during loading but the bench further questions the duty of the master which was appointed by the claimant and hence asks about the duty of the Claimants.

13:24 hrs

Claimant now takes help of judicial decisions to prove their submission regarding the addendum to be signed without any prejudice. He concludes with stating about the demurrage clause and are asked about the deviation clause of the charter party.

13:38 hrs

The Respondent’s Counsel begins with the lack of Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and for the same the bench questions about the nature of the letter in question. The counsel contends that the charter party provides for jurisdiction in England and not Navigonia. Further the contents and intention of the Letter is further questioned by the bench.

13:47 hrs

The counsel now moves to the report by quarantine officers and how they have stated about the remnants of the previous cargo. He further moves to conclude his arguments by stating the responsibility of the owner to provide the crane-man and wench-man.

14:02 hrs

The Second speaker for the Respondents starts with the issue of the Port being prospectively safe. Further she talks about embargo being the source of prospective unsafe port, which is not an inherent reason of the port being unsafe. She moves on further to the issue of renomination of the port.

14:09 hrs

The bench asks the counsel to define what a voyage exactly means and further about the date of NOR being granted. The exchange further goes on with the team being grilled on the owners of the cargo. Further submitting that the delay was caused by unforeseen circumstances.

14:14 hrs

Counsel is asked to summarize all the issue and finish the arguments in a minute. Counsel ends with the issue of payment made which was unreasonable as it was done without the agreement of the respondents.

14:19 hrs

Claimants start with Rebuttals laying down point-wise issues to which the Respondents conclude with the Sur-Rebuttals stating the answers to all the points raised by the Claimants.

14:21 hrs

This brings us to the end of Second Semi-Final. The judges and participants now break for lunch.

15:15 hrs

The results are out the finalists are NLIU & RGNUL

16:00 hrs Final (RGNUL vs NLIU)

Finals (left to right) Mr. Sameer Shah, Retd. Justice VVS Rao, Justice Dr. B R Sarangi, Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Ajay Thomas


The Finals of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM) are underway. The claimants start their submissions with stating the jurisdiction clause. They further state the LMAA terms 2017 and move ahead with sating the facts of the case.

16:03 hrs

The claimant speaker contending that the Letter in question was a letter of indemnity and the respondent conceded to the fact before the actual obligation to indemnify arose.

16:09 hrs

The speaker moves onto the claims due to the presence of lumps of solidified tar. Further the Bench allows the Counsel to proceed with the issues and to be questioned later.

16:17 hrs

The speaker moves onto the issue of availability of safe port, and how it was the duty of the respondents to make availability of a safe port during the period of embargo.

16:23 hrs

The bench asks the claimants to clearly state the breaches that they are claiming against the Respondents.

16:27 hrs

The Claimants proceed with their prayer to conclude their submissions.

16:32 hrs

The Tribunal questions the claimant on their reliance over American case laws in an English Tribunal. Further they pose questions on the wordings of the LOI.

16:40 hrs

The claimants enter a detailed argument on art 5 of the Hague Visby Rules.  With this argument the claimants have rested their case.

16:48 hrs

The Tribunal is now hearing the respondents first submission wherein they seek to oust the Jurisdiction of the tribunal.

16:55 hrs

The respondent cleverly addresses the arbitrators concern briefly before deferring the question to his co-council. The respondents also seem to have worked on the feedback provided by the judges in the semis of working on their time management as they seem to be making a conscious effort to lead the tribunal to their next submission.

17:00 hrs

The Respondent speaker moves to his second issue and discusses about the clause 18 of the charter party. The bench asserts the reason for rejection was not only NWG based on the phrase ‘Inter alia’.

17:08 hrs

The Second Counsel for the respondent starts her submissions by stating that the embargo imposed is an exception to the addendum, she carries on by defining a safe port and also specifically dealing with abnormalities. Further she defines how the embargo was within the ambit of such ambiguities. She submits that the embargo enforced was not the inherent characteristics of the port and the vessel was prospectively safe.

17:16 hrs

Counsel further moves ahead and submits that the delay was caused beyond the control of the Charterers, as the entry of NWG was not prohibited and the embargo came as a jolt. She submits that the respondents were not under obligation to renominate the port as it might have been an infringement to the third party rights.

17:23 hrs

The bench asks the Respondents to clear what their counter claim is to which the counsel is unable to satisfy the bench with the submissions regarding the same.

 17:33 hrs

The bench now proceeds with questioning the claimants on their submissions. The Counsels facing a barrage of queries from the bench and are having a tough time answering them.

17:45 hrs

With this we come to the conclusion of the Finale. The winner to be announced in a few minutes.

18:30 hrs

The Valedictory ceremony is under way with the Vice Chancellor of National Law University Odisha delivering the opening address and also highlighting the importance of mooting and how the occasion in itself is an opportunity for young mooters.

The guest of honor Justice B R Sarangi relives his college days and how the mooting culture has changed from time and how more competitive it has become. He congratulated all the teams participating in the competition and wished them luck for future.

19:00 hrs



The Results are out

The award for Best Oralist goes to Romit Kohli from NLUD.
The award for Best Memorial goes to RMLNLU
The Runners Up are RGNUL
The Winners of 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM) are NLIU.

Dr. Ananya Chakrabarty delivered the vote of thanks and formally concluded the Competition.

This brings us to the end of The 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM).
It was a pleasure bringing you the live blog, we will be back next year, until then Goodbye!