New releasesNews

Table of Contents


Articles

Indian Courts and Divorce in Muslim Personal Law- A Case of Transformative Constitutionalism for Triple Talaq

Abhishek Mishra   1

Patent Regime and Drug Pricing Regulations: An Intertwining Thread in Determining Accessibility and Affordability of Essential Medicines in India

—Uday Shankar & Nidhi Mehrotra   28

Entrenching Access to Justice Via Court Annexed ADR in Nigeria: Its Benefits and Challenges

—Ayinla, L.A. & Afolabi, Y.S.   46

Development and Environment Discourse: An Understanding with Reference to Uttar Pradesh

—Sanjay Singh  . 59

Presumptions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: A Jurisprudential Analysis

Kumar Askand Pandey & Shivani Tripathi   75

Take or Pay Clauses in Fuel Supply Agreements in India: An Overview

Badrinath Srinivasan   86

From Dream to Broken Relationship – Fraudulent Non – Resident Indian (NRI) Marriages in India: A Critical Study

Sangita Laha  . 109

Gender, Political Parties and Representation: A Study of Lucknow Municipal Corporation

Shailja Singh   121

Emerging Dimensions of Consumer Protection Law in India

Manoj Kumar  . 133

Unity in Diversity: Fratricidal Issues in India

Suvir Kapur  . 150

WTO’s Interpretation of GATT Article XX Chapeau: A Disguised Restriction on Environmental Measures

Sakshi Gupta  . 158

Snag of Electronic Evidence

—Vipul Vinod  . 166

A Critical Analysis of the Implication of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 on Corporate Governance in India

—Kumud Malviya  . 176

Language and Future of Legal Education: Contemporary Challenges

—Subir Kumar & Priya Vijay  . 191

Decoding the Law on Frustration of Contract: The Case of Satyabrata Ghose

—Iish Vinay & Assem Kumar Jha   200

Case Comment

The Issue of Consequential Seniority Pursuant to Reservation in Promotion in Government Services: Comment on B. K. Pavitra v. Union of India

—Manwendra Kumar Tiwari  . 211

Comment

Whether Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 is Against the Concept of Secularism: An Appraisal

—Rajneesh Kumar Yadav   220

Book Review

Disaster Management and Protection of Human Rights in India: With Special Reference to International Law and Practice by Subhradipta Sarkar

Debasis Poddar  227

New releasesNews

Contents


A Prologue

COVID-19 – Law and Policy Response in India

Vijay Kumar Singh and Shilpika Pandey — 1

Articles

Role of Virtual Learning Amidst Covid – 19: Challenges & Recommendations

Ekta Sood — 18

Moving Beyond the Rhetoric: Addressing the Issues Relating to Crisis Cartels in India

Dipali Rai and Sheena Gupta — 37

Covid – 19 Vis-À-Vis Domestic and International Law Regulating Wildlife Trade

Rama Devi Gudemela — 57

Coronavirus Pandemic in East Africa: Tanzanian and Ugandan Approaches in Legal Perspectives

Issa Babatunde Oba — 69

Scope of Intellectual Property Rights in Times of Covid: Indian Scenario

Anjana Girish — 87

Covid-19 and its Impact on Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Region through the Lens of IUU Fishing

Tarique Faiyaz — 100

The Unkindest Cut of All – Labour Law and the Covid-19 Crisis

Karthik Shiva B — 116

Corporate Social Responsibility and Covid 19 Crisis: Analysing
the Role of Indian Companies

Rajdip Bhadra Chaudhuri — 129

The Role of Media During Covid-19: Ethical and Regulatory Challenges

Sruthi Prabhakar and Yamuna Vijayagopal — 151

Technology and Unemployment: Cause, Cure and the Future

Smriti Kanwar and Kartikeya Vashist — 170

The Corona Menace and Impact on IP Rights: Analyzing the Need for Better Decisions

Anuja Misra — 187

Rethinking Globalisation and Trade-in Covid-19 Era

Kushagra Prasad —  207

New releasesNews

Contents


Editorial

1 Judicial Recusal: A Comparative Analysis

—  Priyadarshini Barua, Sarthak Makkar, Vasanthi Hariharan

Articles

17 Gender, Health and Development: What Latitude For Law In Nigeria?

— Oluwakemi Adekile

42 The Public Interest Gamble in an Anti-Dumping Inquiry Testing Indian Waters

— Ashish Chandra & Anupal Dasgupta

71 The Dilution of Article 32 Convenience over Right

— Prakhar Chauhan & Raghuveer Nath

Essays

94 Post-Divortium Shared Parenting Potentiality versus Actuality

— Owais Hasan Khan

Commentary

109 Balancing the power of anti-arbitration injunction with the competence of investment tribunals: Union of India v Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom

— Aniruddha Rajput

New releasesNews

Table of Contents

What does it Take to be a Human Being: Issues of Conferring Citizenship and Civil Rights on ‘Intelligent Machines’

Ravi Shankar Pandey 1

Victims of the Virtual Vortex: Regulating the Video Game Industry in India

Aaroha Kulkarni 18

Tackling Illegal Sports Streaming: Time to Strengthen the Copyright Regime?

Mohit Kar and Shreya Sahoo 33

To Censor or Not to Censor: Regulation of Content on OTT Media Platforms in India

Astha Pandey and Pranjal Pandey 46

IDIA

Soumya Manugonda comes from Penugonda village in Telangana. She is visually impaired by birth and has completed her schooling till 10th standard from the Devnar School for the Blind, Hyderabad. She completed the studies for the 11th and 12th standard from the Sai Junior College for Visually Challenged, Hyderabad. She is a very bright student and scored 8 CGPA in tenth standard and 82% in twelfth standard in Telangana State Board. She has had very humble beginnings – her parents are farmers and she has just one younger brother.

Soumya got to know about IDIA three years ago when she was in the eleventh standard, and since then she has been preparing for the law entrance exam under the guidance of IDIA Hyderabad team. Throughout the two years of her preparation she faced many hurdles ranging from family issues, economic challenges, network issues when she went back to her village, etc. However, Soumya never lost hope and finally emerged victorious.

There were weeks when she could not study due to lack of internet and other facilities but she made sure that whatever opportunities she got, she made good use of. This particular quote by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross would sum up what Soumya has endured during this journey-

The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths. These persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen.

Our volunteers have witnessed Soumya’s growth as a deeply compassionate human being full of positivity and hope. She never once gave up. Soumya is very motivated to make a career in law and aspires to be a successful corporate lawyer one day.

She credits her success to her family, especially her mother, the IDIA team for constant guidance and her lovely teachers at Devnar and Sai Junior who made sure that she had all the facilities to concentrate on her studies.


About IDIA:

IDIA is a pan-India movement to train underprivileged students and help transform them into leading lawyers and community advocates. IDIA is premised on the notion that access to premier legal education empowers marginalized communities and helps them help themselves. IDIA selects and trains students from underprivileged backgrounds (IDIA Trainees) to crack top law entrance examinations in India. Once they are admitted to top law colleges, it provides a scholarship to these students (IDIA Scholars) that comprises financial support, training and mentorship among other things.

Read more about IDIA here: https://www.idialaw.org/

Get in touch with them here: info@idialaw.org


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India


Read more such stories here:

IDIA Stories

New releasesNews

Contents


Articles

A RIGHT TO THE INDIAN CITY? LEGAL AND POLITICAL CLAIMS OVER HOUSING AND URBAN SPACE IN INDIA………………1

—Mathew Idiculla

COEXISTENCE AND VIOLENCE: THE CASE FOR EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN SRI LANKA………………………………….26

—Gehan Gunatilleke

‘ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES’ DOCTRINE AS A CAUTIONARY TALE: ADOPTING EFFICIENT MODALITIES OF SOCIO-CULTURAL FACT-FINDING……………………………………………………………………….. 46

—Mary Kavita Dominic

Mob, Murder, Motivation: The Emergence of Hate Crime Discourse in India …………………………………………………………………………………………76

—M. Mohsin Alam Bhat

Notes from the Field

Anti-Terrorism Courts And Procedural (In)Justice: The Case Of The National Investigation Agency (Nia) Special Courts In South Chhattisgarh, India………………………………………. 109

—Shikha Pandey

New releasesNews

Contents

Articles

DESIGNED FOR ABUSE: SPECIAL CRIMINAL LAWS AND RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED…………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

—Kunal Ambasta

UNIFORMITY IN DIVERSITY?: REFLECTING ON THE ESSENTIAL PRACTICES DOCTRINE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL PLURALISM      ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17

—Kalindi Kokal

WHOSE FOREST IS IT AFTER ALL?……………………………………………………. 29

—Ujal Kumar Mookherjee and Manjeri Subin Sunder Raj

PROTECTION OF HARMED INVESTORS: THE MISSING LINK IN THE DISGORGEMENT ORDERS OF THE SEBI……………………48

—S.N. Ghosh

OPERATIONAL CREDITORS IN INSOLVENCY: A TALE OF DISENFRANCHISEMENT…………………………………………………………..68

—Sudip Mahapatra, Pooja Singhania and Misha Chandna

Essays

RIGHTS ISSUES – UNTYING THE KNOTS……………………………………………… 82

—Sayantan Dutta

ETHICAL HACKERS UNDER THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: THE CYBER TERRORISM CONUNDRUM AND ‘PROTECTED’ SYSTEMS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..93

––Vivek Krishnani

Book Review

PRIVACY 3.0: UNLOCKING OUR DATA-DRIVEN FUTURE BY RAHUL MATTHAN…………………………………………………………….103

—Amlan Mishra

IDIA

A glimpse of Anand Kumar’s Journey

Background

Anand Kumar hails from ‘Masaurhi’, a small town that is 30 kms away from Patna. He is a highly motivated and hardworking student. His father is a retired army personnel and their total monthly family income is around Rs. 19,000. He has two elder sisters, both of whom are preparing for competitive examinations, and his mother is a homemaker. Anand completed his tenth standard from the St. Mary’s School, Masaurhi (Patna), scoring a CGPA of 8 out of 10.

Since his father sought an early retirement from the army, Anand had to complete his twelfth standard from a Government school – Ram Naresh Senyai School, Kurtha where he scored 65% in his examinations. In his free time, he likes to play sports, especially cricket.

When did Anand decide that he wanted to attempt CLAT?

After his 12th standard, Anand initially started to prepare for NEET Examination due to family pressure, but after one failed attempt, he took some time off to figure out what actually suits him and that is when he came across law as a profession and decided to attempt CLAT.

Anand Kumar came to know about IDIA through one of his seniors in school who is currently studying in CNLU, Patna. He qualified among many students who gave the IDIA National Aptitude Test, and was selected as an IDIA Trainee.

According to him, law is the best subject he can study. He believes that law is an important aspect of everyone’s life and it plays an integral role in a nation’s growth and development. He is determined to study law and contribute towards the development of his community.

Anand has secured an impressive AIR 5 in CLAT 2020 with an outstanding score of 117 out of 150 and has been allotted NLSIU in the first CLAT list. The total cost of studying at NLSIU, Bangalore, inclusive of tuition, hostel and mess expenses, internship, and nominal living expenses is INR 5 lakhs for the first year. Please come forward and help Anand achieve his dream of becoming a lawyer!

For a detailed break up of Anand’s expenses, write to us at prateek@idialaw.org


About IDIA:

IDIA is a pan-India movement to train underprivileged students and help transform them into leading lawyers and community advocates. IDIA is premised on the notion that access to premier legal education empowers marginalized communities and helps them help themselves. IDIA selects and trains students from underprivileged backgrounds (IDIA Trainees) to crack top law entrance examinations in India. Once they are admitted to top law colleges, it provides a scholarship to these students (IDIA Scholars) that comprises financial support, training and mentorship among other things.

Read more about IDIA here: https://www.idialaw.org/

Get in touch with them here: info@idialaw.org


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

New releasesNews

Contents

Articles

India’s Electoral Legal System: Need for Structural Reform

Krishan Mahajan………………………………………………………………… 1

Elections and Election Commission of India: A Contemporary Evaluation

Afroz Alam ………………………………………………………………………..  9

Significance of the Ballot System in the Indirect Elections in India: with Special Reference of Rajya Sabha

Uday Shankar & Ashok Vardhan Adipudi …………………………………..  19

Validating Democracy through Proportional Electoral System

Ayaz Ahmad …………………………………………………………………….  38

An Integrated Approach to Resolve the Crisis of Defection in India

Chirag Balyan ………………………………………………………………….  50

First Past the Post System and its Limitations: A Case for Proportional Representation in India

Parth Sharma …………………………………………………………………..  82

Evaluating Criminal Disenfranchisement in India

Abhijit Anand & Tapan Vahal ………………………………………………..  96

Violations of Model Code of Conduct and Accountability of Election Commission of India

Neelesh Shukla & Hartej Singh Kochher ………………………………….  113

Electrising the Scourge Over Electoral Corrupt Practices

Shivani Puri & Prateek Kumar ……………………………………………..  128

E-Bonds: Code Anonymous in Indian Elections

Vrinda Bhardwaj & Kumar Mangalam ……………………………………  144

Breaking the Shackles: Recognising Election Manifestos as Legitimate Expectations

Omkar Upadhyay ……………………………………………………………..  156

Case Comments

Contextualizing Religious Politics and Elections in India: Judicial Discourse in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen

Yogesh Pratap Singh & Siddharth Panda …………………………………  173

A Missed Chance to De-Criminalise Indian Politics: A Comment on Manoj Narula v. Union of India

Nikita Pattajoshi & Swayamsiddha Mishra ……………………………….  184

Book Reviews

Navin Chawla, “Every Vote Counts: The Story of India’s Elections”

Rajat Solanki & Nidhi Chauhan …………………………………………….  195

Alok Shukla, “Ambush: Tales of the Ballot”

Deban Satyadarshi Nanda …………………………………………………..  204

IDIA

Vaibhavi is a first-year B.A. LL.B (Hons.) student at Gujarat National Law University, who’s raring to show the world what she can do!

Vaibhavi’s Story in her own words

Hello. My name is Vaibhavi Rajendra Pedhavi. I belong to Nandaipada, a small village in the small town of Alibag, which is located in the coastal region of Maharashtra. Alibag is also known as mini Goa for its beauty and clean beaches. My father owns a small electronics store and he also does farming to help the family. My mother is a housewife. My parents were determined to teach their daughters well, no matter how much trouble they would face. Since childhood, I used to read storybooks on great leaders. When I came to know that Lokamanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and many of the leaders were lawyers, I saw law as a profession with great respect. When I was in school, I used to read a lot of Marathi books. I was also interested in classical music. I represented my school in many elocution competitions as well.

I also loved to read newspapers during my school years. Since newspapers were not available at my home, I used to go to my uncle’s house to read them. By reading books and newspapers, I was gradually becoming aware of the wrongs in society. As well as I understood the gap between urban and rural areas. The concepts of ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ were completely different from one another. In my village, people are struggling for one meal in a day and on the other hand tourists who used to come to visit and enjoy at Alibag used to waste a lot of food even without thinking. These factors motivated me to work towards positive social changes in society.

Incident that triggered her to pursue Law

When I was in tenth grade, an event happened which completely changed my life. As we are Kolis (fishermen), our main occupation has been fishing since a long time. Even my great-grandfather, grandfather and still my many relatives are doing this business for their livelihood. My uncle was also a fisherman. Yes, I am saying ‘was’. In 2016, a tragic accident happened in a boat and he died on the spot on the boat. His son was only 7 years old at that time and suddenly all the responsibilities of his son came to my aunt.

Since no one in our family was aware of the government procedures in such circumstances, we could not approach anywhere. And at this moment I realized the importance of law and of a good education. After scoring good marks in class 10, I decided to study for law entrance examination. I decided to go to Pune as there were more opportunities there and I could learn a lot of things there. Initially, my parents were opposed to my decision because they could not afford my hostel fees and other expenses. But after seeing my sincere desire they managed my fees from somewhere and that decision really changed my life and became the turning point.

The culture was really different there and I had never studied using computers in my whole life before. People used to talk to each other in English. Sometimes I really wondered, how were they able to talk in English! Our village school was totally different from Pune’s college.

Role of IDIA in Vaibhavi’s life

One day, IDIA Pune Chapter conducted a sensitization program in our college. They introduced us to many opportunities available after pursuing law and they conducted an exam through which they were going to select some students who were really interested in law as a career and they were going to sponsor the educational expenses. As I was really interested in law from the beginning, I performed well in the preliminary test and after an interview, I was selected as an IDIA trainee.

All volunteers from the IDIA team really supported me throughout the year. They took my personal classes every day (apart from Career Launcher classes) and they also conducted mock tests every month. As I had difficulty in understanding legal knowledge in English,  Atharv Dada from IDIA used to explain to me in Marathi. He even made a timetable for my daily work. Liji didi, Apoorva didi, Soumyashree didi, Madhura didi and all volunteers really explained to me each and every topic of the syllabus. I really think that I am here only because of these people. I cannot imagine what would have happened without them.

When my CLAT results were declared, I did not even know whether my results were bad or good! But finally, Soumyashree Didi called me and said, “Congratulations, Vaibhavi!” I asked her “Marks thik hain kya?” Are my marks okay?, and she said, “Yes”! And I felt really very happy because my dream was coming true. I got enrolled in GNLU soon thereafter.

Aim: ‘A Ray of Hope’ for Villagers

The journey of these 5 years has just begun. The journey will give me the most memorable 5 years of my life. These years will teach me many new things, both good and bad. But the final decision will be mine – to choose what is good for me. After exploring these five years, I want to work especially for rural people. I want to create opportunities for education in rural area. I want the villagers to realize that living in rural India can be a better option than moving to urban areas; the only thing here is that you need to provide them with ‘a ray of hope’ so they can grow by their own will and abilities.


About IDIA:

IDIA is a pan-India movement to train underprivileged students and help transform them into leading lawyers and community advocates. IDIA is premised on the notion that access to premier legal education empowers marginalized communities and helps them help themselves. IDIA selects and trains students from underprivileged backgrounds (IDIA Trainees) to crack top law entrance examinations in India. Once they are admitted to top law colleges, it provides a scholarship to these students (IDIA Scholars) that comprises financial support, training and mentorship among other things.

Read more about IDIA here: https://www.idialaw.org/

Get in touch with them here: info@idialaw.org


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Law School NewsOthers

Timings for NLAT Undergraduate Exam Announced

The NLSIU authorities have announced that the NLAT will be conducted in three batches on September 12. Candidates will be informed about their batch 24 hours in advance of the exam. The timings of the three batches are given below:

Batch 1:

Reporting time: 12:00 pm

Exam Start time: 12:30 pm

Batch 2:

Reporting time: 1.45 pm

Exam Start time: 2.15 pm

Batch 3:

Reporting time: 3:30 pm

Exam Start time: 4:00 pm

15 minutes extra will be given to PWD Candidates as per notification released earlier

Simulation Test Details Notified

NLSIU has informed that candidates may receive a different batch time for the Simulation Test which is to be held on September 11th than for the actual NLAT examination. This is a measure to prevent malpractice. Candidates are requested to check the batch timings for the Simulation Test and for the actual NLAT examination carefully.[1]

List of Test Centres Increased

List of test centres has increased from 14 to 35, this has been notified in the FAQ section of the NLS website under the heading ‘test centres’[2]


[1] https://twitter.com/NLSIUofficial/status/1304084034625044480 

[2] https://www.nls.ac.in/admissions/nlat-2020-faqs/


Also read

NLAT to be conducted in three sessions

Facing backlash on social media, NLSIU is devising ways to make NLAT 2020 more accessible for candidates

NLSIU all set to conduct separate entrance test for the academic year 2020-21, CLAT scores not to be considered 

Technical requirements for NLSIU’s NLAT exam to be held on 12th September

NLAT| Latest Press Releases by NLSIU, including instructions for PWD candidates [Key Highlights]

Hot Off The PressLaw School NewsNewsOthers

The NLAT will be conducted in three sessions. This was updated in the  FAQ section of the official website .

The new insertion states that:

“UG NLAT 2020 will be conducted in three sessions in line with other large examinations. It is possible that in spite of all efforts to maintain equivalence among various question papers, the difficulty level of the question papers administered in different sessions may not exactly be the same.”

To resolve this issue, NLAT has come up with the following solution

“To overcome this, a Normalization procedure will be used to compile law scores across batches and ensure a level playing field where candidates are neither benefited nor disadvantaged due to the difficulty level of the exam.”

NLAT is yet to notify the timings of the UG exam.

NLAT has notified the protocol for monitoring the exam, NLAT is a home based test except for students who opt to take it at a centre. The notification states the following

  1. The proctor will verify the identity of candidates by checking government IDs. In case of PWD candidates both candidate’s and scribe’s identity will be verified. In case of impersonation, the proctor will not allow the impersonator to start the exam.
  2. In case the candidate is in inappropriate surroundings or seems to be getting external help  Proctors will send this type of messages to such candidates:

a. “Please sweep the camera in a circle around the place you are taking the assessment” and / or: “Please tilt the device/ keyboard you are using for the assessment”.

b. Candidates to show a 360-degree view of the entire room by turning on a webcam (laptops/desktops) or front/ selfie camera (as directed by proctor) (mobile devices)/ tilt the device/ keyboard, as instructed.

If any unauthorized person is found then proctor can terminate the exam immediately. Candidates will get 45 seconds to reply to proctor’s instructions, failing which the exam will be terminated. Additional 10 seconds can be granted at proctor’s discretion.

  1. Candidates will be logged out of exam after 5 attempts of trying to switch window ie. trying to access any other window except the test window.
  2. If the candidate’s face cannot be detected, then a warning will be sent and if the candidate does not reappear within 45 seconds then his exam will be terminated. If the candidate is talking or making gestures, then also warning will be given and exam terminated if the student does not comply.
  3. If any other person or device is detected in vicinity then a warning will be sent and if the person does not leave immediately or that device is removed  then the exam will be terminated.
  4. If the candidate is seen wearing headphones, earphones or bluetooth devices then a warning will be sent and the exam terminated if the candidate does not comply. These devices can be plugged in for microphone purposes but the candidate should not be wearing them
  5. If there are simultaneous login attempts from various devices

a. Proctor will observe picture of candidates from all devices

b. If observed that someone other than the candidate is logging in then the exam will be terminated immediately.

c. If the same person is observed in all devices, the proctor will notify the super proctor who will seek clarification and disqualify upon his discretion.

In case of situations such as internet failure/ power failure, the assessment system may permit the candidate to continue answering the question paper in events of internet failure; however, this is subject to the Proctor’s discretion, and subject to the candidate’s system re-connecting to the examination interface within the time and in the manner stipulated in the on-screen instructions and the Candidate Manual which will be provided to candidates in advance of the exam

The entire notification can be read here.


Also read

Facing backlash on social media, NLSIU is devising ways to make NLAT 2020 more accessible for candidates

NLSIU all set to conduct separate entrance test for the academic year 2020-21, CLAT scores not to be considered 

Technical requirements for NLSIU’s NLAT exam to be held on 12th September

NLAT| Latest Press Releases by NLSIU, including instructions for PWD candidates [Key Highlights]

Hot Off The PressLaw School NewsNewsOthers

There have been many press releases by NLAT authorities over the past few days. For your convenience we have summarized the main points below:

Press Release Dated 4th September

● Preparations for CLAT 2020 started in November 2019. Consortium being based out of NLSIU, CLAT Secretariat and NLSIU played a key role in conceptualizing the new exam pattern. The team played a key role in developing sample questions and study modules. NLSIU provided extensive technological, logistical and administrative support and will continue to do so for smooth functioning of CLAT.
● CLAT was repeatedly postponed five times because of the COVID pandemic. The last date finalised for CLAT was 28th September which was too late for NLSIU as it follows a trimester system. If they could not finalise the admissions by the end of September it would result in a Zero year.
● To avoid a zero year, NLSIU came up with NLAT, a home based computer test, capped at a nominal fee of Rs 150/-, and testing on the same subjects as CLAT. To ensure integrity of NLAT, a combination of technological, artificial intelligence proctoring and human proctoring would be put in use. NLSIU is committed to holding a fair, accessible and safe admission process.

Read the full Press Release here

Press Release Dated 6th September

● NLSIU had on several occasions provided options for conduct of CLAT 2020 to the Consortium. The options were (1) Carving out exceptions to NLUs to conduct their own entrance test (2) allowing CLAT to be conducted in 2 or more series (3) Allowing for individual NLUs to conduct an examination, permitting CLAT-enrolled candidates to appear for a separate examination without any registration. Consortium rejected these options. The decision to postpone CLAT from 7th to 28th September, was not taken unanimously, therefore NLSIU had no option but to introduce NLAT to avoid a Zero Year.
● On 4th September, the consortium requested NLSIU to reconsider its decision stating that is violative of Clause 15.3.3 of the Consortium Bye-Laws and if NLSIU were to stick to its decision, it would be removed from the Consortium. NLSIU responded stating that under MOA and bye-laws the General Body had no legal authority to remove NLSIU from the Consortium. On 5th September, the Consortium held a meeting that the Vice Chancellor of NLSIU was in derogation of the Bye-Laws and the Objectives of the Consortium. This press release has not yet been formally received by NLSIU.
● The faculty and executive committee of NLSIU unanimously resolved and authorized the University, and the Vice Chancellor to conduct the NLAT due to the repeated postponement of CLAT. NLSIU affirms that the University, and its Vice Chancellor, have not violated the Consortium Bye-Laws. They have not acted in any manner that gives rise to any potential for a conflict of interest and therefore claims made by the Consortium in its Press Release dated 6th September have no legal basis. However, given the statements of the Consortium in its Press Release, NLSIU, and its Vice Chancellor, have no alternative but to completely disassociate from CLAT 2020.
● NLSIU confirms that it is fully committed to delivering NLAT 2020 on time and in a student friendly manner.

Read the full Press Release here

Instructions for persons with disabilities appearing for NLAT

NLSIU has released certain instructions for people with disabilities who wish to appear for the NLAT exam.

● PWD candidates with visual impairment, cerebral palsy and locomotor disability (Both Arms affected) are entitled to avail services of a scribe.
● PWD candidates with other types of benchmark disabilities are also eligible for a scribe provided they submit requisite medical certificates as instructed under Appendix 1
● Candidates will have to choose their own scribe who should be at least Class 10th pass and his maximum educational qualification should not exceed the candidate’s own qualifications. Candidates should submit a Letter of Intent as instructed under Appendix 2.
● All candidates must fill in the necessary fields in the ‘Reservations Tab’ of their Application Form and upload it into Admissions Portal.
● All PWD candidates with benchmark disabilities shall be provided additional time of 15 minutes to complete the NLAT. This includes PWD candidates who avail the services of a scribe.


Also read

NLSIU all set to conduct separate entrance test for the academic year 2020-21, CLAT scores not to be considered 

Technical requirements for NLSIU’s NLAT exam to be held on 12th September

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: N. Anand Venkatesh, J., urged the Bar Council of India to amend its Rule 5 in order to ensure that the candidates who complete their Higher Secondary and UG through the regular course alone are made eligible to participate for selection in the 5-year course or 3-year law course, as the case may be.

The instant petition sought a direction to respondents with regard to the admission of the petitioner in the 3-year LL.B degree course during the academic year 2019-2020.

The petitioner applied for the three years L.L.B. Degree Course under the MBC category and the petitioner on obtaining necessary cut off marks.

Petitioner at the time of counselling was informed that he was not eligible to be considered for selection on the ground that he did not satisfy requirements laid under Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Hence the present petition was filed.

What does Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India talk about?

Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules makes it very clear that an applicant must graduate through a regular programme conducted by a University for the purpose of being considered for admission in the 3 year Law Course.

However, the proviso, which should be considered as an exception to the main Rule, expands the eligibility. The proviso makes it clear that even the applicants who have obtained Higher Secondary or Under Graduation through Distance Education will also be eligible for admission for the 5-year course or the 3-year course, as the case may be.

Further, it has been added that a person who has not completed 10th cannot qualify for 10+2, a person who has not completed 10+2 cannot qualify for UG and a person who has not completed UG cannot qualify for PG. This is the literal meaning for the explanation appended to Rule 5 of Bar Council of India Rules

Court made the observation that as per the existing Rules, the petitioner is eligible for being considered as a candidate for the 3 year B.L Course subject to the condition that the petitioner again participates in the selection for the academic year 2020-2021 and obtains necessary cut off marks.

Bench while disposing of the petition also stated that,

Necessary changes in Rule 5 should be made to ensure that the candidates who complete their Higher Secondary and UG through the regular course alone are made eligible to participate for selection in the 5 year course or 3 year course, as the case may be.

In the absence of the same, persons who have not even gone to the regular school or college will get into a law college for the first time in their life and that may not be a healthy trend to maintain the quality of education in Law.

The Bar Council of India should seriously take this suggestion into consideration and make necessary changes to the Rule.

[M. Krishnakumar v. Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2017, decided on 19-08-2020]

IDIA

Here’s the story of Biswajit Shil, an IDIA Scholar:

Background

My name is Biswajit Shil and I am studying at the WB National University of Juridical Sciences. I did my schooling from Ramakrishna Mission Blind Boys Academy. I belong to the South Dinajpur district of West Bengal. I belong to a middle-class Bengali family.

My father is a farmer and a small businessman and my mother is a housewife. We are three brothers and one sister. Two of us are visually challenged. From my childhood, I am fighting against my physical disability and because of this, I had to face various kinds of problems in my life. Due to my disability, I also felt sad at times. From the beginning of my educational life, I was in a boarding school. After leaving home, I learned, socializing, how to overcome my disability, how to adjust with the other people and how to present myself in front of the society.

I can recall that I was neglected by some people before starting my education but they also appreciate me at present. Now I feel proud of myself because I am more eligible than many people of the society in spite of being physically disabled.

Preparation for CLAT

I am fond of listening to and playing music. I learned to play the violin in my school. I am fond of reading stories and novels as well. The role of IDIA in my life is incomparable and it is like a blessing of God on me. A sensitization programme was conducted by IDIA in our school. I was impressed by law as a meaningful career option and therefore I attended INAT for becoming an IDIA trainee. I did not do well in the first attempt and I was disappointed. I appeared again the second time and I got selected as an IDIA trainee. For preparing for CLAT, IDIA provided me training through admission to a coaching center. The IDIA members of NUJS also guided me with great care. Then I appeared for CLAT and got admission to the WB National University of Juridical Sciences.

Law School & the Hurdles

After coming to law school, I faced many kinds of problems. For instance, I come from a Bengali medium school and as such, the English language is a big issue for me. I do not know English well. For being a good lawyer, writing skills must be good, but I feel that my writing skills are very poor. I am determined to improve the same. My communication skills are not so good, as a result, I feel difficult to participate in the class properly. I cannot complete my everyday lessons in time. I face difficulties in doing my projects work as well. Apart from this, I cannot access the online database independently because I have low knowledge of computers. So, I am unable to do research work properly. As I cannot use hard copy material, I have to take the help of technology. Therefore, I feel I must take computer training.

IDIA Volunteers

After the classes, if I feel any difficulties, IDIA volunteers are eager to help me as much as they can. After coming to law school my confidence level has increased a lot. I hope that I can improve myself and I will be able to reach my goals in life of becoming a good lawyer and most importantly, a good human being.


About IDIA:

IDIA is a pan-India movement to train underprivileged students and help transform them into leading lawyers and community advocates. IDIA is premised on the notion that access to premier legal education empowers marginalized communities and helps them help themselves. IDIA selects and trains students from underprivileged backgrounds (IDIA Trainees) to crack top law entrance examinations in India. Once they are admitted to top law colleges, it provides a scholarship to these students (IDIA Scholars) that comprises financial support, training and mentorship among other things.

Read more about IDIA here: https://www.idialaw.org/

Get in touch with them here: info@idialaw.org


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

IDIA

IDIA Scholar Jitendra Majhi, who got admission into National Law University Odisha, shares his story with us. Here’s about his journey to the law school (in his own words):

I am from a small tribal village called Renu, which is situated in the Gajapati district of Odisha. I belong to ‘Kandha’ tribe, which is known for its hunting style in Odisha. My family includes my father, my mother, my grandmother and my five siblings. Two of my sisters are married. My mother is very brave and is my inspiration. She is a homemaker and a farmer. My mother uses all the money that she earns for sustaining the family. She is supported by one of my elder sisters who is married and teaches in a government school. During summer vacations, me and my siblings also work to earn some money.

I did my schooling from Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS), which is for the tribal students. It is situated in Bhubaneswar. I got education and all other facilities free of cost there. My mother, who is herself illiterate, did my admission in KISS.

My mother is the inspiration for me to choose law as a career. I also wanted to pursue legal education, because I feel I can understand our society better through it. Legal education is necessary not only for becoming a good lawyer but also for becoming a well-aware citizen. There is no lawyer in my village or in my Gram Panchayat. Due to the absence of legal experts in our village, people from my village and from nearby villages face a lot of problems. That’s the reason I decided to become the first lawyer of my village. I want to lead my community in the future.

I came to know about IDIA when members of the IDIA Odisha Chapter came to our school and introduced us to law as a career option. They conducted a test for selecting IDIA trainees. I secured the highest marks amongst all the students who sat for the exam. Subsequently, IDIA provided me with some study material and started to teach me for the Common Law Admission Test. They were very friendly to me during my training period. When my class 12 exams were over, they took me to the National Law University Odisha, where they trained me for CLAT and AILET. All IDIA volunteers were very generous and friendly. They never made me feel that I come from an underprivileged background.

After completing my training, I appeared for the CLAT and AILET, which were my first competitive exams. I was very nervous. I was wondering about many things. How will I search for my name and room at the centre? How will I sit with people from more privileged backgrounds? At the time the CLAT result was published, I was in my village where network connectivity is a big issue. I always tried to be in touch with Raju (my social mentor at IDIA) by climbing the highest point in our village area to catch the signal. I became the first law student in my village. I also became the first student of my Panchayat to pursue legal education at a National Law University!


Jitendra had quite a few expectations before joining NLUO and he said – “I expected to meet with people from all over India in the university. I also expected that the university will provide me opportunities that I did not get earlier in my life and to hone my talents and skills. I also expected that I will learn different languages like English, Hindi, and more, and I will also gain knowledge about different cultures and traditions. I am very happy with the university and all my expectations are actually being met here.”

During his first semester vacation, he interned with the NGO Zenith Legal in Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh where he worked on many legal aid causes such as manual scavenging and with victims of silicosis. He also made a presentation on “Tribal Rights”.


About IDIA:

IDIA is a pan-India movement to train underprivileged students and help transform them into leading lawyers and community advocates. IDIA is premised on the notion that access to premier legal education empowers marginalized communities and helps them help themselves. IDIA selects and trains students from underprivileged backgrounds (IDIA Trainees) to crack top law entrance examinations in India. Once they are admitted to top law colleges, it provides a scholarship to these students (IDIA Scholars) that comprises financial support, training and mentorship among other things.

Read more about IDIA here: https://www.idialaw.org/

Get in touch with them here: info@idialaw.org


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Law School NewsLive Blogging

DAY 2:

PRELIM ROUNDS

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.



ROUND 2

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.



ROUND 3

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:

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.

RESPONDENTS

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.

REBUTTALS

  • 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

CLAIMANT

  • 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.

RESPONDENT

  • 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.

REBUTTALS

  • 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 

 

and,

 

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

Day 1 – Inaugural Ceremony & Preliminary Rounds

The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019 has been inaugurated in the honorable presence of Dean Dr. I.P. Massey and the Registrar. The registrations and exchange of memorials between the teams is underway in the auditorium, while the Researchers have begun with the Researcher’s Test!

4.30 PM – Preliminary Round 1 Begins

The judges have been briefed and they are really excited to witness the competition this time. The first Preliminary Rounds are about to begin and we wish all the participants good luck!

6 PM – Preliminary Round 1 ends

The first set of preliminary rounds have ended. The participants are tired after passionately arguing their sides, yet are enthusiastic for the next set. The second set of preliminary rounds will start soon, which will be followed by the reverse prelims.

 

 

8 PM – Preliminary Round 2 ends

The two sets of reverse prelims will begin soon, followed by declaration of the teams advancing to the Octa-finals, to be held tomorrow.

9 PMReverse Prelims begin

The the reverse prelims have begun. This is to ensure each team has an equal chance to argue both sides, and thus maintain a balance in scores. The participants are tired, yet are positive as ever!

11.30 PM Reverse prelims end, results announced

The reverse prelims have been concluded, and due to the brilliant organizers in the tabulation team, we were able to receive the results quickly. Following are the teams qualifying to the Octa-Finals (in no particular order) :

  1. Institute of Law, Nirma University.
  2. Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
  3. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
  4. Gujarat National Law University.
  5. National Law University, Odisha.
  6. ILS Law College, Pune.
  7. Amity Law School, IP.
  8. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.
  9. Hidayatullah National Law University.
  10. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  11. Government Law College, Mumbai.
  12. School of Law, Christ University.
  13. Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University.
  14. SVKM’S NMIMS KIRIT P Mehta School of Law.
  15. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.
  16. Chanakya National Law University.

Memorials have been exchanged according to the match-ups, and the days events have come to an end. We congratulate the Octa-Finalists!

Day 2 – Octa Finals, Panel Discussion and Quarter Finals

The second day of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition is successfully underway!

9.30 AM – Octa Finals commence

The judges have been briefed and the Octa Finals have commenced in the respective courtrooms. The participants look fresh and well rested even though they might have been ripping apart their opponent’s memorials all through the night! Wishing them all the best!

Judges scrutinizing the arguments.

1 PM – 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion on Competition Law’s Interface with IBC commences

With the first set of Octa Final rounds over, preparations are in full swing for the reverse Octa Final Rounds. Meanwhile, participants attended the 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion, 2019. The topic for this year’s panel discussion pertains to Interface of Competition Law with the Indian Bankruptcy Code. Our esteemed panelists for this discussion are:

  • Ms. Anubhuti Mishra – An alumnus of King’s College, London and Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, she is currently working with the Competition Law team at P&A Law Offices, New Delhi. She has advised on several antitrust enforcement as well as merger review matters.
  • Mr. Shashank Sharma – Graduated from National Law School of India University in 2013. Thereafter, he went on to complete his European Master in Law and Economics in 2017. Since then he has been working with AZB & Partners, where his primary focus is Competition Law, with specific focus on Behavioural & Merger Control.
  • Mr. Toshit Shandilya – Graduated from National Law University, Delhi in 2013, he is currently an associate in the Competition Law team of Talwar Thakore & Associates. He has been involved in various critical enforcement and merger control cases before the CCI, as well as the COMPAT. He has been a law clerk with Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, former chairman, COMPAT where he assisted on a number of important cartel and Abuse of Dominance cases.
Our esteemed Panelists engaging with the participants.

The participants of the panel discussion posed certain interesting questions to our Panelists. The questions ranged from procedural to policy issues, arising from the requirement of taking CCI’s approval for insolvency resolution plans that include combinations. The participants and the Panelists engaged on concepts, such as, the failing firm defence, composite combination transactions, inter-connected transactions, and so on, to name a few. The Panelists also threw some light on their practical experience as Competition Lawyers while dealing with complicated transactions that fall within the regime of the IBC. The interactive session provided the participants an insight into the complex interface between the IBC and Competition Law.

5 PM – Octa’s concluded, results announced

The Octa Finals and the Reverse Octa Finals have been concluded. While the participants argued commendably, our Judges had a tough time reaching consensus. The following are the teams progressing towards the Quater Finals (in no particular order):

  1. National Law University, Odisha.
  2. ILS Law College, Pune.
  3. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  4. Institute of Law, Nirma University.
  5. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
  6. SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law.
  7. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.
  8. Symbiosis Law School, Noida.

We congratulate the qualifying teams. The exchange of memorials for the Quarter Finals shall be taking place soon at the Registration desk.

A glance into the Quarter Finals.

 

Participant engrossed in the opponent’s arguments.

 

7.30 PM – Quarter Finals concluded, results announced.

The Quarter Finals of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition have come to an end. Here are the teams that have qualified to the Semi Finals.

  1. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  2. Gujarat National Law University.
  3. National Law University, Odisha.
  4. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.

A hearty congratulations to all the Semi Finalists!

8 PM – Semi Finals Underway

The Semi Finals are currently underway. The teams are engaged in fierce argumentation before an eminent panel of judges in both court rooms. Here, take a glimpse at the rounds.

Judges Vijay Pratap Chouhan (Associate, Platinum Partners), Anand Vikas Mishra (Deputy Director, Competition Commission of India) and Anisha Chand (Principal Associate, Khaitan & Co).

 

Judge Anand Vikas Mishra testing the participant’s understanding of the law.

 

Judges Anand Kumar Singh (Assistant Professor, National Law University Jodhpur, specialising in Competition Law), Rahul Satyan (Senior Partner, Competition and Antitrust team at AZB & Partners) and Toshit Chandilya (Associate, Competition Law team at Talwar Thakore & Associates) in Court Room 2.

 

Participants observing the arguments of their opponent team.

10.15 PM – Semi Finals concluded

After establishing their ‘dominant position’ in this relevant mooting market, the following two teams will battle it out in the Finale of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019:

  1. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  2. Gujarat National Law University.

The Memorials will be exchanged between the finalists soon. May the best market player win the battle.

Day 3 – Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

9.30 AM The audience and judges are seated in the auditorium and the Final rounds of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition will begin shortly.

9.40 AM – The first speaker from the Applicant’s side, begins his speech. He is calm and is responding well to the judges, who waste no opportunity in grilling him on the law and facts. The bench is fairly active, and all the three judges are participating equally.

Dr. K.D.Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) and Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.), having a look at the proposition.

 

Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) indulgent in the oral rounds during the Finals.

10.20 AM – Speaker 2 from the Applicant’s side has now taken over. She begins her submission by trying to prove that DOPE is not an enterprise, as per the statutory definition under Sections 2(h) read with Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002. She relies on the lack of an economic function, to prove so. However, the judges seem unconvinced, and asks the counsel to clarify the origin of this requirement. Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) questions the counsel on the intricacies involved while relying on Section 3(3) along with Section 2(h). The counsel further cites the Coordination Committee case, to prove her point.

Respondent’s gearing up for their turn.

10.35 AM – The judges inquire about the ratio of the LPG Gas Cylinder case, and its relevance to the current argument. With only 2 mins left on the clock, the counsel moves to her second issue, regarding cartelisation. She seeks an extension of time, which is granted. Towards the end of her submissions, one of the judges pose a question regarding the lack of any arguments on mitigation of penalty. The counsel confidently replies that her party is not in violation of any competition or antitrust rules, and thereby need not argue on penalty. This creates a good impression upon the judges.

10.46 AM – The first speaker from the Respondent side, takes the podium. He appears immensely composed, and requests 30 seconds to arrange his documents on the podium. His speech is structured and brief, and the judges seem to be nodding in appreciation. He begins his first submission, on the maintainability of Jeevan Pharma’s admission. Mr. Rahul Singh and Dr K.D Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) question the counsel on the distinction between the ability of the bench to hear the petition, and their power to grant compensation. The Counsel calmly tries to clarify his position, with reliance on the facts and clarifications, citing the relevant paragraphs, perfectly.

The Appellants discussing their strategy during the Finals.

11.00 AM – The counsel then moves to his second submission, regarding Jeevan Pharma’s abuse of its dominant position, and lays down the three tests required to show the same. The judges don’t seem satisfied with increased reliance on foreign cases, in light of extensive Indian jurisprudence in the area, but the counsel responds adequately. He then seeks an extension, which is happily granted by the judges. As the counsel ends his submissions and thanks the bench, the panel of judges apologise for their repeated probe into every submission of his. This lightens the atmosphere. The judges appeared quite pleased with his set of submissions.

11.24 AM – Speaker 2 now arrives at the podium, to continue her fellow counsel’s submissions. She begins her submission by laying out a roadmap, upon the judges seeking a clarification. Her issues pertain to the ability of the DG and CCR to proceed against DOPE, and DOPE’s violation of Section 3(3). The rain of questions continue, as was the case for the previous speakers. The judges question the line of argument, that the cryptic order of DG can be used against anyone. The counsel tries to clarify her position and does not lose hope.

11.35 AM – The counsel moves to her second submission and focuses on the agreement between the manufacturers, as well as between the manufacturers and the DOPE. She informally quotes Lord Denning and then the statutory definition. There is a good level of engagement between the counsel and the judges. After this speech, the judges decide against rebuttals and surrebuttals, However, they give into the finalists’ request. Speaker 1 from the respondent gives a brilliant rebuttal which leaves the audience as well as the judges in awe.

11.40 AM – The rounds have been concluded, and the finalists wait for the results.

12.15 – Valedictory ceremony commenced

Vice Chancellor, Ms. Poonam Pradhan Saxena and the Dean, Dr. I.P. Massey, with other esteemed faculty members and the judges have taken their seats in the auditorium. Senior Member of the Moot Court Committee opened the ceremony with a heart warming speech and addressed the participants waiting eagerly for the results.

12.30 – Vice Chancellor felicitates the gathering
The Vice Chancellor thanked Khaitan & Co. for their valuable partnership in organising this year’s Competition. She further stressed upon the importance of Competition Law as an emerging field. She also encouraged the participants to take part in more moot court competitions, as it helps to further one’s advocacy skills and analytical abilities.

12.35 – Dr. K.D. Singh addressed the crowd and informed the audience about CCI’s endeavours and how CCI has been happy to host the moot in association with NLU Jodhpur, for the past 10 years, and expressed his desire to continue the same for the coming years.

12.37 – Vice Chancellor presents the token of appreciation to Dr. K.D. Singh

12.38 – Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co) thanked Ms. Poonam Saxena and shared his experience as a corporate lawyer and left a very interesting question for the participants sitting in the audience, whether they are administering “justice” by being the extended arm

12.40 – Declaration of results

Mr. Rohan C. Thomas, Faculty Advisor of the Moot Court Committee, announces the results :

Second Best Student Advocate Anshika Jain (Gujarat National Law University)

Best Student Advocate – Juhi Hirani (Institute of Law, Nirma University) and Darshan H. Patankar (Gujarat National Law University)

Best Researcher – Eesha H. Sheth (SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law)

Best Memorial – Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.

Best Student Advocate for the Finals – Darshan H. Patankar (GNLU)

RUNNERS UP TEAM – Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

WINNING TEAM – Gujarat National Law University.

Winning Team of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Gujarat National Law University

 

Runners Up Team of Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Symbiosis Law School, Pune

12.45 – Closing Speech by the Co-Convener of the Moot Court Committee
Ms. Mansi Srivastava (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) shared her experience of being part of the organising committee for the past five years and how it feels surreal to be a part of it for one last time. She thanked the administration, the support staff, the volunteers and all the other Moot Court Committee Members for their support and contribution. She specially thanked Ms. Abhilasha Gupta and Ms. Subarna Saha (Advisors, Moot Court Committee) and Mr. Rahul Mantri (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) for being her pillars of strength throughout the competition and providing all the answers when she herself couldn’t find them. Lastly, she thanked Khaitan & Co. for their partnership and the Knowledge partner, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company (EBC) for providing the students with access to SCC Online that helped them in the preparation for their rounds.

 

12.48 – Certificate of participation given out to the participants.

The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition has thus been concluded.

Hot Off The PressNews

In an unfortunate incident that took place last night, six NUJS students were groped and brutally assaulted by a mob of goons hired by the government contractor in charge of demolition of the Subhas Sarovar slums. After the students of NUJS Kolkata obtained a stay order of Calcutta High Court on the demotion of slum housing.

Narrating the sequence of events, the Student Juridical Association, NUJS, in it’s official Press Release, said that despite the stay order, the contractors demolished the slums at which point NUJS students went to the contractors with the copy of the Court order. On being confronted, the order was torn up, following which the female students were groped by multiple goons and the male students were grievously assaulted till they were unconscious. Their phones were smashed and destroyed and when they tried to escape, the gates of the area, which is a fenced enclosure, were shut.

Terming the incident as manhandling of collective conscience, the student association wrote:

“we, as the law school fraternity, must stand together against this complete obliteration of the rule of law that we seek to defend and practice. We sincerely hope that in this hour of need, our collective conscience will inspire us to participate in defending and echoing the common ideals of liberty and rule of law that bind us together.”

As per the latest update, the Calcutta High Court has immediately ordered the state for rehabilitation of the evicted slum dwellers within 24 hours and has issued a contempt of court notice against perpetrators.

Last month, the public interest team at Increasing Diversity By Increasing Access (IDIA) comprising of NUJS students had obtained a stay on slum demolitions in Kolkata’s Subhas Sarovar area.

As part of its beautification project, the West Bengal state government planned to demolish the slums in the area, which would render around twenty-two families living there for more than a decade, homeless. Three of the slum dwellers, including octogenarian Shiv Shankar Ray, sought to file a petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the government’s decision. The petition was drafted by the IDIA team comprising of NUJS students– which received help from pro bono lawyers practising at the High Court.