Law School NewsLive Blogging

DAY 2:


Live Proceedings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13:29- And TIME OVER

13:42- Feedback session begins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13:10- Rounds one in CR3 finishes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Round Ends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Round ends.

COURT ROOM 9 (118C v. 106R)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12:38 The Speaker 2 of the Respondent made the opening statement by stating the structure of the arguments to be submitted before the Court.

12:42 The Judge asked the speaker 2 to explain the Standard Industry Practice. The speaker answered the question was calmly and the judges also feel satisfied with their research. The speaker also cited a case for this.

12:54: The speaker started with the second issue and it seems that the judge is ready to grill the Respondent on this issue. However, the speaker 2 being very composed and confident about his issues and facts of the case answered every question very politely.

12:59 The speaker 2 of the Claimant started with the opening statement. Speaker 2 explained the structure to the judges and proceeded with the 4th Argument.

1:02 The Judge put down many question to the speaker 2 of the claimant and the judges were very impressed by the advocacy skills of the speaker 2.

1:12 The judge asked the speaker 2 to address the cost issue before the bench. The speaker submitted before the court and judge seems satisfied with the arguments made by speaker 2.

1:20 God save the teams! This was really a hot bench and the judges were so inquisitive. From the under confident 1st speaker of the claimant to the great 2nd speaker of the claimant. From the panicked 1st speaker of the Responded to the highly confident 2nd speaker of the Respondent the round ended here.

Round Ends.


COURT ROOM 1 (128C v. 105R)

14:53 PM: Claimant started with its arguments after taking permission from the judges. Claimant started with its arguments after taking permission from the judges. And here the judges started with their grilling questions which the claimant are answering confidently. Claimant pleads ignorance on the question asked by judges. Not answering the question, counsel asked to move to other time due to paucity of time.  Claimant request the judges to refer page of fact sheet to prove their case

15:02 PM: Claimants cited a case without reading the whole case which bring th judges in fits. Judge asked the claimants to refer to factsheet to clarify their position

Claimants talking among themselves on every questions judges are asking and judges are taking note of that. Judges asked what is contract. Reply to it: IT IS CONTRACT.

15:17 PM Judges asked the speaker 1 to clarify the point of speaker 2

And here the grilling starts.

15:19: Respondents starts. Judges asked another question for grilling asking to clarify the first answer. Respondent states the case which judges asked the facts. The respondent quoted that facts are not ok but the law is relevant. Respondents asked the counsel to refer to memo to win their situation. Respondents stuck in the papers to search for the answer on the question asked by judges. Judges gave one more minute to sum up their arguments.

15:26 PM: Judges said that they were supposed to follow the procedure to claim the damages. Judges gave one solution to the problem but respondent refuse to take that solution. Now the judges asked the same solution. From claimant which claimant agree. Judges gave one more minute to respondent. Respondents asked for few seconds to get the facts. Second grilling with speaker 2 of respondent starts

Claimants are listening very carefully to the arguments of respondent and ready to rebut. Claimants asked for rebut. But respondents refused for sur-rebuttals for exceeding the time.

COURT ROOM 2 (102C v. 114R)

3:05 PM- Claimant’s speaker started slowly with the facts, judges soon asked the speaker to go on with the arguments. Speaker started calm and steady. The speaker cited a struck down case to back his argument which the judges pointed out. The speaker, even when unable to give passable arguments, has not lost her calm. As and when the claimant brought the notice of the arbitrators to the things incorporated in the memo, probably considering the fact that they may help her justify her stance, things actually got worse, as judges started grilling. Now her every argument was being questioned by the bench as the speaker failed to give a satisfactory answer. Judges, asked the claimant to move further with her points. But to her dismay, she seem to have lost the confidence and was stuttering a lot, while the judges kept on questioning.

3:20 PM- Speaker 2 gave a broad structure of his speech, of how he would be proceeding with his arguments. He was quite confident, even when the questioning started. He rushed with his issues so as to cover all the points her partner couldn’t complete due to continuous grilling. The judges probably thought that the speaker can surely not be questioned on his knowledge of the laws or on the facts of the case, as the manner in which he spoke showed them that he knew whatever he was possibly dealing with. Although, he was struck down by a minute long question, which he tried to answer in a systematic manner, but the argument took an unprecedented turn. Judges after getting an unsatisfactory reply, grabbed the opportunity to question the same point. But he found a way to collect himself and successfully faced the further question.

3:45 PM- Before the respondent could start, the court room was dead silent. With judges going through the submissions, respondent tries to recollect whatever he has planned.

3:50 PM- The Speaker 1 from the side of the respondent takes the stage, and begins to make his submissions in a calm and steady manner after due permissions from the judges. The speaker makes several references to the fact sheet as well as the written submissions made by them. Argumentations were quite confidently put, with ample references to case laws which help him substantiate his submissions. The speaker faced all the queries of the judges in a very calm and satisfying manner. He was prepared for such grilling, it seems.

4:10 PM- Speaker 2 respondent started off by stating the facts that correspond to the issues that he was dealing with, after which he justified as to why their stance was better and more justified in nature than that of the claimants. As the day progressed, it was observed that the judges chose not to interrupt the speaker in the beginning, they gave a few minutes to the speaker so as to let them put for the argument. He did a great job and maintained an organised and structural speech all across his allotted time, but he failed to give the authority behind his last issue, which might back lash on the scoring.

4:25 PM- Rebuttal started for the claimants. He again pointed out some scientific facts from the problem and connected it with legal intricacies.

4:27 PM- Before rebuttals for respondent, judge asked a question which they failed to provide a satisfactory answer to.

4:29 PM- It started with a heated argument with speaker looking at the claimants. He pointed out the opposition’s citations and argued about the jurisdiction of the courts.

Round 2 ends.

COURT ROOM 3 (111C v. 121R)

14:58 PM: Speaker one of claimants’ side has started arguing but judges again ask the same question of whether Indian law or English law should be applied. Arbitrator asks the question of why the claimants went for the last resort of arbitration when they had the choice of resolving dispute amicably

15:02 PM: Two minutes of the allotted time is left but speaker one of claimants side is speaking

15:11 PM: Speaker 2 from claimants’ side starts arguing

15:14 PM: There is issue of maintain temperature in voyage but claimants are of the view that it was just because of the product being shipped and they always maintained the required temperature.

15:17 PM: Respondent starts.

15:26 PM: It seems that speaker one of respondent is not aware of the facts mentioned in imam preposition itself. And taking lot of the time to answer the facts.

15:45: Rebuttal for round two starts

15:50: Round two end.

COURT ROOM 4 (117C v 115R)

14:45 PM: 117(C) Speaker 1 Starts. He’s calm and is slow and deliberate in keeping his points. But the Speaker retracts from his submission.

15:01 PM: Speaker 2 from the Claimant side starts with questions being shot at him by the judges. He seems a little nervous. The judges are giving a hard time to the speaker on grounds of Jurisdiction. They stress upon a factual background of the case before entering into the arguments. The Judges ask the Speaker to prove that there was a failed negotiation before they came for arbitration.

15:17 PM: The Speaker 1 from team 115(R) starts with a flow. But the speaker fails to address first things first. The Speaker loses her flow as she confuses the facts thus giving the Judges chance to question.

15:30 PM: Speaker 2 from the Respondent side gives wonderful arguments but it somehow does not apply.

15:52 PM: Rebuttals begin. The judges make it clear that all the Rebuttals would be on the law and not on the facts. After a long argument with the Speaker 2, the judges finally agree to her after she cites authorities.

COURT ROOM 5 (104C v. 107R)

15:00 PM: Round 2 starts

Speaker 1 from claimants started on a good page but has been losing confidence with each question being posed to her. Persistent questions. Stammering, too much blinking, much less eye contact. She is trying hard but has gone shaky. Arbitrators provided a much needed relief to the speaker, just listening to her, questions are stopped.

15:10PM: Time’s up but the arbitrators are still left with one or two questions. Speaker 1 handled the last question quite well. Speaker 2 starts.

15:27 PM: The speaker is being questioned on some technicalities. Judges doesn’t seem to be much moved, but he calmly answered most of the questions. Speaker 2 mentioned a manual to prove his point. Arbitrators wanted to have a look at the same. Speaker 2 was praised a bit by the arbitrators. Now the respondents will start.

15:40 PM: Good start for the respondents, the arbitrators are patiently listening to the speaker. Not much questioning, just a few questions; that too are being comfortably answered by the speaker. Speaker 2 calmly lays out the structure for her arguments.

Debate begins between arbitrators and the speaker regarding obligations of ship owners. Reasonableness of the ship employees was also discussed. The judges are extremely lenient.

16:07 PM: The time has elapsed but the arbitrators still provide few extra minutes for letting the speaker 2 conclude. Rebuttal starts. Speaker from claimants 1 was asked to slow down a bit by the arbitrators so that she can be properly heard. The problem she pointed out was praised by the arbitrator.

16:27 PM: Judges were really impressed, both teams did quite commendable jobs. No need for feedback for teams that were this good. Just appreciation given by the judges.

COURT ROOM 6 (112C v. 109R)

2:52: Welcome to Phase II of the Preliminary Rounds of the Fourth Edition of the Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot, organized by National Law University Odisha. The speaker from side claimants has begun confidently, however, his manners and demeanor for sure leave much to be desired. He will certainly be marked down for it.

3:03: The second speaker for side claimants has begun with her arguments. Meanwhile, the judges have made it explicitly clear that they are not satisfied with the first speaker’s performance.

3:06: The judges have begun grilling the second speaker with only two minutes into her arguments. The speaker has conceded ground and this has not been taken well by the judges.

3:18: Time’s up! In the face of the incessant questioning for the past ten minutes, the speaker has conceded considerable ground. The demeanor of the speaker has suffered severely, and she will be certainly marked down by the judges for it.

3:19: The speaker from side respondents has begun, but has already pleaded ignorance to the questions posed. The judges have rejected most of his arguments, and he seems to be flustered.

3:25: The atmosphere in the courtroom has considerably heated up in spite of the air conditioning running at full blast. The speaker has cited a Swedish case law, however, the judges have rejected it on the ground that the case belonged to a common law jurisdiction. This has not been taken well by the speaker, who tries in vain to convince the judges as to the relevance of the case.

3:26: Two minutes to go, and the speaker has moved on to his second contention. He looks extremely frustrated at the questions and has lost his cool. The judges seem to be in a bad mood as well, and are not ready to accept any of the arguments.

3:35: The first speaker from respondents has completed, albeit on a bad note. The second speaker tries to begin, but is interrupted immediately by the judges. Their dissatisfaction is evident on their face, and one of the judges looks almost bored of the proceedings.

3:42: One of the points put forth by the respondents has generated considerable interest and activity on the claimants. Notes and chits are frantically passed, and they keep referring to their memorials.

3:45: The speaker is definitely frustrated and makes contradictory claims, which is immediately picked upon by the judges. Two minutes to go!

3:47: The speaker tries to begin with the counter-claim, but time’s up! The judges however, ask the speaker to continue.

3:50: The judges have asked the speaker to conclude and summarize her arguments in one minute. The speaker is unable to answer most of the questions posed by the bench, and looks confused and muddled.

3:55: The judges try to test the understanding of the speaker’s understanding by putting forth questions based on  hypothetical situations. She pleads ignorance to one of the questions, and moves on to the prayer. Even here, the prayer is ridden with contradictions, and the judges pick on it immediately.

4:03: The round has moved into the rebuttals, and the judges seem to be satisfied with the rebuts made by the claimants. The speaker from side respondents earnestly tries to begin, but is immediately interrupted and is asked to move on to another issue. Must be frustrating indeed.

4:07: Time’s up! The round has ended, and the judges have huddled into a discussion. That is it from Court Room 6, stay tuned for the next phase!

COURT ROOM 7 (110C v. 124R)

The Judges send their regards to their fans on the SCC blog.

15:00 – Amped up from their previous round, Team 110 (Claimant) started very strong and confident, both in terms of presentation and content. Even though the judges started grilling immediately, the speakers were able to keep their calm and answer without fumbling!

15:20– While the speaker was confidently answering the rapid-fire questions, she was unable to manage her time properly and ended up having to summarise an entire issue in 1 min, which she still did admirably even when the judges questioned on that issue further.

15:40 – The speakers of team 124 (Respondent) started off much more calmly and professionally than Team 110. Over the course of the speech of the first speaker of team 124, it was evident that she had the conceptual clarity to answer and satisfy the judges on most of the aspects!

16:00– the second speaker had a similar presentation style as her co-speaker, though a bit more nervous. But she was still able to satisfy the judges on most of the areas of concern. However, Team 124 exceeded their time limits by a greater margin than Team 110.

Overall, the second round was far more engaging and fruitful as both the parties as well as the judges were proactively participating in the rounds. This allowed for a much more comprehensive discussion!

COURT ROOM 8 (123C v 119R)

15:35 PM: The counsel for respondents begins with his arguments on jurisdiction, and is grilled on the same. He fails at convincing the judges with his answers, and thus, has to concede. He is felt baffled as he is asked to skip through most of his arguments, and is asked to come to the conclusion. The co-counsel begins with his arguments, and is flustered for most part of his speech, as the judges shower him with questions that he seems unprepared to answer.

15:40 PM: The counsel for the petitioners begins with his arguments, and is caught up in a plethora of questions on arbitration, but manoeuvres his way through them smoothly. He then yields the floor to his co-counsel. The co-counsel begins arguing on the weight of the cargo and other details, and struggles to answer the questions of the judges convincingly initially, but eventually succeeds in answering the questions successfully.

16:19: He is flustered as the judges grill him on the limitation and their claim in the instant case, and is further grilled on questions of law regarding arbitration and an interesting head to head is observed. He eventually concludes his arguments, and rebuttals are followed by it.

The Rounds End.


COURT ROOM 1 (103C v 108R)

16:52 PM: Round 3 start directly with grilling questions

Judges asked the claimant about the clause in the fact sheet. They said they are aware about it. Judges ask the speaker 2 from where they came to know whether it is there in Singapore or not. And claimants said that they do not have it.

Claimant ask the judges to clear the questions as they didn’t understand it. And judges are elaborating it. Judges asked the claimants to read the clause loudly to bring them to the point. They asked the claimants to clearly listen to question and then answer. Claimant asked judges to please allow them a moment to clarify themselves.

17:31 PM: Judges asked them to not to give brief of the facts but proceed with arguments

Respondent starts.  Judges asked the respondent whether they want to argue that whether the 3rd arbitrator is not neutral? Judges asked the speaker 2 if they want to clarify the point of speaker 1.

17:48 PM: Judges asked the elaborate in standard industry practice and whether they complied with it or not. 2 claim ignorance 2nd time. Respondent didn’t gave the sur-rebuttals.

Round ends.

COURT ROOM 2 (127C v 126R)

5:20- Speaker 1 of the claimants began with her arguments in a quite impressive manner. She gave a thorough briefing of the facts and moved swiftly towards her issues. She seems to have structured her issues very well. It can be understood even by a person who has no interest in this particular case. Speaker has been inclusive of every possible aspect of the issue. With her thorough understanding and eloquent manner of portraying the situation, she tackled the questions of the tribunal in an effective way. Puff!! The speaker starts raising allegations against the respondents according to the facts, that too in an aggressive way. And the time’s up!

5:40- Speaker 2 takes over the duty. She will be substantiating the further arguments, just like her co-counsel, she too, has a persuasive way of speaking. But as soon as the 2nd minute started, judges started the grills. The composed manner of dealing with the questions seems to have made even the judges silent or maybe it’s just been a long day! But the judge 3 keeps on interrupting the co-counsel. Both the speakers are so well versed with the facts, provisions, issues involved, it’s commendable. Speakers got away with only a few questions to face. Although the round was extended for a minute or two, which surely might turn into there favour!

6:06- It can be seen one member from the respondent side is missing. With only 2 people, Speaker 1 from the respondent side initiates his attacks! on the contrary to their claimants, has a sangfroid demeanour. Just when he started, he was asked to give a brief on the facts of the situation, he stumbles to his first issue. First minute into the issue and he pleads counsel’s not aware. It isn’t good for them! Their opposition already have an upper hand with eloquent speakers! But he finds his feet and moves in a fluent manner. He has been quite sure of whatever he is saying, with a few queries from the tribunal, he puts forth his issues.

6:17- Speaker 2 got no time to gather himself and has to go ahead with his arguments. He aims at extending what his co-counsel had just said. The tribunal kept on intervening, it’s not looking good! It’s certainly not going according to what they might’ve planned. As the grilling continues, the claimants seem to enjoy the questioning, but subtly paying attention to what judges are pointing out. As live bloggers we can totally relate to what judges are going through! For a whole day, wearing formals and bombarding questions on the poor participants!

6:40- Claimants rebut in a very short way due to shortage of time. speaker-2 of the claimant, without wasting any second starts raising question. The thoroughness with which they have read the respondents memo, seems to have impressed the judges.

6:42- Respondents have rebutted each an every point during the course of their issues.

COURT ROOM 3 (125C v 120R)

16:35 PM: Round three starts

16:43 PM: Speaker one of claimants’ side starts arguing there are some instance where speaker is left blank and arbitrator suggest them to cope up with time. Judges have told claimant not to use the term imam preposition and to go just with preposition.

17:04 PM: Speaker two of the claimants starts and is not able to answer the tricky questions of judges.

17:12 PM: Speaker one of respondent starts with introducing themselves but judges ask him to jump to the issue.

17:24 PM: Speaker two of respondent argues.

17:33 PM:  Nothing much to say but speaker was quiet good and judges are impressed by the respondent performance

17:33 PM: Rebuttal starts.

Round three ends

COURT ROOM 4 (101C v 118R)

16:50 PM: 101(C) Speaker 1 starts. He seems to be very good speaker and takes his time while speaking.

17:08 PM: The judge mentioned that though the Argument advanced by the speaker was good, it couldn’t be held because it was not related to the context of Cargo.

17:30 PM: The Speaker 2 battling hard and trying his level best to convince the judges

17:32 PM: 118(R) Speaker 1 starts.

17:40 PM: The Speaker has a well-structured content and therefore even after being interrupted so many times by the judges, he maintains his flow and doesn’t let anxiety ruin his composure.

17:59 PM:  BAM! A confusing question! But the speaker takes a moment and answers. The judges seem satisfied.

18:15 PM: What seemed to be a never ending round finally comes to an end.

The judges were highly impressed with both the teams due to their innovative arguments. The repetitive words during the Feedback session was Brilliant! And Amazing!

The magnitude of the arguments advanced by both the teams was something that even our judges hadn’t anticipated.

COURT ROOM 5 (106C v 128R)

17:15 PM: Round 3 gets under way.

17:26 PM: Counsel hasn’t timed his argument well, first issue took most of the time, he faced a lot of questions, he was able to comfortably answer most of them, but was he able to persuade the judges, can’t say so.

17:30 PM: and time’s up, but the questioning continues, an extra minutes is given. Yet another time it is reminded that time’s up but it seems that the judges are not letting go the speaker without a satisfactory answer.

17:34 PM: Finally the co-counsel gets a chance to speak, she lays put the structure of her arguments. Speaker one is looking troubled, as if he forgot to say something that he only remembers now. He is just blankly looking around. The second speaker is confident in her approach. The speaker is laying out factual arguments.  The respondents are keenly interested in the question-answer between the speaker and arbitrators.

17:40 PM: The speaker has facts at her finger tips, questions based on facts were easily answered by her. Speaker 1 intervened to answer a few questions posed by judge. No time left. The judge is lenient regarding time and the argument continues. All three judges are bombarding questions. The speaker remains structured and calmly answers the question, but his every answer is leading to another question by the judges.

17:53 PM: The argument still goes on. Two judges pouncing upon him at the same time. I won’t say they are doing any grilling, they are just looking for satisfactory answers.

6:20 PM: Co-counsel started with an assumption, judges won’t allow that, moreover that assumption was contradictory to the argument put up by his own co-counsel. The judge asked to let go the submission, because it was not helping the respondents.

Poor speaker one, he is rubbing his eyes, shoulder all drooped down, it seems he wasn’t really ready for all this.

6:20 PM: I must say this speaker was grilled, it ended when he was asked to find something in the preposition while the co-counsel gets a chance to speak.

6:30 PM: Respondent counsel starts the argument. Even before the speaker could have said anything, he was asked a question which made him baffled, he was forced to move on to the next issue, he is not getting any chance to get back, another question, and yet another. Judges are much involved in questioning, Court room 5 hasn’t witnessed this frequently questioning since the commencement of first session. Speaker 1 seems to be fighting a lost battle, he finally gave in, asked the judges that he wants to move forward to the third issue. Somehow he still manages to keep his face frown free. It must be really hard for him to even continue.

6:41 PM: I know that maybe the respondents were not well prepared, but still he is playing bold, he is still arguing, during rebuttal time. More questions, more answers, and yet again more questions. Judges are enjoying this, time is up but they still want to hear more. It went on for one more minute.

Finally the slaughter ends.

COURT ROOM 6 (105C v 102R)

5:16: Welcome to the final phase of the preliminary rounds of the 6th Bose & Mitra International Maritime Law Moot organized by National Law University Odisha. While the judges and the claimants look rested and relaxed, the respondents do not, owing to the grueling Phase II round they went through, which lasted close to two hours.

5:16: The first speaker from side claimants goes off to a strong start, and seems to be well prepared. Her demeanor is pleasing, and answers the questions posed by the judges confidently.

5:20: The judges keep grilling the respondent speaker over Section 29 of Indian Arbitration and Negotiation Act, and its application to the facts of the case.

5:30: Time’s up, but the speaker hasn’t lost calm yet. Admirable indeed, considering the barrage of questions she has faced.

5:34: The first speaker has been asked to clarify as to side claimants’ calculations. The judges continue to grill the speaker, but her answers seem to be backed by a strong knowledge of the facts and the law.

5:41: Well, the time’s been up for ten minutes, but not the interrogation, and it does not seem to end anytime soon. The speaker hasn’t lost her calm yet, and that is a good thing for side claimants.

5:45: The speaker has been asked to move on the third issue and she proceeds confidently. Her answers are well substantiated with the facts and keeps quoting the relevant sections of the Acts.

5:50: The first speaker should have finished over twenty minutes ago, but the judges continue with their questioning. This time, it relates to the application of law, whether English or Indian.

5:52: Finally! The second speaker is allowed to begin, and like her co-counsel, she gets off to a good start.

6:00: One of the points made by the speaker from side claimants as to the expertise of the master seem to have put side respondents into a fix, and there is a slight expression of defeat on their faces.

6:09: The air conditioning is working too well, and it is freezing inside the courtroom. But there is a heated debate between the judges and the speaker, and neither side is willing to cede ground.

6:16: Finally! Speaker from side respondents has begun, and starts off with the argument that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the case, due to the use of ‘may’ over ‘shall’. The judges do not seem to be satisfied, but permit the speaker to continue.

6:21: The judges are grilling the speaker over the conflict of laws in the present case, and the speaker keeps referring them to the compendium.

6:40: This has been an exceptionally long round and does not seem to end anytime soon.

6:44: For the first time in the round, the speaker from side respondents looks dumbstruck and flustered.

6:46: The second speaker from side respondents begins with his arguments, and is immediately questioned as to whether they can ask the tribunal to decide over a cautious claim, to which the speaker claims ignorance.

6:50: The respondents claims that the crude oil in question is similar to all other crude oil. Two of the judges look almost shocked at this suggestion, and begin to grill him on this point.

6:54: The judges have begun to exploit the unsubstantiated claims made by the speaker and seem to be amused at his suggestion. The grilling has been so hard that even his co-counsel looks at him with pity.

7:00: The speaker provides an example of a person who opens the hatch of a petroleum tank, which almost everybody in the courtroom, apart from side respondents finds amusing. This provides a much wanted touch of humor, albeit unintended.

7:06: This has been a very, very long round with much grilling. Both the sides look almost relieved. Goodbye, but stay tuned for the quarter finals!

COURT ROOM 7 (114C v 111R)

5.15 PM – The first speaker of Team 114 (Claimant) started with such a flourish (emphasising on the applicable law and party autonomy) that he had sufficient time to finish one argument before the judges could fully process them and ask questions. However, the judges soon got a hang of it and could successfully stop the speaker’s flow of speech! One of the fresh arguments brought in this round by the Claimant is that since the wording of the pre-arbitral tier of amicable settlement is uncertain as to its initiation, duration and at what stage can it be exhausted, it cannot be unenforceable. However, for quite some time, the speaker was unable to grasp and answer some questions that all the three judges kept rephrasing and asking.

5.40 PM – From the beginning, the second speaker of Team 114 (Claimant) was stumped by the questions of the tribunal as the judges kept bringing him back to the terms of the charterparty. Such consternation on part of the speaker was evident by the fact that his volume of speech lowered after being referred to the charterparty. The peculiar part to be noted is that whenever the judges ask a question twice, the speaker immediately becomes apprehensive of his answer and starts consulting his papers again, to the point where he had to check when the voyage itself had started! He even said that “a simple Google search would show-” before the judges picked it up and made a few remarks.

6 PM – The first speaker of Team 110 (Respondent) started as if no storm could quicken his pace. However, with one minute in, the judges resumed their grilling. At one point, the judge asked if the Respondent is willing to try an amicable settlement – the speaker replied ‘if the tribunal so wishes’. The tribunal had to point out that amicable settlement is on the parties and the tribunal has no role it; that slowed the speaker a bit, but he soon resumed his steady pace of speaking.

With two rounds completed, the judges were easily able to zero in on the most confounding issues, like the claim of time bar, easily evident through the escalating fumbling of the speaker. Even so, the speaker had the determination to maintain his pace, which he surprisingly did most of the time.

6.20 PM – the second speaker finally started, amply spacing her statements with nervous fillers. It was almost as if she was still rehearsing to convince herself. The judges were asking a lot fewer questions, as if they had exhausted their reserves on her co-speaker previously. At the same time, they are unwilling to wait for the speaker to gather her bearing as she tries to answer. The last preliminary round is over!

COURT ROOM 8 (121C v 117R)

17:07 PM: The judges begin the rounds by asking if the parties agree on the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the case. The claimants disagree with the same, and both the parties are left baffled as the judges refuse to listen to the claimants pursuant to the same.

17:16 PM: However, the claimants later concede to the fact that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties in the instant case, after which they’re allowed to argue. The counsel begins with his arguments, and is grilled on the issue of demurrage charges.

17:07 PM: The judges begin the rounds by asking if the parties agree on the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the case. The claimants disagree with the same, and both the parties are left baffled as the judges refuse to listen to the claimants pursuant to the same. However, the claimants later concede to the fact that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties in the instant case, after which they’re allowed to argue.

17:24 PM:  The co-counsel thereafter takes over, and argues on the facts of the case. The judges continue to grill the co-counsel as well, on multiple occasions.

The respondents then begin with their arguments, and are caught up on one point of law with respect to the jurisdiction, and the judges continue to grill the first counsel on the same for most part of his speech.

17:53: The judges seem flustered as the first counsel argues further on the same issue, still standing firm on his claim and refuses to concede. The co-counsel now takes over, and maneuvers through the questions of the judges successfully, with convincing arguments. The counsel begins with his arguments, and is grilled on the issue of demurrage charges.

The quarter-final match ups are:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Law v. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
Symbiosis Law School, Pune v. National Law University, Jodhpur
Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi v. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
Government Law College, Mumbai v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

Congratulations to all the teams who made it through and we applaud the fantastic effort of every team who fought it out bravely in the prelims.

Court Room 1: Rajiv Gandhi University of Law (Claimant) v. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi (Respondent)

8:35 PM

As the teams have qualified the preliminary rounds, they have a lot of pressure which is visible outside the court rooms. They must be trying to incorporate as much as they can, after all the feedbacks might be useful in this round.

Teams enter into the room, a little chit chat with the judges, then they proceed towards their respective issues.

8:45 PM

The respondent approaches the bench in a very delicate manner, he was very careful as it was evident in the way he spoke. Being well versed with the facts and cases related with the facts, he takes no time in furthering his submissions. Judges observed the speaker very keenly, and then the questioning started, in the 3rd minute. During the course of the speech, the claimants duly noted all the points made by the respondents. He seeks permission and is very careful in the course of his arguments, he spoke with utmost respect towards the bench. The tribunal agreed while pointing out certain issues raised by the respondents. Although, maintaining a calm demeanour throughout the course is difficult, he finds that his time is up! He asked for 30 seconds more, but the bench kept on intervening to his dismay. Judge 1 seemed to be very curious about the knowledge of the respondent and asked details of a case in the last few seconds. Being well versed with the facts, respondent secured the ball in his court. The bench in a way, found it unsatisfactory that the respondent didn’t answer what they had asked and was asking more time to conclude his arguments.

9:01 PM

Speaker-1 of the claimants, started his submissions after having a little chat with the clerk. After all, the time is very crucial. The very moment he started, he was bombarded with the questions by the judges. “The quality of arbitrators is very well in India”, bench shared a light moment as the speaker moved on. The speaker is very clear in his manner of speaking. The council pleads ignorance when the judges ask where ICC is, the International Chamber of Commerce (as submitted by the speaker). The incessant questioning has seemingly unnerved the counsel and comes off as slightly confused, the same being observed by the honourable bench.  The judges continued with their queries. This heated questioning went on for about 15 minutes of while the counsel stood his ground despite the questions posed at him.

9.41 PM

Judges are questioning the claimants. Not satisfied with the argument of claimant, judges asked to move to next submission.

10.09 PM

Judges asked the claimant speaker to open the bare act to clarify their stance on law. Judges questioned them continuously on their arguments. Respondent saying that they are willing to come on an amicable settlement with claimant.

10:16 PM

Respondent asked that he wants to move on second issue but it seems like judges are not willing to give up on issue 1.

COURT ROOM 2: Symbiosis Law School Pune (Claimant) v National Law University Jodhpur (Respondent)

8:40: Welcome to the much awaited quarter finals of the 6th edition of the Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot organized by National Law University Odisha. The first speaker from the side of claimants has started off good and seems to be prepared, which is evident from her tone of speaking.

8:44: The judges have, however, started off with their questioning pretty early into the rounds. Their line of questioning has been incessant and they are not ready to accept any argument made by the side of claimants.

8:50: The counsels have been making continuous attempts at convincing the judges with respect to the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and the validity of the invocation of arbitration by the claimants in the instant case, but to no avail.

8:54: The judges have discovered a contradiction as to side claimant’s calculation as to costs, and they do not seem to be convinced with their arguments. However, they have permitted them to move ahead to the other issues and arguments.

9:02: The bench has made it explicitly clear that they are unable to accept their arguments relating to the weight of the cargo, and the liability with respect to the cause of solidification of the cargo.

9:10: The judges have maneuvered their way through the issue on the weight of the cargo, and the liability with respect to the solidification thereof, back to the jurisdiction issue, which the counsel seems to have answered much to the satisfaction of the judges.

9:12: The counsel has begun with the next issue, and is already being thrown questions at. The judges have even made it very, very clear that they do not accept the arguments posed by the side of claimants. The good thing is that the speaker has not lost her calm even in the face of this incessant grilling.

9:25: At this point, the judges have questioned the speaker as to awareness of a fact present in the moot proposition, however, the speaker pleads ignorance.

9:41: The co-counsel for the claimants has now taken over, and has begun with her contentions..

9:48: The incessant grilling has flustered the claimants as notes and chits are frantically passed. The speaker is losing her cool, and this is not a good sign. The questions relate to the nature of the crude oil, and the judges have managed to reveal their lack of research.

9:54: The judges have asked the speaker from side claimants to summarize and conclude in five minutes.

10:00: The respondents have taken over, and have now started with their arguments. They have started with the their first issue, and that is with respect to the difference between arbitration dispute and arbitrability.

10:10: The judges are continually grilling the counsel on the same issue, even after ten minutes of the initiation of the arguments by the respondents. The counsel continues to stand firm on his stance even after all this while and sticks to his argument with respect to amicable mutual discussion.

10:19: The judges are still throwing questions at the counsel in regard with same issue, and the counsel has now asked for some time to gather his thoughts. He has been trying to answer the questions, with little success at convincing the judges with his arguments.

10:35: The judges look unimpressed at the speaker’s arguments and keep interrupting him. The speaker, however seems to be unfazed.

10:42: The speaker for side respondents announces that he would like to yield the floor to his co-counsel. The judges then ask him as to who would be addressing the issue of delimitation, to which the first speaker replies that it would be handled by his co-counsel. However, the next moment, he begins with addressing the issue. This makes the judges visibly upset, who ask him to clarify again as to who would be addressing the issue. He looks shaken and yields the floor to his co-counsel.

10:50: The second speaker is facing a barrage of questions from the judges, who are going ballistic. The demeanor of the speaker is worsening by the moment, and this is not a good sign.

11:00: “What is a prudent standard? If a car is dirty, what does a reasonable man do? Does he take a cloth and clean it, or go to the paint shop and get it painted? Maybe only an expert would do that. And here, only an expert would keep it above 55 degrees!” a judge says. The speaker is now extremely nervous.

11:03: The judges asks the speaker to not to presume any facts, and stick to what has been stated in the moot proposition.

11:05: The speaker concludes the case from side respondents, and the claimants do not opt for rebuttals due to paucity of time. The rounds are over for today, but do come back tomorrow for the semi-finals. Signing off for today.


COURT ROOM 4: Government Law College, Mumbai (Claimant) v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (Respondent)

20:45 PM- Government Law College Speaker 1 starts. She seems to have a good command over her arguments and has a well-structured content.

20:50 PM- The most impressive quality of Speaker 1 has to be her patience. She carefully listens to all the questions the Judges have to ask instead of jumping to answers abruptly. She is articulately able to answer the questions.

21:00 PM- The Judges in the best of their knowledge are trying to halt and confuse the speaker, but little do they know that the speaker is in her best state of calmness and is absolutely confident.

21:22 PM- The Speaker 2 starts. She faces the questioning from the very beginning. She seems to be handling it well.

21:52 PM- Question- Answer… this is the prevailing process for the past few minutes. It seems to be a never ending process.

10 PM – The first speaker of the Respondent team starts off with the arguments. From the very beginning, the Respondent was forced to move to a defensive position. The speaker tried to maintain her speech style and pace, and maintained her composure as the judges sought clarifications and tried to find any loopholes in the speaker’s arguments. She however engaged with the tribunal by ensuring that they keep returning to the case study. As the judges put questions as well as provided the context for the question, time took a distant backseat as compared to the session itself. While the speaker tried to move forward, the tribunal brought her attention to the very facts she referred to initially, such as the issue of amendment of the dispute resolution clause to reflect the parties’ intention.

10.45 PM – The tribunal immediately brought her attention to the case study and were persistent in their questions. Nevertheless, the boisterous speakers were able to hold their ground as well as they could, given the questions hurled at them. The Quarterfinals are finally over.

COURT ROOM 3: Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (Claimants) v National Law School of India University, Bangalore (Respondent)

20:45: And the time starts. Although team have cracked to quarter finals the real battle begins. Speaker one of respondent has started arguing. Although he seems to be calm while arguing the judges in one way or the other are putting more complex questions.

21:07: Speaker one of claimants has started arguing. Confidence is all that matters at last and it can be seen in this speaker. Speaker one seems to be a good speaker and have answer for all questions posed to them.

21:16: Speaker two of claimants start. She has facts on her fingertips and is exuding confidence. It seems claimants have already anticipated the questions which may be asked and they are readily answering them.

21:28: Time is always a problem and it can be reflected in this case too although both the parties are provided with hefty sum of time but there are some instance when parties need to refer in some documents and that is really time consuming. Factual arguments, authorities, composure they have it all.

21:50: Claimants got six extra minutes and judges have decided to same time to respondents too. The co-council for claimants argued really well and for quite a long time. While she was very well versed with the facts, still she wasn’t able to answer a question in the end. This really got her all worried. She addressed the prayer and sunk in her chair, still worried a bit. However, she did her part as well as one can.

22:00: Speaker one of respondent side has started arguing and at the very first instance he started attacking the claims of the claimants. While the arbitrators are putting forward very twisted questions as expected in any maritime law moot, still the respondents are providing exact answers which the judges are looking for. Judges seems pleased.

22:04 In order to compensate the additional time given to the claimants, extra time is also provided to the respondents. Most of the issues are substantiated by valid arguments, only leaving a little scope of questions, still the arbitrators are consistently coming up with questions. It seems the co-council for respondent has caused a factual error, he has been asked to refer to moot preposition, and further questions are being asked regarding the facts now.

22:30 Both teams have submitted their issues. We just witnessed a comprehensive battle despite the questioning from the judges, the counsel was able to answer with utmost composure.

22:35 The Rebuttals have started. Claimants took their time to pose the questions and further strengthen their claims. Respondent was calmly able to answer them.

22:40 The judges didn’t interfere much and thus, a fiery Quarter Final comes to a close.

After the completion of the Quarter Finals we are proud to announce the 4 Semi Finalists. The qualifying teams are:
1. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
3. Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
4. Government Law College, Mumbai

We wish all the teams the very best for the Semi Finals.

Fixtures for Semi Finals scheduled for 31st March, 2019

Semi Final 1: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Semi Final 2: Law Centre 1, Faculty of Delhi, University of Delhi v Government Law College, Mumbai

That’s it for Day 2. The competition resumes tomorrow. Thank You and Good Night.

Welcome back! Day 3 of 6th NLUO IMAM 2019 is about to begin in a few minutes. We wish the teams all the best as they fight for a place in the finals.


The first semi-final will be between Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune  

The 1st Semi- final proceedings begin. 

  • 1:20- The Judges entered the Courtroom. The participants were very enthusiast as they will be arguing before the bench who are an authority in the Maritime arbitration itself.


Claimant- Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
  • 11:22- The speaker 1 of the claimant is speaking in a very well mannered and organised fashion. The speaker is well versed with the subject matter of the case.
  • 11:24: Speaker 1 explained the structurisation to the judges which he is going to argue before the court.
    11:27 Speaker 1 put up the issue of amicable settlement before the court and argue that the amicable settlement will go on forever and hence is uncertain. The bench throw the questions on which the speaker very politely and calmly tries to satisfy the Judges and also cite the case laws for the same.
  • 11:29 Speaker 1 also submitted that the charter is liable to the owners and outline two sub-issues. The Judges seems to be interested in the arguments and keenly hearing the arguments of the Claimant.
  • 11:35 The Judge asks about the Notice of protest and questions on the timeline which is before 6 hour or after 6 hour. For which, the claimant reads out the provision from the factsheet and addressed the concern of the Judges.
  • 11:38 Claimant submitted before the bench relating to the owners are awaiting the charters. Speaker 1 starts with the arguments in a very polite and confident manner and by the arguments put forward it is clear that there research in the maritime arbitration is quite wide and have a pretty good knowledge about the subject area.
  • 11:42 The Bench ask the speaker 1 about the Notice of Arrival and Notice of departure and the difference between them. The speaker seems to be successful in answering the question of the Bench.
    11:44 Speaker submitted the second issue regarding the defect in Cargo. The claimant submitted that the delay is reasonable in nature. The principal relied was the principle of reasonable conduct. The Judge 1 asked from where the claimant has derived this principle for which the claimant cites the 1990 case. Claimant seems to be successful in addressing all the concern of the Bench and the bench also seems to be satisfied by the arguments made by the claimant.
  • 11:48: Speaker 1 for the claimant concludes his arguments in a very fascinating way.
  • 11:49-  The speaker 2 from the  claimant’s side takes the stage after his co- counsel and starts speaking in a calm and confident manner. She presented her submissions in the form of two well structured points.
  • 11:50 Speaker 2 submitted the issue before the bench that the charter does not provide sufficient notice.  Speaker seems to be so confident and using her compendium in the best way. She is bombarding the bench with the case laws for every question that is being asked by the Judges.
  • 11:55 Judge 2 asked the question about the adequate temperature. Speaker 2 rightfully said that the adequate temperature is 35 degree Celsius. The Judge 1 asked whether the claimant is maintaining the adequate temperature for which the claimant tried to answer the Bench through the fact-sheets.
The tribunal for the Semi Finals
  • 11:58 Claimant submitted other two limbs of her arguments before the bench. Judge 1 asked the claimant to read clause 24 of the charter party agreement. Judge 1 asked the question on that clause for which the claimant submitted that the facts are silent about the fact.
  • 12:03- The claimant addressed the bench on the issue of incessant laws.
  • 12:05 Speaker 2 concluded her arguments in an efficient way.
  • 12:06 The bench asked the claimant to interpret Article 4 Rule 2 (a) of the In-transit laws. Claimant satisfied the concern of the bench by her answer.


Respondent- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  • 12:07 The Speaker 1 on behalf of the respondents begins by laying down her arguments with a calm and composed demeanour. The speaker 1 begins with the 1st issue regarding whether the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction or not? Respondent submitted that the present tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
  • 12:14 Respondent submitted the second issue regarding whether CACL is liable to charter party. Respondent submitted the arguments in four limbs to substantiate their case.
  • 12:16 The Bench asked the speaker 1 as to whether the free petty a requirement in Europe. The speaker answered in affirmative.
  • 12:21 Respondent submitted the third issue that the pumping logs were not provided to support the laws. Respondent backs her argument by citing the case law for the same. Speaker 1 seems to be so calm and polity while submitting the arguments and judge might also be impressed with her demeanour.
  • 12:27 Speaker 1 submitted her last issue before the court. The judges seem to be satisfied with the arguments submitted by the speaker 1 and did not question her on this issue.
  • 12:28- Speaker 1 concluded her argument in a very good gesture and give the stage now to her co counsel.
  • 12:28- The co- counsel (speaker 2) made the structurisation of her submission before the court and proceeds with her arguments. She also seems to be quite confident on her submissions and facts.
  • 12:31 Speaker 2 submitted her 1st argument before the bench that the obligations (statutory and other obligations) have not been complied by the claimants. Speaker 2, while making her submissions used a lot of the facts of the case and it was quite impressive as it was also easy for a layman to understand the case at hand.
  • 12:42 Speaker 2 is dealing with the issue of temperature. Speaker 2 addressed the concern of the bench in very confident manner and asks for if any other concern the bench has. This shows the confidence of the speaker 2 upon her in depth research.
  • 12:44 The bench asked the respondent what would happen if Bach Ho deviate from standard industry. Respondent addressed the concern of the bench through the standard industrial practice.
  • 12:49- The bench, after hearing this submission made by the Respondent, asked the respondent that their 1st argument should be related to the mitigating factors as the Bach Ho oil is sensitive in nature and has very little knowledge about the nature of the oil.
  • 12:51 Times up! Respondent ask the bench for few minutes to conclude her last issue. The bench graciously granted time to the respondent to summarise their arguments.


  • 12:54 Claimant allowed for 1 minute of rebuttals as per the discretion of the judges. The judge clarifies the party to be very specific to the points they are raising.
  • 12:57 The counsel on behalf of Respondent clarifies their position with respect to certain arguments made earlier in rebuttals by the claimants.

Semi Final 1 ends. 


Semi Final 2 proceedings begin

The second semi-final is between Law Centre 1, Faculty of Delhi, University of Delhi v. Government Law College, Mumbai


  • 2:03 It’s time for Semi Finals! Round 2! It is expected to be a thrilling and exhaustive show for the part of the participants and the judges alike. The Participants gear up for the last minute of preparation. The claimant in very fluent and confident way started to explain the structure of their arguments before the court. The claimant looks to be confident in their submissions and the advocacy skills they have is really impressive.
  • 2:05 The first submission made by the claimant is the seat of the tribunal. The claimant submitted that the tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.  The claimant argued that the claim of respondent for damage of cargo does not cover the provision of 49.2. Hence, the Respondent has no Jurisdiction before the court.
    2:08 Claimant being confident in their submission tried to negate the contention made by the respondent in their memorial. Claimant submitted that the provision of 49.2 must be read separately and the claimant has the jurisdiction to adjudicate only the claims of the claimant but not the respondent.
  • 2:12 This is very first time that instead of Respondent, the Claimant is negating the arguments of the Respondent through the Respondent memorial they got last night. It seems to me that they did a lot of research yesterday’s night and really in mood to defeat whoever comes in their way.

  • 2:16 The speaker 1 referred to their memorial to substantiate her arguments on arbitration proceeding and that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction. With this, the speaker 1 ends her argument that deals with the procedural part of the case and now her co- counsel will deal with the substantive part of the case.
  • The issue of time bar- our demurrage claim is prevented within the time period clause 20 of the charter party
  • 2:18: The co-counsel holds the stage and explained the structure of arguments to the bench. Speaker 2 submitted her first issue regarding Time- bar. The claimant submitted that their demurrage claim is prevented within the time period as enumerated in the clause 20 of the charter party. Claimant also submitted that the pumping logs is irrelevant to the demurrage claim. The judges seems to be interested in the arguments and they are eagerly hearing the counsel on behalf of the claimant.
  • 2:25 Claimant submitted her 2nd issue before the bench regarding laytime. Claimant contended that majority of their demurrage claim lies on this issue.
  • 2: 28 Claimant is  taking help of the fact-sheet to explain the issues to the judges and it might give a good impression as they are very well versed with the facts. The speaker 2 also seems to be so confident and trying to address each and every concern of the Bench.
  • 2:31 Claimant, now addressed the issue of Notice of readiness and submitted that all claims of demurrage should be allowed.
  • 2:33 The claimant again counters the written submission of the Respondent and submitted that the right temperature was maintained. Claimant conceded that they have the duty to maintain the right temperature and they complied with their duty.
  • 2:37: The Judge asked the claimant about the temperature of the tank. The speaker 2 very amicably answered the concern of the judge and also referred to their compendium to further substantiate her point. However, the Judges were not able to find it in the compendium and it took 2 minute to find it in the compendium.
  • 2:41 Claimant argued that the duty to maintain and inform about the temperature is upon the Respondent as they are the owners of the cargo and the Claimant has no duty as they are not the owners of the cargo.
    2:43 Times up! The speaker asked the bench very politely to grant 2 minutes to conclude her arguments. The bench very graciously allowed the Claimant 2 minute time to conclude her arguments.
  • 2:44 Claimant addressed on the point of incessant laws. As soon as she started, the judges started questioning her  on that issue. However, she maintained her calm and composure and addresses each and every concern of the Judges.
  • 2:47 Time is up! Claimant concluded the argument and now its time for the Respondent to begin.


  • 2:49 Respondent begins with her 1st submission and from her very first word it is clear that the Respondent is clear that they are here to win no matter how good the other team is. Respondent started her arguments in way of negating the arguments made by the Claimant. Respondent submitted that this tribunal has no jurisdiction. Respondent also raises the issue of amicable settlement . The Respondent argued that no such steps for amicable settlement has been made by the Claimant. The counsel on behalf of the Respondent blamed the Claimant that they blatantly lied before the court on the issue of amicable settlement.
  • 2:54 Respondent cited the case of Fiyona Trust v Privalov case to substantiate the issue raised before the court. Respondent tried to interpret the clause and argued that liberal interpretation must be inferred from it. Respondent also cited the exception to the liberal interpretation.
  • 2:59 Respondent cited various cases to made her case in front of the bench regarding the amicable settlement issue and the Speaker 1 seems to be so confident in her voice that judges are so fascinated and hearing to her arguments very silently.
  • 3:01 The claimant argued that the tribunal is empowered to direct the parties to the amicable settlement which the Respondent were denied earlier.
  • 3:04 Speaker 1 of the respondent concluded her arguments and give the floor to her co-counsel.

  • 3:05 Speaker 2 submitted that demurrage claim is time barred. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent substantiate her arguments through case laws and facts of the Moot problem.
  • 2:12 Respondent submitted her 2nd issue regarding whether the  lay-time is correctly construed. Claimant argued that whether or not the submission of “NOR” with the letter of protest is valid or not? The Respondent submitted to it that NOR is invalid. Speaker two took a second, maintained her calm and tried to address the concern of the Judge.
  • 3:17 Respondent tried to differentiate between the Notice of arrival and Notice of readiness. The speaker seems to be quite nervous in making her submissions.
    3:19 The Respondent moves to the other issue regarding the Cargo operations. The counsel submits that according to HM 40 Guidelines the minimum temperature must be maintained at 55 degree Celsius in any case. The standard industry practice also enumerate that Claimant must maintained that temperature. The Judge interrupted and clarifies that according to Standard Industry Practice it must be at port point. The judge also pointed out that why, at the very first place, the respondent did not supply the claimant regarding the information of the cargo to be maintained.
  • 3:24 The counsel cited the exception of some rule to substantiate the claims before the court. However, the judge seems to be not satisfied with this argument as the respondent failed to inform the Claimant about the temperature that must be maintained.
  • 3:28: Through the factual matrix of the case, the respondent argued that the claimant knew about the sensitivity of Bach Ho oil and the temperature that must be maintained. Respondent argued that they have exercised due diligence in knowing about the Bach Ho oils. However, they have not taken reasonable care.
  • 3:30 The counsel on behalf of the Respondent concludes her arguments. The counsel prayed before the court.


  • 3:32 Claimant started with the rebuttals. The bench made it clear to be very specific to the points while making the rebuttals and sur-rebuttals.
  • 3:34 Respondent started with their sur-rebuttals and tried to negate the points made by the claimants.

With this ends the Semi-Final Rounds. 

Now it’s time for the Finals of the 6th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition. This is the time we’ve all been waiting for, where the top two teams shall be fighting for the pinnacle – the Winner’s Trophy.

The Finals shall be between Symbiosis Law School, Pune and Government Law College, Mumbai.

The proceeding is being streamed live on the official NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition Facebook page. Follow it in real time as the battle between the teams begins!


The judges forming the part of the tribunal are:


Mr. Amitava Majumdar




Mr. Joy Thattil Itoop



Mr. Hari Narayan


The teams are here. In the finals, we have –

Symbiosis Law School, Pune 




Government Law College, Mumbai


There is some meticulous questioning underway as the judges carefully sift through the arguments. 


Speaker 1 from the claimant presents her arguments


Speaker 2 from Claimant argues


After an extensive round of questioning and counter-questioning, the claimant rests their case. 


Now, Speaker 1 from Respondent begins


Speaker 2 of the Respondent presents her arguments


After rebuttals, the round has finally ended. It’s been a grueling final and the judges have thoroughly tested the participants on every aspect. The participants can take heart from the way they dealt with the barrage of questions, no matter the outcome.

We now begin with the valedictory ceremony of the 6th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition 2019. Among those present are the Chancellor of the University Hon’ble Justice K.S. Jhaveri, Vice Chancellor of the University Dr. Srikrishna Deva Rao, Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Joy Thattil Itoop, Mr. Hari Narayan, Registrar of the University Registrar Mr. Yogesh Singh and Hon’ble Judges from the Odisha High Court.


The Citation for the Best Memorial goes to:

Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University Lucknow


The Best Speaker Award goes to:

Priyanshu Jain, National Law School Bangalore

And the Winners of the 6th Edition of the NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition are

Symbiosis Law School, Pune


Hearty congratulations to the team!


We also congratulate the runners -up team from Government Law College, Mumbai for their valiant efforts.

We further congratulate all the teams for their efforts throughout the competition.


With this, we come to an end to this Edition of the NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition. We thank all the blogging volunteers who made this blog a success with their constant updates and we thank the viewers for following the blog. We hope to see you again, next year. Till then, we bid adieu!


Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1 – Inauguration, Registration, and Exchange of Memorials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 2 – Preliminaries, Quarter Finals and Cultural Night

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminaries – Round 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Room 10:
DSNLU v. SLS, Pune

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Room 13:
Nirma University v. SLS, Hyderabad

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

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

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

Preliminaries Round 2

Court Room 1
SLS Hyderabad v SOL, Christ, Banglore

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

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

Court Room 2
NUJS, Kolkata v GNLU

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

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

Court Room 3
NLU, Odhisa v GGSIPU

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

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

Court Room 4
SLS Pune v Llyod Law College

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

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

Court Room 5
University of Dhaka v NUALS, Kochi

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

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

Court Room 6
MNLU, Mumbai v MLB, Gwalior

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

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

Court Room 7
NLU, Jodhpur v IFIM Law college

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

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

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

Court Room 8
ILS, Pune v RGNUL, Patiala

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

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

Court Room 9
SOL, Sastra University v DSNLU

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

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

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

Court Room 10
DSNLU v. SLS, Pune

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

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

Court Room 11
TNNLS v GLC, Mumbai:

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

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

Court Room 12:
NLSIU, Banglore v Nirma University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Room 1 – Nirma University v. NLU, Odisha

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

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

Court Room 2 – TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli v. MNL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 3 – Semi-finals, Finals and Valedictory

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

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

Court Room 1 – MNLU v.  RGNUL:

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

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

Court Room 2 – NLU Jodhpur v. NLU, Odisha

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

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

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

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

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

  1. NLU, Jodhpur
  2. RGNUL, Patiala

We are live with the final round that you can view on –

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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