Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1 – Inauguration, Registration, and Exchange of Memorials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Day 2 – Preliminaries, Quarter Finals and Cultural Night

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminaries – Round 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Room 10:
DSNLU v. SLS, Pune

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Room 13:
Nirma University v. SLS, Hyderabad

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

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

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


Preliminaries Round 2

Court Room 1
SLS Hyderabad v SOL, Christ, Banglore

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

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

Court Room 2
NUJS, Kolkata v GNLU

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

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

Court Room 3
NLU, Odhisa v GGSIPU

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

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

Court Room 4
SLS Pune v Llyod Law College

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

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

Court Room 5
University of Dhaka v NUALS, Kochi

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

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

Court Room 6
MNLU, Mumbai v MLB, Gwalior

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

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

Court Room 7
NLU, Jodhpur v IFIM Law college

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

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

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

Court Room 8
ILS, Pune v RGNUL, Patiala

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

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

Court Room 9
SOL, Sastra University v DSNLU

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

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

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

Court Room 10
DSNLU v. SLS, Pune

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

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

Court Room 11
TNNLS v GLC, Mumbai:

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

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

Court Room 12:
NLSIU, Banglore v Nirma University

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Court Room 1 – Nirma University v. NLU, Odisha

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

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

Court Room 2 – TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli v. MNL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Day 3 – Semi-finals, Finals and Valedictory

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

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

Court Room 1 – MNLU v.  RGNUL:

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

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

Court Room 2 – NLU Jodhpur v. NLU, Odisha

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

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

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


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

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

  1. NLU, Jodhpur
  2. RGNUL, Patiala

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

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

Finals

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

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

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

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


Valedictory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law School NewsLive Blogging

NLUO IMAM Logo

Hello and welcome to the live blog of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM). The competition begins today with the registration and inauguration followed by exchange of memos and draw of lots. 24 teams will be battling it out in preliminary rounds, followed by quarterfinals, semifinals and the much awaited finals.
Schedule for Day 1(30/03/2018) :
15:00 – 16:00 hrs – Registration
16:45 – 17:30 hrs – Inauguration Ceremony
17:30 – 18:30 hrs – Penalty Appeals
18:30 – 19:30 hrs – Draw of Lots & Exchange of Memos
20:00 – 21:00 hrs – Dinner

Stay tuned for all the live updates and highlights for the next 3 days.

16:00 hrs

The teams are here in the seminar hall and registrations have begun, the opening ceremony will be starting at 16:45 hrs.

Registration Desk
Registration Desk IMAM 2018

16:55 hrs
The opening ceremony is under way and the Faculty Adviser of The Moot Society Dr. Ananya Chakraborty starts with the welcome note to all the participants talking about the different opportunities Maritime law has to offer and the experience participants will gain from the interactions with the highly qualified panel of judges.

17:00 hrs
The Convenor of The Moot Society, Anmol Gupta, started with briefly laying out the schedule for the 3 days and also answering the queries of the teams regarding the draw of lots. She also explained the system of Penalty Appeals to the participants which further increases the transparency quotient. The Convenor ended by declaring the competition open.

17:30 hrs
Let us know about Penalty Appeals directly from our Convenor-

As a recent participant in a moot, I remember losing my mind over a two mark deduction that potentially affected my team’s best memorial citation. There are often times that moot court competitions have been also criticized for being unfair. It is only after having had such experiences and realizing that moot court competitions in India should be more transparent that we wanted to follow this practice. Penalty appeals are nothing new but we do hope that all institutions take similar initiatives so as to improve the mooting culture in India and bring more fairness and transparency in the process.”

Penalty Appeals
Penalty Appeals

18:00 hrs
Match ups are announced and Memorials are exchanged as the teams find out who they are up against for the Preliminary rounds tomorrow.

Draw of Lots
Memorial Exchange

 

19:45

That’s it for today, we will be live with you tomorrow morning with the first session of preliminary rounds. Till then Goodbye!

 

Day 2
10:15 hrs

Courtrooms are set

A very good morning to all, we are back with all the updates from the second day of NLUO IMAM 2018. The courtrooms are set, Teams all ready and the Preliminary rounds will begin at 11:00 hrs in 8 courtrooms. Following are the 23 teams battling it out in the preliminary rounds.

  1. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)
  2. School of Law, UPES
  3. ILS Law College, Pune
  4. Government Law College, Mumbai
  5. University school of law and legal studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
  6. National Law University, Delhi
  7. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
  8. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  9. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  10. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
  11. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  12. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
  13. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
  14. Pravin Gandhi College of Law
  15. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  16.  Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  17. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  18. Lloyd law college
  19. Faculty Of Law, Delhi University
  20. Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
  21. Madhusudan Law College, Cuttack.
  22. Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
  23. Jindal Global Law School

11:30 hrs

The first session is underway as the teams battle it out in the first round with the humid climate of Cuttack and the barrage of questions from the judges, they surely have their work cut out.

Courtroom-2
The Applicants contend on the of jurisdiction of the Honorable Tribunal and put up a compelling case in front of the judges and finish their submissions on a high. The Respondents contend that the claimants were aware of the zero tolerance policy of plastics and waste. Both the teams end up with a satisfying look on their face.

13:00 hrs

The first session of Preliminary rounds culminate, Judges take a 10 minutes break before the second session is underway.

 

13:30 hrs

The second session of preliminary rounds are now in progress.

Session 2 underway

14:30 hrs
The teams now concluding their arguments for the second session of preliminary rounds.

Session 2

 

16:30 hrs
The teams and judges have taken their seats for the third and final session of the preliminary rounds.

Session 3 in progress

 

18:15 hrs
We are now done with the Preliminary Rounds and will be announcing the Top 8 in a few minutes.

 

19:15 hrs
The results for the Preliminary Rounds are out, Following are the top 8 teams.

  1. ILS Law College, Pune
  2. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  3. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  4. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
  5. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)
  6. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  7. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  8. National Law University, Delhi

19:45 hrs

The Quarter Final rounds have now started with the teams vying for a top 4 spot.

Quarter Finals


Court Room 7

20:06 hrs

The judges are extensively grilling the Claimant on jurisdictional clauses, the counsel tries to deal with the questions through case laws and contends that the claimant’s silence does not amount to acceptance. The judges proceed to the next issue where the claimant is dealing with conceptual differences between indemnity and guarantee vis a vis damages but she fails to convince the bench with her submissions.

20:22 hrs

The bench questions about the fraud with respect to the letter of indemnity which means that the claimant’s haven’t come to the court with clean hands. The bench is not convinced with the submissions and asks the claimants to not beat around the bush and concede to the wrong in good faith.

 

Court Room 6

20:10 hrs

The Claimant started with Citing a case from US Jurisdiction which the bench was hesitant to accept, the Counsel tried to justify his claim by stating that the international arbitration depends upon the intention of the parties.

20:17 hrs

Second speaker discusses about the 3 contaminants and tries to justify the word contaminant as opposed to substances, he also tries to justify the scope of warranty.

 

 

Court Room 5

20:18 hrs

The claimant start their submissions by pointing out to the letter which is the core of the issue, the judges ask about the letter being a letter of indemnity or letter of warranty as contended by the respondents.

20:30 hrs

The respondent started their submissions asserting that the letter is a letter of warranty. He argues that the addendum to the contract was signed without prejudice, hence cannot be used as evidence.

 

21:15 hrs

With this the Quarterfinals are done. The teams and the judges head for dinner. Results of the Quarterfinals to be announced post dinner.

22:00 hrs

The top 4 teams in no particular order are

  1. ILS Law College, Pune
  2. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  3. National Law Institute University Bhopal
  4. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

With this we come to the end of proceedings on day 2. See you tomorrow for the Semi Finals and Finals. Goodbye!

Day 3

10:30 hrs

Hello and welcome all to the final day of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM). We will bring to you live updates from the Semi Finals and the Finals.

Semi Final 1 (RMLNLU vs RGNUL)

Arbitration Panel (left to right) Ms. J D Rajan ,Ms. Natasha Sailopal, Mr. Sameer Shah
RMLNLU vs RGNUL


10:35 hrs

The Respondent start with challenging the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and for the same justify it by stating that the disputes relate to the letter and not the charter party.

11:00 hrs

The Respondents are now being asked to take the tribunal through a timeline of the events so as to further facilitate the submissions, further the question of Contaminants is being posed by the tribunals which is dealt by the counsel by furthering the factual circumstances at the time of loading. The tribunal asks the counsel to move to his next submission.

11:10 hrs

The Counsel now moves forward to the submission regarding the charter party and how the addendum in the contract was without prejudice.

11:25 hrs

The Claimants now start with stating that the arbitration clause is broad enough to establish the claims. They claim further that their was no indication if they were previous remnants of the cargo. The tribunal questions the amount of due diligence necessary and was it carried out to ascertain no previous remnants of cargo were present.

11:35 hrs

The Tribunal further asks who the master is answerable to and questions the survey report and asks for the origin of 3 foreign objects in the cargo. The Tribunal cracks upon the claimants submissions so as to having too many presumptions. They further ask the Counsel to sum up his arguments.

11:45 hrs

The Second speaker starts with the issue of Counter Claim being time barred, The tribunal grills the unawareness of the authority cited and relied upon, regarding set off by the speaker. Tribunal questions the claimants on damages arising due to the presence of lumps of Tar in the cargo, the speaker contends that the respondents are responsible for any damages and liabilities arising out of loading which is the issue was in this case. The tribunal states that according to the charter party, it is the responsibility of the owner to check the ship before unloading.

11:55 hrs

The Counsel is questioned about the difference between demurrage and detention and further what was imposed in the present case. The Claimants are asked to wind up the arguments in a minute.

12:00 hrs

The respondents now proceed with rebuttals and lead with situation where the claimants have mislead the tribunal. They point out the wide disparity between the damages claimed.

12:10 hrs

This brings us to the end of the first Semi Final.

Semi Final 2 NLIU vs ILS

Semi Final 2

12:50 hrs

The claimant starts with stating about the letter of indemnity responding to the question of the bench on the nature of the Letter in question. Further the question is regarding the subject matter of the warranty.

13:01 hrs

The claimant goes on to submit about the letter of warranty and what the implied warranty was as the shipowner. The tribunal asks about what the warranty actually was and where does the scope of compensation come from. The Counsel goes on defining warranty but is unable to convince the bench for the same.

13:16 hrs

The Bench though not satisfied asks the Counsel to move onto his next submission. Counsel now moves on to ascertain the liability of the respondent during loading but the bench further questions the duty of the master which was appointed by the claimant and hence asks about the duty of the Claimants.

13:24 hrs

Claimant now takes help of judicial decisions to prove their submission regarding the addendum to be signed without any prejudice. He concludes with stating about the demurrage clause and are asked about the deviation clause of the charter party.

13:38 hrs

The Respondent’s Counsel begins with the lack of Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and for the same the bench questions about the nature of the letter in question. The counsel contends that the charter party provides for jurisdiction in England and not Navigonia. Further the contents and intention of the Letter is further questioned by the bench.

13:47 hrs

The counsel now moves to the report by quarantine officers and how they have stated about the remnants of the previous cargo. He further moves to conclude his arguments by stating the responsibility of the owner to provide the crane-man and wench-man.

14:02 hrs

The Second speaker for the Respondents starts with the issue of the Port being prospectively safe. Further she talks about embargo being the source of prospective unsafe port, which is not an inherent reason of the port being unsafe. She moves on further to the issue of renomination of the port.

14:09 hrs

The bench asks the counsel to define what a voyage exactly means and further about the date of NOR being granted. The exchange further goes on with the team being grilled on the owners of the cargo. Further submitting that the delay was caused by unforeseen circumstances.

14:14 hrs

Counsel is asked to summarize all the issue and finish the arguments in a minute. Counsel ends with the issue of payment made which was unreasonable as it was done without the agreement of the respondents.

14:19 hrs

Claimants start with Rebuttals laying down point-wise issues to which the Respondents conclude with the Sur-Rebuttals stating the answers to all the points raised by the Claimants.

14:21 hrs

This brings us to the end of Second Semi-Final. The judges and participants now break for lunch.

15:15 hrs

The results are out the finalists are NLIU & RGNUL

16:00 hrs Final (RGNUL vs NLIU)

Finals (left to right) Mr. Sameer Shah, Retd. Justice VVS Rao, Justice Dr. B R Sarangi, Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Ajay Thomas
NLIU
RGNUL

 

The Finals of the 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM) are underway. The claimants start their submissions with stating the jurisdiction clause. They further state the LMAA terms 2017 and move ahead with sating the facts of the case.

16:03 hrs

The claimant speaker contending that the Letter in question was a letter of indemnity and the respondent conceded to the fact before the actual obligation to indemnify arose.

16:09 hrs

The speaker moves onto the claims due to the presence of lumps of solidified tar. Further the Bench allows the Counsel to proceed with the issues and to be questioned later.

16:17 hrs

The speaker moves onto the issue of availability of safe port, and how it was the duty of the respondents to make availability of a safe port during the period of embargo.

16:23 hrs

The bench asks the claimants to clearly state the breaches that they are claiming against the Respondents.

16:27 hrs

The Claimants proceed with their prayer to conclude their submissions.

16:32 hrs

The Tribunal questions the claimant on their reliance over American case laws in an English Tribunal. Further they pose questions on the wordings of the LOI.

16:40 hrs

The claimants enter a detailed argument on art 5 of the Hague Visby Rules.  With this argument the claimants have rested their case.

16:48 hrs

The Tribunal is now hearing the respondents first submission wherein they seek to oust the Jurisdiction of the tribunal.

16:55 hrs

The respondent cleverly addresses the arbitrators concern briefly before deferring the question to his co-council. The respondents also seem to have worked on the feedback provided by the judges in the semis of working on their time management as they seem to be making a conscious effort to lead the tribunal to their next submission.

17:00 hrs

The Respondent speaker moves to his second issue and discusses about the clause 18 of the charter party. The bench asserts the reason for rejection was not only NWG based on the phrase ‘Inter alia’.

17:08 hrs

The Second Counsel for the respondent starts her submissions by stating that the embargo imposed is an exception to the addendum, she carries on by defining a safe port and also specifically dealing with abnormalities. Further she defines how the embargo was within the ambit of such ambiguities. She submits that the embargo enforced was not the inherent characteristics of the port and the vessel was prospectively safe.

17:16 hrs

Counsel further moves ahead and submits that the delay was caused beyond the control of the Charterers, as the entry of NWG was not prohibited and the embargo came as a jolt. She submits that the respondents were not under obligation to renominate the port as it might have been an infringement to the third party rights.

17:23 hrs

The bench asks the Respondents to clear what their counter claim is to which the counsel is unable to satisfy the bench with the submissions regarding the same.

 17:33 hrs

The bench now proceeds with questioning the claimants on their submissions. The Counsels facing a barrage of queries from the bench and are having a tough time answering them.

17:45 hrs

With this we come to the conclusion of the Finale. The winner to be announced in a few minutes.

18:30 hrs

The Valedictory ceremony is under way with the Vice Chancellor of National Law University Odisha delivering the opening address and also highlighting the importance of mooting and how the occasion in itself is an opportunity for young mooters.

The guest of honor Justice B R Sarangi relives his college days and how the mooting culture has changed from time and how more competitive it has become. He congratulated all the teams participating in the competition and wished them luck for future.

19:00 hrs

 

Winners

The Results are out

The award for Best Oralist goes to Romit Kohli from NLUD.
The award for Best Memorial goes to RMLNLU
The Runners Up are RGNUL
The Winners of 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM) are NLIU.

Dr. Ananya Chakrabarty delivered the vote of thanks and formally concluded the Competition.

This brings us to the end of The 5th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2018 (IMAM).
It was a pleasure bringing you the live blog, we will be back next year, until then Goodbye!

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1: 7th April 2017 – Registration and Inauguration

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the result-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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


Day 3 – Semi-Finals, Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Semi Finals 2 – SLS, Pune v. GNLU:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the results are announced. The winners are –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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