NALSAR is hosting the 15th edition of the NALSAR – Justice B.R. Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2022, in collaboration with the Bodh Raj Sawhny Memorial Trust.
About the Organizers
The National Academy of Legal Studies and Research is a National Law University located in Shameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Established in 1998, it is a public law school and one of the first universities in the nation to offer the five-year B.A. LL.B. course. Among the 58 institutions which were considered by the 13th Standing Committee of NAAC, NALSAR secured the highest CGPA. It is recognized worldwide for its academic excellence, innovation and holistic learning. Indisputably, NALSAR counts as one of the best law schools in the country.
About the Competition
NALSAR has previously organized several premier moot court competitions and has witnessed the participation of the brightest brains in law schools around the country. In keeping with this tradition, the university is organizing the 15th edition of the NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition in collaboration with the Justice Bodh Raj Sawhny Memorial Trust. In the last edition, we hosted Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) K.G. Balakrishnan, former Chief Justice of India as our chief guest for the Valedictory Ceremony and Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court of India and Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha as our Opening Ceremony Chief Guest. We hosted Hon’ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Hon’ble Dr. Justice (Retd.) Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija and Senior Advocate V. Mohana as Judges for the Final Round of the moot adding fame to the competition. This year moot will be held in an offline format from 14th – 16th October 2022.
Eligibility
The moot is open to all the students currently enrolled in LLB undergraduate degree courses (3 year / 5 year).
An institution can send an official team(s) representing the institution. (Registration of institution)
No more than one team may represent an institution.
A team is not permitted to have members from more than one institution.
Registration Details
Kindly complete all the registration formalities stated in the Official Rules of the moot on or before August 25, 2022 (11:59 P.M. IST).
The link to the Google form for registration is as follows: HERE
All the teams shall be required to pay INR 6500 via online bank transfer before August 25, 2022 (11:59 P.M. IST) to register for Stage 1, i.e. Memorial Evaluation Rounds.
Welcome to the 13th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2022 organized by National Law University, Jodhpur.
The Competition is scheduled from March 11 – March 13, 2022 and is being organized under the patronage of the Competition Commission of India, in collaboration with Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and our knowledge partners, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company. The Competition has always been known for its excellent mooting and judging, and this year, its bigger than ever, with 37 participating teams from some of the country’s most prestigious law schools.
We at NLU, Jodhpur believe that education unless and until complemented by intellectually invigorating challenges fails its purpose. Cognizant of this responsibility and with a vision to foster the advancement of learning and research in the field of competition law, we will ensure that this competition will help all participants hone their mooting skills along with exploring the nuances of competition law with an exciting and challenging proposition. The organizing team has left no stone unturned in their diligent endeavour to make this competition an enriching experience, this time virtually!
We welcome all the judges and the participants, and hope that we are able to make this a memorable event for all. The Moot Proposition revolves around contemporary issues in the field of competition law, including the role of sectoral regulators vis-a-vis the role of the competition authority. The proposition also entails challenging issues pertaining to cartelization and abuse of dominance by entities in the automotive manufacturing industry.
9:00 AM – Inaugural Ceremony and Exchange of Memorials
The ceremony started with a welcome address by Ms. Rishika Arya, Convenor of the Moot Court Committee. Dr. I.P. Massey, Dean of Law, and Mr. Rohan C. Thomas, Chairperson of the Moot Court Committee, virtually inaugurated the 13th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition. With this, we start with the Competition. The participants’ queries have been answered and and exchange of memorials between the teams has taken place to the satisfaction of the participants.
Inaugural Ceremony_13th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2022
The Preliminary Rounds begin at 11 a.m. All the competing teams have our best wishes.
Judges Briefing
The judges for the Preliminary Rounds have been briefed, this time through e-mail. A comprehensive bench memorial and a condensed version of the memorial prepared by the Moot Court Committee were mailed to the judges. The judges for the rounds are distinguished legal experts in their fields. Our distinguished judges are here to assess each team’s understanding and command over the law.
11:00 AM – Preliminary Rounds
With an unfettering zeal, the Preliminary Round has taken off in full swing in all the courtrooms and the teams are presenting their arguments, which they have worked tirelessly on, in high spirits. The judges are actively attempting to dissect the counsels’ arguments and the questions pour in. The teams are well prepared and they answer the questions by citing the relevant law. Following the intense mooting session, the teams also present their respective rebuttals and sur-rebuttals
Preliminary Rounds Preliminary Rounds
1:00 PM–End ofPreliminary Rounds
The competition has taken off to a spirited start as we conclude our preliminary rounds. The teams await with bated breath for the Reverse Preliminary Rounds, which will start at 3 PM. Both these rounds together will determine which teams qualify for the Octa-Finals. We look forward to seeing the teams showcasing their talent! We wish all the teams the best of luck.
3:00 PM – ReversePreliminary Rounds
All the teams are back on track with fresh energy and high spirits to present their arguments. In the Reverse Preliminary Rounds, the teams get to present arguments for the side opposite to the one they argued for in the preliminary round, to ensure fairness. The rounds are underway and the participants are putting forth some impressive arguments and showcasing their great mooting skills. May the best teams prevail!
The reverse preliminary rounds have also come to an end. The teams continued to showcase their great preparation with splendid performances. These rounds were just as heated as the preliminary rounds and with their culmination, the battle for the top 16 spots now stands concluded.
The wait for the results is finally over!
Here we present the top 16 teams that have qualified for the Octa Finals Round –
National Law University, Odisha
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
National Law School of India University, Bangalore
Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Vishakhapatnam
Gujarat National Law University
Army Institute of Law, Mohali
National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
National Law Institute University, Bhopal
Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirapalli
NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
It has been an exhilarating experience so far. We excitedly await to see what tomorrow holds for us. Our best wishes to all the teams.
DAY – 2
It is the 2nd day as sixteen teams are ready and eager to fight it out in the Octa-Final Rounds of the 13th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2022. The teams have had the night to prepare themselves and we look forward to some inspired rounds of mooting!
9:00 AM–Octa-Final Rounds
The stage is all set with the commencement of the exciting Octa-Final Rounds, with the teams pitted against one another for a thrilling show of events. We anxiously wait to find out which of the teams’ manage to keep their wits and make it to the next rounds of the Competition.
Octa-Final Rounds
Octa-Final Rounds
11:00 AM – End of Octa-Final Rounds
With the teams continuing to exhibit great argumentation and mooting skills, the Octa-Final Rounds have finally concluded. Here are the teams qualifying to the Quarter Finals-
TNNLS Tiruchirappalli National Law Institute University, Bhopal Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad Army Institute of Law, Mohali Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad NLU Odisha Symbiosis Law School, Pune
1:00 PM – 3:00 PM–Quarter-Final Rounds
The qualifying teams charge forward with zeal as the Quarter Final Rounds commence! The teams are well prepared and they answer the questions posed by the judges confidently by citing relevant legal provisions and precedents.
Quarter-Final Rounds
Quarter-Final Rounds
4:30 PM: The much awaited results of the Quarter-Final Rounds have been declared. Following a tremendous effort from everyone, the following teams have advanced to the Semi-Finals-
Army Institute of Law, Mohali Symbiosis Law School, Pune NLIU, Bhopal Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad
5:00 PM – Semi-Final Rounds
Court Room – 1
Army Law Institute, Mohali versus Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad was a fierce round of arguments and counter-arguments. The learned bench comprised of Mr. Abir Roy, Mr. Mohan Ronanki and Mr. Bharat Budholia. The round began with the team from Army Law Institute, Mohali presenting their arguments as Appellants. The first speaker for appellant dealt with the first and fourth issue. The counsel was grilled on the facts of the case as well as the similarity with issues and facts of the cases relied upon by the counsel in his speech. He handled the questions very well. The second speaker dealt with the second and third issue of the proposition. Counsel was questioned thoroughly regarding the applicable law and its applicability to the facts of the case. The appellants concluded with an extension of 12 minutes. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad then took over as Respondents. The first speaker addressed the first and second issue of the proposition. The counsel was grilled by all three judges regarding the jurisdiction of the competent court in the first issue. He handled all questions tactfully and the judges seemed satisfied by the reasoning provided. The second speaker dealt with the third and fourth issues. The judges at the outset stated the argument made by counsel for appellant and asked the counsel to rebut the same. The counsel handled all questions well. The Respondents concluded with an extension of 9 minutes. Fine speaking skills were put on display by all the participants. The teams showed a thorough knowledge of the law and cited various authorities to back their arguments. It was a closely contested round, adding to the anticipation of the results.
Semi-Final Rounds
Court Room – 2
The Court Room was charged with enthusiasm and energy as National Law Institute University, Bhopal and Symbiosis Law School, Pune competed against each other. The learned bench comprised of Mr. Rahul Rai, Mr. Rudresh Singh, and Ms. Sunaina Dutta. The round began with the team from Symbiosis Law School, Pune presenting their arguments as Appellants. Speaker 1 from the Appellant’s side argued on the anti-competitive nature of the agreement and the anti-competitive effect in the market for electric automobiles. Speaker 2 cited practical examples to support his arguments. Both the speakers cited strong authorities coupled with relevant facts to support their arguments. An extension of approximately 3 minutes was granted to both the speakers by the judges. National Law Institute University, Bhopal then took over as Respondents. Speaker 1 from the side of the Respondent began by arguing on monopoly in the relevant market and abuse of dominant position. Both the speakers were questioned on the case laws and other authorities that they had cited. The Counsels also demonstrated the harms caused by sharing sensitive information among the competitors. An extension of 3 minutes was granted to both the speakers by the judges. The rounds were indeed highly charged with display of excellent mooting skills and greatly nuanced legal arguments from both the parties.
Semi-Final Rounds
7:30 PM: The much awaited results of the Semi-Final Rounds have been declared and the teams qualifying to the Final Rounds of the 13th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2022 are –
National Law Institute University, Bhopal
Army Institute of Law, Mohali
With this, we come to the conclusion of Day 2. It has been an enthralling experience so far. We excitedly await to see what tomorrow holds for us. Our best wishes to all the teams.
DAY-3 – Final Rounds
Welcome Back to the 13th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2022!
10:05 AM: The final rounds between Army Institute of Law Mohali and National Law Institute University, Bhopal are about to begin!The Final Round of the Competition is being judged by a varied panel of eminent lawyers and economists. Ms. Payal Malik is the Advisor and Head of the Economics Division at the Competition Commission of India. Dr. Geeta Gouri is a former Member of the Competition Commission of India. Prof. Harpreet Kaur is a Professor of Law and the Registrar of National Law University, Delhi. Mr. Ram Kumar Poornachandaran is a Partner at AZB & Partners. Mr. Yaman Verma is a Partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
10:09 AM: The final rounds have begun with the team from Army Institute of Law, Mohali presenting their arguments as Appellants. The first speaker for the Appellants begins with the first issue relating to jurisdiction. The speaker starts by citing the case of CCI v. Bharti Airtel, to argue that the sectoral regulator in the instant case i.e., TRAI should be given primacy in jurisdiction over the Competition Authority. The researcher assists the speaker by sharing the relevant paragraphs from the case compendium for the judges’ convenience. Before moving on to the second issue, the judges ask few questions and these are tackled skillfully and swiftly by the counsel!
Final Rounds
10:20 AM: The judges are grilling the counsel on the legal aspects but he remains unfazed and answers the questions to the satisfaction of the judges. Dr. Geeta Gouri raises a pertinent question regarding necessity to look into the relevant market when discussing the issue surrounding the licensing arrangement.
10:40 AM: The counsel uses a pie chart to explain the market division in the automobile industry. The counsel argues that Eitri does not hold a dominant position in the relevant market. The counsel also argues that even if Eitri is found to be dominant, it has not abused its dominant position and that it has not employed predatory pricing. The counsel concludes and passes the baton to his co-counsel.
Final Rounds
11:05 AM: The second speaker takes the podium and starts presenting the arguments. The first issue that he deals with is whether Eitri has violated Section 3(4)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002. The speaker argues that the agreement between Eitri and Ultron does not impose an absolute restriction, and thus, is not violative of Section 3(4)(c). After a bout of questions from the judges, the counsel concedes that the JV does put a restriction, however, such restriction is reasonable.
11:30 AM: The speaker contends that Eitri is not dominant in the relevant market since the requisite thresholds are not met. Herein, Mr. Yaman Verma asks whether the market dominance of Ultron would be relevant while analysing a possible violation of Section 3(4), given that Ultron is the sole supplier of 8G UHF and the exclusive supply agreement with Eitri, proscribes other competitors to enter the market.
11:40 AM: Ms. Payal Malik asks the speaker to address the issue of whether there is distribution agreement between Eitri and Ultron, and whether there is any verticality i.e., whether Ultron and Eitri operate in the same level of production or not. The speaker answers that there is no verticality between the parties and cites relevant authorities.
11:48 AM: The Appellants after concluding their arguments on the fourth issue vis a vis violation of Section 3, rest their case. The Respondents have begun now.
11:50 AM: Speaker 1 starts with requesting the researcher to share the memo, and explaining the issue division. Speaker 1 begins with Issue 1 dealing with jurisdictional tussle between TRAI and NFTC. He starts by laying down the factual matrix relevant to his argument.
11:55 AM: Beginning with the first leg, the speaker submits that the Bharti Airtel case will not be applicable to the present case as issues before the Competition Authority and Telecom Regulator were inherently different. Ms. Payal Malik questions the speaker regarding necessity of delineating relevant market in this issue to which he answers that relevant market is of no consequence to the issue at hand.
Final Rounds
12:10 PM: Ms. Geeta Gouri asks whether TRAI has the right to intervene in a licensing decision to which the speaker answers that the question would be discussed in detail by the second speaker. The speaker goes on to argue that principle of sub-judice will not be applicable, and relies on Steel Authority of India v. CCI case, and submits that the proceedings before TRAI are administrative, and not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature.
12:20 PM: Moving to Issue 4, the speaker relies on the Flashlights case and contends that there is a violation of Section 3 in the instant case. Ms. Payal Malik then questioned the speaker on the standard of evidence being presented and whether Whatsapp chats and emails are admissible. The speaker swiftly answered this question by stating that when we combine electronic and circumstantial evidence, that suffices to make it admissible. The speaker asks for extension of time, which is granted by the bench. Prof. Harpreet Kaur asks for a clarification on whether the effect of the JV on customers needs to be looked into to figure out pro -competitiveness. The Speaker answers stating that based on rule of reason under Section 19(3), benefits to customers needs to be examined, and states that there is no benefit accruing to consumers. The speaker then summarises his arguments and passes the baton to his co-counsel.
Final Rounds
12:40 PM: The Counsel starts by presenting arguments on Issue 2, which pertains to whether there is a violation of Section 3(4) of the Competition Act. Ms. Payal asks the speaker to provide the bench with precedents wherein there was no absolute restriction and reasonability of restriction was determined. The Speaker is also questioned on whether there was any other player in the market which had the capabilities of harnessing 8G for remote charging when the investigation was carried. The speaker states that there is no mention of presence of other competitors in the Proposition.
12:50 PM: Speaker 2 starts with Issue 3, which deals with abuse of dominance. First, the speaker states that in the electric automotive industry, the very fact that Eitri’s market share is over 50% shows that they are the dominant player. This Counsel submits that this coupled with the fact that there is dependence of consumers on Eitri helps in establishing dominant position. The speaker cites the Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages case to argue that high level of vertical integration leads to high level of dependence. Second, the speaker states that by application of the essential facilities doctrine, one cannot refuse access to an essential facility to other competitors and that in this case, the 8G facility is an essential facility, which is impossible to replicate because it is a completely different network spectrum. Concluding her arguments, the speaker submit that Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act have been violated by Eitri.
1:00 PM: REBUTTAL – The Speaker from the side of the Appellant states that the Respondents were unable to prove why the ratio of Bharti Airtel case will be inapplicable in the present case. The Speaker also states that the Respondents were unable to show how the JV was not efficient, other than the cost factor. The Counsel concludes on the note that market share alone is not sufficient for proving dominance.
SURREBUTTAL – The Speaker from the side of the Respondent address all the points raised in the Rebuttals. With respect to dominance, they state that apart from market share, there are other factors as well, such as vertical integration by Eitri and dependence of consumers.
Final Rounds
With this, we come to the conclusion of the Final Rounds of the 13th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2022. What an engaging session it has been, with the judges asking interesting and pertinent questions, to test the knowledge and the depth of research undertaken by the parties. The Results will be announced in the Valedictory Ceremony, which will commence at 3:00 PM today. We look forward to seeing you there!
3:00 PM – Valedictory Ceremony
The moment you all have been waiting for is finally here! After months of research, practice, and hard work, the winning team gets to take it all! The following are participants that have emerged victorious at the rounds!
Winning Team: Team 006 (Army Institute of Law, Mohali) Runners-Up Team: Team 017 (NLIU, Bhopal) Best Memoranda: Team 009 (NLU, Odisha) Best Student Advocate: Palak Jagetia (RMLNLU) Second Best Student Advocate: Swechchha Singh (RMLNLU) Best Student Advocate of the Finals: Ranjul Malik (Army Institute of Law, Mohali)
Valedictory Ceremony
This marks the conclusion of the 13th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2022. This edition of the Anti-trust Moot Court Competition was like none other before! It had us tackling new challenges on almost every front. With this edition, we reached a new milestone and were able to livestream the Final Rounds on Youtube for all viewers! The successful completion of the event, leaves us wishing we had the warm opportunity of hosting the judges and the teams on campus. We hope that during the course of the Competition, the participants found chances to grow, and developed fondness for the law. At the end of these three days, we sincerely hope that we have been able to deliver the expectations that the participants and the judges had from us. See you all next year, but hopefully not virtually!
Government Law College, Mumbai, in association with the Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Initiative for Climate Action, presents the 3rd Wildlife Protection Government Law College National Online Moot Court Competition, 2021.
The Wildlife Protection Government Law College National Online Moot Court Competition is India’s first wildlife conservation-focused Moot Court Competition. This years’ event marks its third edition, with the view of creating awareness on the challenges faced by wildlife among law students. The Competition is scheduled to be held online from 26th to 28th November, 2021.
Government Law College, Mumbai, is pleased to invite a team from your esteemed institution to participate in the enriching experience of this Moot Court Competition. The theme for this year’s Moot Proposition is Compensation as a tool to mitigate human- wildlife conflict.
Organisers:
Government Law College, Mumbai,established in 1855 is the oldest law college in Asia, a pioneer in legal education – an institution par excellence. The generations of legal luminaries who have been nurtured by this unique institution have made a seminal contribution to the evolution of the Indian Legal System.
Wildlife Conservation Trust (WCT) was envisioned to preserve and protect India’s rich natural heritage. Currently, WCT works in and around 160 Protected Areas across 23 states in the country covering 82% of India’s 50 tiger reserves. WCT aims to reduce anthropogenic pressure on forests and river systems with the involvement of the forest department, local communities, corporates and other NGOs, with a firm belief in landscape-level conservation, factoring in the needs of people dependent on these forests.
Government Law College, Mumbai and Wildlife Conservation Trust are pleased to announce Initiative for Climate Action (ICA) as our Knowledge Partner and DSP Investment Managers as our Supporting Partners forthe 3rd Wildlife Protection Government Law College National Online Moot Court Competition, 2021.
The ICA is a Bangalore-based transformative climate action non- profit with a vision that imagines, enables and accelerates low- carbon and zero- carbon futures of justice and sustainability. The ICA is currently focusing on developing and disseminating contextual and actionable climate knowledge and building collaborative frameworks that enable people to work together to solve complex climate problems.
DSP Investment Managers (DSPIM) is an Indian asset management company (AMC), with a wide range of offerings across the risk-reward spectrum. DSPIM is backed by the 150+ year old DSP Group which has been very influential in the growth and professionalization of capital markets and the money management business in India. DSPIM has been an avid supporter of WCT’s initiatives & projects since several years. DSPIM is enthusiastic of its support to ‘Combating Wildlife Crime’ Project and looks forward to battling this grave issue and making a difference together. Visit us on www.dspim.com for more.
Competition Details:
The Moot Proposition of the competition primarily deals with issues relating to Wildlife and Forest Law, highlighting the emerging legal landscape, and has been drafted by experts in the field. The participants will be made to go through extensive Mooting Rounds, to ensure that only the two best teams reach the Final Round of Arguments. All participants must present their Written Submissions prior to the Competition.
The Moot Court Competition will be conducted over three days where the participating teams will go through two Preliminary Rounds of Argument, Quarter-Final Rounds of Argument, the Semi-Final Rounds of Argument and ultimately, the Final Round of Arguments. Eminent lawyers and Judges of the highest standing in India, academicians and experts in the field of wildlife and forest law shall converge to adjudicate the various rounds of the Competition.
A unique feature of our Competition is a Panel Discussion which witnesses the representation of eminent personalities from the field of environmental law, wildlife conservation, media, etc. The panel discussion will provide teams the opportunity to learn from and interact with these diverse professionals.
Registrations:
Registrations for the competition are now open. Your esteemed university can provisionally register for the competition by sending an email to wpm.glc@gmail.com stating your interest to register. Please note that registration is on a first-come first-serve basis. Participation is limited to 18 teams.
Only after the provisional registration has been confirmed will a link to a Google Form and details for the payment of registration fees be provided. The payment of registration fees will be through NEFT in the amount of Rs. 1,800/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred only) the details of which will be provided once the provisional registration has been confirmed.
Please note that the teams must fill in the registration form and make the payment via NEFT before 26th September, 2021, latest. The teams will be required to upload the screenshot/proof of the same while filling the google form for registration.
If you require any further information or assistance with respect to this competition, you may email us at wpm.glc@gmail.com or mcaglc@gmail.com
Eligibility:
Participants must be current students of any recognised law college in the country. Each team shall comprise three students- two speakers and one researcher.
Moot Schedule:
Last date for registration for the competition: 26th September, 2021
Last date to seek clarifications: 30th September, 2021
Last date of submission of soft copies of Memorials: 27th October, 2021
The Army Institute of Law (AIL) was established in July 1999 by the Indian Army under the aegis of the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) at its interim location at Patiala. In July 2003, the Institute shifted to Sector 68, Mohali. On December 1, 2003, the Mohali Campus was inaugurated by H.E. Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the then President of India.
The Institute is affiliated to the Punjabi University, Patiala and approved by the Bar Council of India. With ‘Aspire & Achieve’ as its motto, the Institute has grown as a Centre of Excellence in the field of legal education. AIL has a magnificent residential campus in an impressive architectural structure in the vicinity of Chandigarh and Punjab & Haryana High Court. It conducts a five year BA.LLB and a one year LL.M course.
About the Moot:
The Army Institute of Law, Mohali, has designed as a part of its endeavour to provide, facilitate and expose the student community towards criminal law and takes immense pleasure in announcing the 11th Edition of the Checkmate National Moot Court Competition, 2021. The competition is scheduled to be held from 29th – 30th October 2021, on a virtual platform. The moot will be judged by legal luminaries who have expertise incriminal law.
Eligibility:
Participation is open for bona-fide students who are either pursuing 3-year L.L.B. course or the 5-year integrated law course during the current academic year. Only one team from each participating college shall be registered for the competition. Each team shall comprise either three members (two Speakers and one Researcher) or two members (two Speakers) only.
Note- No faculty member, coach, observer, or a designated observer or fourth member is allowed to accompany the team, and neither will be allowed to join the video-conferencing nor the chat room during the session.
The oral rounds shall comprise of:
Preliminary Rounds (Memorial based selection)
Octa/Quarter/Semi and Final Rounds (via videoconferencing)
Registration Details:
The teams should provisionally register through by sending an email to ailcheckmate2021@gmail.com (with subject – Moot Court Registration Checkmate 2021) by 30th September, 2021.
Only 32 teams will be registered to participate in the competition on a first-come-first-serve basis.
Once the provisional registration is confirmed, the Registration Fee: Rs 2500/- (non-refundable) for each participating team, is to be submitted by 5th October, 2021, through online transaction by clicking on the link: HERE
Teams are required to send the scanned copy of the receipt of payment of Rs. 2500/- paid using online mode, along with the duly filled registration form and scanned college ID card should be sent on or before 5th October, 2021, via email to ailcheckmate2021@gmail.com.
Important Dates:
Release of Proposition and Rules: 20th September, 2021
Deadline for Provisional Registration: 30th September, 2021
Deadline for submission of registration form and fee: 5th October, 2021
Deadline for seeking clarifications to propositions: 7th October, 2021
Release of Clarifications: 9th October, 2021
Deadline for submission of Memorials (Soft Copy only): 20th October, 2021
Declaration of result of Memorial on or before: 26th October, 2021
Best Researcher: Rupees 4,000/- Note: All the Participants will get participation certificates. E-Certificates shall be mailed to the teams within fifteen days from the event.
Contact Details:
For further clarifications or queries, you may contact the undersigned Organizing Committee members or else can contact through e-mail at: ailcheckmate2021@gmail.com
Event Coordinator:
Dr. Bajirao A Rajwade
[ 9988813531/9814013531]
Student Convenors :
Ms. Dilisha D Nair: +91 9818519686
Mr. Devyang Bahri: +91 7986784257
Please find the rules, moot prop and registration form Here
About the Institute
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University was established in the year 2000 with the vision to maintain and promote excellence in education and for imparting quality professional education comparable with the best in the world.
About the Moot
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies (VSLLS), announces VIPS International Law Moot Court Competition (Online) 2022, In The Memory of Dr. Deepti Kohli from 10th-13th February, 2022.
Eligibility
The Competition is open to all bona fide regular students enrolled in any Law Course (LLB/ LLM) or its (equivalent international) programme in any University or Institute within or outside India recognized by the Bar Council or State Government or Central Government as the case may be.
Each team shall comprise a minimum of two members i.e two speakers and a maximum of three members i.e. two speakers and one researcher. Thus, each team shall be composed of two speakers (Compulsory) and researchers (if any). A maximum of two teams are allowed to participate in the competition from one college/institute/university.
Fee Details
The registration fee of Rs 3,500/- for each participating team consisting of 2 or 3 members is to be submitted via online transaction by 30th November, 2021 by 11:59 p.m. (IST)
Registration
To register online please click on the link below: Click HERE
Important Dates
Last Date of Registration – 30th November, 2021 by 11:59 PM (IST)
Release of Moot Problem – 13th September, 2021
Clarifications to Moot Problem – 9th January, 2022 by 11:59 PM (IST)
GITAM School of Law, GITAM Deemed to be University, Visakhapatnam organized the Dr. MVVS Murthi National Moot Competition on Space Law 2020. The event was organised from 5th March to 8th March 2020 at School of Law, GITAM Deemed to be University, Visakhapatnam. The sole objective of this Moot Competition was to provide the students with an opportunity to develop their interpersonal & Advocacy skills. Participation in Moot Court Competition enhances the art of researching and the oratory skills of a student while prepping the student to face the realms of a courtroom. It also aids in confidence-building. Mooting gives a practical courtroom experience to a law student. The teams contend for 4 categories of awards – Winners, Runners Up, Best Speaker and Best Memorial with Prizes ranging from INR 10,000 to 50,000.
DAY 1: Team Registration and Inaugural Ceremony
Registration (11 A.M to 1:00 P.M) – All the participants from various Law Schools across the country had flown down to Visakhapatnam and reached the college campus and were being accompanied by the hospitality committee and were allotted accommodation soon after the registration process.
Inaugural (3:00 P.M to 4:15 P.M) –Astha and Kaarvannan, final year students of GITAM School of Law had compèred the Inaugurals. It was pleasing to have students in large numbers who had registered for this Moot Court Competition. All the Faculty members of GITAM School of Law had graced the occasion. The Guests on the dais were asked to lighten up the lamp as a sign of good omen and followed by a prayer for creating a spiritual awakening.
While delivering the inaugural address of National Moot Court Competition which had been organised in memory of the Founder President of GITAM Deemed to be University Dr. MVVS Murthi, the Vice-Chancellor Professor Siva Rama Krishna, GITAM Deemed to be University stated that it is the “skill set” which makes an ordinary person to be a professional, in specific lawyers need to be refined honing the skills for the upliftment of society and cater the needs of the justice system. Vice-Chancellor extended his best wishes to all the participants of the competition by inspiring words of encouragement.
The Succeeding Speech was delivered by Professor R Anita Rao, the Director of GITAM School of Law and briefed upon the implications of an Advocacy, need for negotiation, counseling, and presentation skills which are an intricate part of the professional engagement. Professor Rao welcomed the gathering with a note of thanks to the participants who came from different parts of the country. She expressed a model draft bill on Space Law will be the outcome of the present Competition which will be submitted to PMO’s office. Further Professor Rao announced that in the future, International Moot Court Competitions will be a part of the GITAM School of Law domain.
The Guest of honour Shri MVKV Prasad, Chief Scientist, GITAM and former Director, Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), under the DRDO, exclaimed that it is the Law fraternity which binds the society collectively, failure of which the society will result in anarchy. Sharing his International experience from Japan, Israel and other countries scientist remarked the technicalities of space technology can be estimated but the damage done by nuclear weapons is unavailable and beyond human intervention, hence it will wise for the future generation to carry research on the “LAW” (Lethal Autonomous Weapon) and thus he concluded his speech and received an exuberant applause from the audience.
To conclude with a formal vote of thanks was delivered by Mr. Vardhman Panwar, Assistant Professor of Law, GITAM School of Law. And had invited the participants for a short refreshment break and also requested the teams to proceed for the draw of lots and the researcher test.
Draw of Lots/ Researcher Test (4:30 P.M to 5:00 P.M) – All the registered teams were present during the Draw of Lots and the Researcher Test, as soon after the researcher test was over the teams were being matched up against each other using the draw of lots system and all the teams got to know their contending teams for the Preliminary rounds and their memorials were being exchanged.
DAY 2: PRELIMINARY ROUND 1
10:00 A.M – Judges Briefing: The judges across the sub-continent had come to witness and test the prowess of the participants.
10:40 A.M – Commencement of Preliminary Round
Courtroom no. 1:
Proceedings of Courtroom no. 1
The courtroom comprised of the Judges: Mrs. Vasundhara Ravi and Mr. D. Ashish, the first contenders of the day were D.Y Patil Law College, Navi Mumbai against RGNUL, Patiala. After the submissions of the memorials the respective counsels had put forth their arguments and Judges asked some intriguing questions in return to the counsels.
Courtroom no. 4:
As quoted by William Wycherley: “Bluster, Sputter, Question, Cavil; but be sure your argument be intricate enough to confound the court”. Team SOEL, Chennai dueled against DSNLU, Visakhapatnam as they had a heated exchange of arguments in the rebuttal session, the judges were thoroughly satisfied by the arguments put forth by both the parties.
Courtroom no. 5:
Arguments being put forth by the counsels in Courtroom no. 5
Presidency School of Law, Bangalore faced off Symbiosis Law School, Pune were the counsels of respondents had posed questions on Good faith and also added that the counsels representing the petitioners lacked strict liability. The Judges raised a question on negligence lying down on part of the counsel.
Courtroom no.6:
In this courtroom the Judge: Mrs. Delhi Chandana had demanded the petitioners NUSRL, Ranchi to define “Opinio Juris” in customary law. The respondents HNLU, Raipur had elucidated the facts further to get a clear purview.
12:00 P.M Lunch Break
After the sessions were concluded the participants alongside Judges relished upon the delicacies being served to them for lunch before getting back to another grueling session of Preliminary Round 2.
Judge for Preliminary round L.Venkateswarlu (Advocate, Visakhapatnam) being felicitated by Director, GITAM School of Law, alongside Faculty Convener L. Ashish Kumar
PRELIMINARY ROUND 2
2:00 P.M-
Soon after a short lunch break, the Preliminary Round 2 sessions commenced and the teams were once again ready to fight back their opponents.
Courtroom no.2:
The team representing Christ School of Law, Bangalore contended against D.Y Patil College, Navi Mumbai the defendants fell short in submitting the provisions concerning their submissions. The plaintiff countered defendants with strong contentions and the defendants gave a befitting reply to the plaintiffs.
Courtroom no.3:
The plaintiffs began to state the facts and the judges-imposed questions of the binding effect of ICJ. The defendants were questioned regarding the negligence during the misplacement or disconnection of the satellite. The teams Vels School of Law, Chennai and NUSRL, Ranchi were equally matched in terms of research and it all came down to the oral presentations.
Courtroom no. 5:
Counsel at Courtroom no. 5 arguing before the Judge.
The teams Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, and Symbiosis Law School, Pune faced off each other, the Judges were of poised opinion upon the submissions, the rebuttals and surrebuttals had put their brotherhood to test.
Courtroom no.6:
Counsels appeasing the Judges in Courtroom no. 6
HNLU, Raipur was up against SOEL, Chennai, the counsels argued that the mistake of morality can’t be vehemently termed as a mistake of law. The counsels later put forth amicable arguments in rebuttals and sur rebuttals.
3:00 P.M– Declaration of Results
After the sessions got over the teams were enthralled and eagerly waiting for the results to be declared, and soon after some time the results were declared and the teams which advanced to the Quarterfinals were as follows:
D.Y Patil College of Law, Navi Mumbai
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Presidency School of Law, Bangalore
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
Hidayuttulah National Law University, Raipur
Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam
National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
Interaction with the Judges
DAY 3: QUARTERFINALS & SEMIFINALS
10:30 A.M– Commencement of Quarterfinal Rounds
The third day witnessed the Quarterfinals between the eight teams vying for a spot in Semi-finals, where the courtroom no. 1 yet again had a face-off between the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad and the Symbiosis Law School, Pune, where the judges questioned upon the applicability of UDHR with respect to Space Law. The Kessler’s Syndrome and Space Tourism became a subject matter of contention between the teams of DSNLU, Visakhapatnam and D.Y Patil College of Law, Navi Mumbai in the courtroom no.2. The counsels from the team Presidency School of Law, Bangalore, and HNLU, Raipur had presented their contestations based upon the Statutes of ICJ and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Courtroom no.4 had the team NUSRL, Ranchi squared up against RGNUL, Patiala both the teams articulated pretty well and the Judges had put their legal prowess into the test, and the counsels had defended their stance equally.
1:00 P.M – Announcement of Quarter Final Results
Out of eight teams, four made their way into the Semifinals of the competition and the teams which advanced are as follows:
NUSRL, Ranchi
HNLU, Raipur
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
DSNLU, Visakhapatnam
02:40 P.M – SEMIFINAL 1
Semifinal 1 was judged by a bench of potent legal personalities Dr. Mathew Thomas and Mr. Ashwani Kumar, as they keenly waited for the counsels of Symbiosis Law School, Pune, and DSNLU, Visakhapatnam to propound their submissions. The counsels argued on various matters including:- Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines laid down by the UNOOSA, “Res Communis” and the Doctrine of Due Diligence. The bench was finical about each argument being put forth and were quite inquisitive towards the counsels.
Semifinal 1 adjudged by Mr. Mathew Thomas & Mr. Ashwani Kumar
Semifinal 2 presided by the Judges: Bhavani Prasad Panda & Dayananda Murthy
04:00 P.M – SEMIFINAL 2
The Semifinal 2 gripped us with a well-established and versatile bench comprising of judges Mr. Bhavani Prasad Panda and Mr. Dayananda Murthy. The memorials and legal noesis of the teams HNLU, Raipur and NUSRL, Ranchi were scrutinised by the judges, the marrow of arguments being: Vienna Convention and Article 15 of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, heightening the curiosity in the court hall. The Chanakya disaster and high seas laws were a part of the submission made by the counsels. The bench analysed the expertise of the counsels on the subject matter.
06:00 P.M – Semifinal Round Results
The results for the much-awaited semi-finals were announced, and the teams which marched into the finals were:
Symbiosis Law School Pune
HNLU, Raipur
DAY 4: FINALS AND VALEDICTORY CEREMONY
Hon’ble Justice Ch. Kodanda Ram and Hon’ble Justice D.V.S.S Somayajulu
Counsels pleading before the bench
02:00 P.M – Final Rounds
The most awaited finals were between Symbiosis Law School, Pune, and HNLU, Raipur the presiding Judges for the bench were: Hon’bleJustice D.V.V.S Somayajulu, Judge, A.P High Court Amaravathi and Hon’ble Justice Kodanda Ram, Judge, High Court for the State of Telangana. As they patiently contemplated the arguments presented by the counsels. The essence of the submissions made were of standard liability ( Article 3 of Liability Convention) long term sustainability guidelines, contamination of outer space in the form of space debris( Article 9 of UNOOSA), state responsibility under International Law (Article 1), the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea ( Rule 7(3) COLREGs) also played a crucial role in deciding the liability. The counsels laid down certain precedents viz. Nagymaro case and Uganda case. The teams had stated the legal maxis, “Lex specialis derogat legi Generalis” and “Actus curiae neminem grabavit”. The bench was witty and vigorous enough in questioning the counsels throughout the session. Both the teams were equally conversant with the facts and arguments, keeping the hall engaged from the very beginning till the end.
04:00 P.M – High Tea Break
The Judges, participants, and the spectators were being served with refreshments.
04:30 P.M – Valedictory Ceremony
Judges on the dais alongside Vice Chairman GITAM University and Director GITAM School of Law
As quoted by William Shakespeare “All’s well that ends well; still the fine is the crown, whate’er the course, the end is the renown”, The much-anticipated moment had come but before proceeding towards the declaration of results, the judges on dais were asked to share their wisdom along with the participants and spectators. The Vice-Chancellor Professor Siva Rama Krishna, GITAM Deemed to be University stated that whether it was winning or losing the teams had given their best shot and in the end, it is only the experience which one derives helps to thrive in his/her profession and wished all the teams success in their future endeavours. Professor R. Anita Rao, Director GITAM School of Law had thanked the Judges and the participants for their presence, Professor Rao stated that the presence of Hon’ble Justice Ch. Kodanda Ram and Justice D.V.S.S Somayajulu had appraised the moot court competition and the four days that had gone by gave a glimpse of a vibrant future. The teams across the nation have put forth their notions with noesis and vigour with emesis of new perspectives and trains of thought. Hon’bleJustice D.V.S.S Somayajulu his lordship had foregrounded the role of moot court competition and how it helps to shape a student’s career and the spectators were completely enticed by the coruscating wit yet thought-provoking speech given by his lordship. Hon’bleJustice Ch. Kodanda Ram his lordship shared his personal experiences and his perspective upon the ongoing scenario of law school teachings and how there was a rampant change within a span of two decades and how efficient the law schools have become to mould bright students who serve the society and wished the participants and the students a successful career ahead.
05:00 P.M – Announcement of Results
The hall was filled with silence and delirium in anticipation of the results, both the teams were anxious to know the results, and finally, the silence was broken and the results announced were as follows:
Winners
Winners–HNLU, Raipur
Runner’s Up
Runner’s Up – Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Best Memorial – DSNLU, Visakhapatnam
Best Speaker – DSNLU, Visakhapatnam
Best Researcher – Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
05:30 P.M – Vote of Thanks
Vote of Thanks by Faculty Convener
Faculty Convener L. Ashish Kumar, Assistant Professor, GITAM School of Law had addressed the gathering with a vote of thanks, he professed his heartfelt gratitude to each and every individual involved towards the grand success of the event and congratulated the teams for their participation.
12:03 PM: The Rounds Begin. We can see the nervousness and confidence on the faces of all the participants. Judges asking the claimant and respondents to discuss among themselves first about the procedures. Judges asked the participants as to who wants to go and present their arguments first along with their time slot. Claimant are saying that they should first go with the jurisdiction aspect and respondents agree on that. Claimant just started with arguments but judges asked them about the important facts of the case. Claimant are asking judges to refer to different pages to prove their case.
12:16 PM: The judges start with their grilling questions. Judges are asking if we have the alternative jurisdiction, why aren’t the parties approaching that forum. Claimant have put all the blame on respondent as that they are not understanding their issues. On that note judges asked the claimant to refer to mail send by respondents. Claimant states that the stringent attitude of respondents didn’t bring them to an amicable solution.
12:25PM: Time is over but the judges are still grilling the speaker 1 with their tricky questions. Claimant said if arbitration won’t work here, they will go to the court to get their rights. Claimant’ first speaker asked for one more minute to summarise her issues. Judges asked the time keeper to deduct the rebuttal time as speaker one exceeded the time by 4 minutes.
12:30PM: Speaker 2 started with her impressive arguments by cutting her time so that they speak for rebuttals. Judges asked the claimant whether they gone through the minute points or judgement which they are submitting or not. Respondents are discussing among themselves about the flawed points raised by claimant.
12:42PM: Judges give 1 minute to the claimant for them to summarise their arguments. Judges asked the respondent about the judgement raised by claimant whether it is overruled and if claimant are misleading the court. Claimant closing their arguments said that they are not liable to pay their damages. Judges gave 2 min to respondent to start.
12:48PM: Here the respondents started throwing their arguments to save themselves. The judges started grilling them about on the procedures. Respondent looking tensed on the questions asking by the judges. But she regain her confidence and answering judges with their arguments. Respondents ask to let them move to their second submission to prove the 1st argument. She is stuck in the question asked by judges with the definition of freight.
13:03PM: Judges throwing questions on respondents and now respondents are in fits. Counsel seeks permission for extension of 2 min to prove their points against claimant. Now the speaker 2 of respondents started to solve 3 issues. Judges asked the speaker 2 to refer to problem to get them stuck them in their own argument. Judges confirming the procedure and law quoted by claimant to respondents. Judges asked whether you know the procedure, answer YES or NO. They say YES it’s given in the manual. Judges asked to show the manual but sadly they don’t have that.
13:23- Judges said that they are not agreeing to the point states by respondent . And the rebuttals started with points from claimant side in one mint they have to rebutt the points quoted by respondents. Due to shortage of time and a lot to speak, Claimant speaker is running like Rajdhani express. And here the respondent superfast express also started for one minute to clear their way to win the prelims.
13:29- And TIME OVER
13:42- Feedback session begins.
COURT ROOM 2: (107C v. 112R)
12:10- The court room 2 started with the first session of the day.
As soon as the Claimant’s first speaker started, she was soon interrupted. Not by the judges, but by the noises of the fan. Quite funny.
She had a calm and very peculiar way of speaking. As if she’s explaining a 3 year old. And the speaker seems to be very well acquainted with her issues, she had all the time to explain her arguments. Judges just inquired a bit so as to check the knowledge and grip of the speaker. She tackled every question calmly. Judges appeared to be satisfied.
12:25: Contrary to speaker one, speaker two is very bold in the manner of putting her arguments. All her arguments revolve around the matter related to loading. The bench interrupted with a few factual questions, which the speaker has already anticipated. Yet, it can be observed that facts aren’t in their side, hence they had problems in convincing the judges.
But the 2nd judge asked practical and analytical questions. “indeed Mr. President, but Mr. President”, that’s how the speaker two of the claimant side gives clarifications.
12:50- Speaker-1 of the respondent’s side started with a question apparently. Speaker didn’t have a great start, he seems to stumble with his arguments, the bench didn’t leave the chance to exploit this. He has to be careful, because his loudness is bothering the judges, beware! Don’t get too friendly with the judges, the bench made this very clear by repetitive questioning. It takes a turn into a debate, his partners are worried. Judge 3 gives a warning! “you should be clear in your submissions”.
1:15- 2nd speaker started with her issues. She speaks with an authority. The bench has started to ask a lot of questions, hardly giving time to the respondents to put forth her arguments. It can be noticed that the issues which respondents take up, seem to get attention of the judges as if they are incorrect or objectionable, hence a lot of interruptions from them. Respondents and judges share a lot of smiles while the session continued. The respondent side is very adamant on what they are saying, neglecting what judge questions. It took hardly any time for the judge’s to figure this out.
1:30- Claimant started with the rebuttals, with paucity of time, she hurried through her arguments. Document submission added to her misery. Judges were satisfied as they smiled towards respondents. Grilling wasn’t helping them at all.
1:40- The respondent mentioned the claimant memo as soon as they started the rebuttal. “master should not be a man of ordinary prudence”, mentioned the respondent.
COURT ROOM 3: (109C v. 110R)
12:33-Proceeding has started in CR3 Claimant are given the chance to present their side first although they seems to have prepared but speaker one seems little nervous but is trying to answer arbitrator in all possible ways.
12:35- Speaker two of claimant side has started arguing and its interesting to see that she is very confident with what she speaks
12:39- Speaker one of respondent has started arguing. But speaker is not able to answer exact answers of arbitrator but have answers for all possible questions the issue arbitrator is sticking on is whether the moot problem is English law or Indian law.
12:55- Speaker two of respondent has started arguing but when arbitrator questions about section 28 of Indian contract act the respondent was not able to answer. But one thing is clear that researcher of respondent is well aware with problem and throughout helping speaker when judges knocks with any question.
13:05- Speaker one of Claimant has started arguing in rebuttal.
13:08- There was one moment when arbitrator asked from respondent side for copy of an document and respondent denied by sarcastically speaking of financial issues and everyone started laughing. It was so needed to change the atmosphere of moot hall.
13:10- Rounds one in CR3 finishes.
COURT ROOM 4: (124C v. 123R)
12:11 PM: 124(C) speaker 1 starts and seems quite calm, confident and well versed. The Judge tries to confuse the speaker and the speaker successfully manages to stick to what she said before. The judge points out the speaker’s failure to understand the crux of the matter she is presenting. The speaker admits and moves on to the next point. The Judge says that the party hasn’t satisfied Article 49(1) which has to be satisfied before going to Article 49(2) due to which they can’t hear them on merit.
12:24 PM: The judges point out the paucity of time that is just 2 minutes and therefore ask the party to mention their arguments on merits. The judge questions the speaker on the point of reasonable care. The judges don’t seem to be fully satisfied with her answer.
12:38 PM: The Second speaker, that is, the Co-Counsel finally gets her chance to start after extended time of Speaker 1. The judge claims that the party hasn’t submitted the documents relating to the Pumping logs, i.e., the most important law. He again explains it by giving an example that “If you go to the Visa Office and submit every document other than the most important. So you can’t claim it by arguing that you have submitted 10 other documents.”
12:46 PM: The Judge being hilarious says, “Fine we are ready to accept your persuasive argument, but at least persuade us.” Later, the judge points out that the speaker deliberately isn’t disclosing a fact because it is against the party to which the speaker hesitantly agrees.
12:55- The Complainants conclude their arguments with the Prayer.
12:55- Team 123(R), the speaker 1 starts but in a low voice. He seems stressed out due to the grilling which the Complainants faced. The Grilling continues. The speaker battling hard to maintain his composure.
COURT ROOM 5: (119C v. 103R)
12:13 PM: The speaker from the claimant is a bit shaky, he was stopped by the judge as soon as he started He is being constantly questioned. The judges were satisfied with the answer which the speaker gave after looking out in his memo. The speaker is constantly referring to memo and reading out from it. The speaker has gathered composure and is fluently arguing on third issue. Judge posed a question but now the evermore confident speaker was able to answer it without looking for the same in his notes.
12:26 PM: Persistent questioning by all three judges has pushed the speaker on back foot, he is taking his time. The speaker was asked to move on to the next issue for he was not able to answer the last few questions. The questions continued from the very beginning of the new issue. The speaker was able to hold on and answered answered most of them .a judge approved his efforts by exclaiming “good job”.
12:43 PM: Speaker two was helped by the first speaker in between, last question posed remained unanswered by both the speakers, so the judges moved on to the respondents. Speaker from the respondent side looks well versed, he was asked a question related to authority of a case, and his response left all three judges chuckling.
12:51 PM: Oopsie! The speaker from respondent side gave a self-contradictory argument. Judges spotted it. He still is beautifully arguing. Must seem impressive to the judges. He is answering the questions with utmost confidence and a smile on his face. Judges seem interested.
13:17- Smooth round of question and answer going on between arbitrators and the second speaker.
The Round Ends.
COURT ROOM 6: (108C v. 127R)
12:10: And the round starts! The speaker from side claimant seems to be nervous. One of the judges abruptly asks the speaker to move on the issues.
12:14: The judges have begun to grill the speaker with just 3 minutes into the round. The speaker is becoming easily flustered.
12:18: Side respondents are listening quite intently to the arguments of the other side and are frantically taking notes. On the side, the speaker is almost done with her first issue.
12:19: With only 5 minutes to go, the first speaker from side claimant has moved on to the second issue. The judges are asking questions to test the fundamentals of the speaker.
12:22: Two minutes to go! The speaker still remains nervous and her confidence is being tested by the judges.
12:24: Time’s up!!! The speaker tries to make a quick exit, but the judges aren’t quite ready to let her go.
12:28: The first speaker after some questioning from the judges has concluded her case. The second speaker has from side respondents has begun and seems to be more confident than her co-counsel.
12:30: The second speaker is well versed with the facts of the case. However, in the face of increasingly complex questions, she is becoming flustered and confused.
12:33: With ten minutes to go, the judges are still questioning the speaker on her knowledge of the technical aspects of the case.
12:36: Oops! Here’s a bouncer of a question from the judges! The speaker has requested the judges to give her some time to answer the question.
12:40: With two minutes to go, the speaker seems to have answered the questions posed by the judges satisfactorily.
12:41: The speaker has requested the judges to grant an extension of thirty seconds, which the judges have agreed to. She has moved on to her second issue.
12:44: The judges have been repeatedly interrupting the speaker and she seems to be unprepared to answer the questions. Her co-counsel is frantically passing her chits.
12:50: Side claimant have begun with their arguments, and their speaker, in contrast to side respondents seems to be very, very confident with her facts and the law associated. She keeps pointing out to the facts and the relevant sections.
12:53: With five minutes to go, the speaker from side respondent is moving confidently with her arguments. However, in the face of incessant questioning from the judges, she is beginning to lose her cool and is getting perturbed.
12:59: Time’s up! However, both the speaker and the judges have ignored it.
1:01: The timekeeper keeps waving her placard, which is ignored again. Funnily, more than the speakers, it is the timekeeper who seems to be frustrated!
1:03: Finally! The second speaker has begun with her arguments. She definitely needs to work more on her mannerisms and demeanor.
1:08: Ten minutes to go! The judges seem to have found a serious contradiction in the arguments of the speaker and are grilling her heavily on it.
1:12: As expected, the speaker pleads ignorance to the questions and directs the judges to the compendium. She seems to be disappointed at herself.
1:11: The judges are on fire! They are questioning the speaker on the applicability of laws and it looks as if the speaker is ready to give up.
1:13: Due to the paucity of time, the speaker requests an extension to put rest of her points forth.
1:19: The speaker requests for an extension of six minutes, and the judges look amused at this. They grant an extension of three minutes.
1:18: The atmosphere in the courtroom is tense as both the judges and the speaker are getting heated up. This clearly reflects in the demeanor of the speaker, and the judges are not pleased by this.
1:23: One of the most repeated words in this round has been ‘extension’. Since its time for lunch, the timekeepers trying to get the judges to complete the round.
1:27: The speaker has requested an extension of six minutes. The timekeeper, realizing that there is nothing much she can do, smiles sadly at this hungry courtroom reporter as well, who returns the smile.
1:29: In the face of difficult questioning, the speaker pleads ignorance and tries to make a quick exit.
1:37: This round, which was supposed to have ended over fifteen minutes ago, has finally moved on the rebuttals. The claimant have three rebuttals, and the respondents seem to be prepared for it .
COURT ROOM 7: (126C v. 125R)
12:12- Team 126 as the claimant in CR 7 has started strong on law, though they seemed to fumble a bit with the facts. However, they regained the footing soon.
12:45- TEAM 125 (R) – While the judges started grilling the claimant at a later stage, they opened fire on the respondent from the very beginning.
COURT ROOM 8: (120C v. 101R)
12:13 PM: The counsel for the petitioner begins with briefing judges on the facts of the case. The judge questions the counsel on the difference between a seat and venue of arbitration, and the counsel answers with little success in convincing the judges. The counsel is perplexed as to what is the applicability of Indian and English law in the instant case. The question of venue and seat of arbitration the judge has brought in seems to have fazed as the counsel. The judge grills the counsel on the same and also with respect to the applicability of the English and Indian law. He is caught in one argument and the judges are again grilling him on the same.
12:27 PM: The second counsel has started with her arguments. And the judges have brought her back to the facts of the case. The counsel is left perplexed by a question asked by the judges. She asks for the permission to answer the question in the end. However, she’s denied of it. The judge asks the counsel a question that she seems to have predicted, and answers the judges confidently. She’s further questioned on facts, and she’s left perplexed. She takes time to collect her thoughts.
12:39 PM: The time for the petitioners is up.
12:40 PM: The counsel for the respondents begins with his arguments, and is showered with questions with respect to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The Counsel is asked the same question with respect to the difference between the seat and venue and arbitration, and applicability of English and Indian law in the instant case which the counsel answers to much satisfaction of the judges. The judges grill the counsel on the facts of the case with respect to the reply of emails.
13:04 PM: The co-counsel for the respondents begins with his arguments. The judges ask the counsel certain questions that leave him baffled. He takes a few moments and collects his calm to answer the questions put forth. The counsel is questioned in respect with the applicability of a particular case law in the instant case which fails to answer convincingly. The counsel concludes with the arguments following which the counsel for the petitioners starts with her rebuttals.
13:40: The co-counsel for the petitioner makes an argument, which the judges find extremely contentious, which they say is contentious to the power of infinity. The co-counsel is grilled further on the argument he makes.
The Round ends.
COURT ROOM 9 (118C v. 106R)
12:04- The speaker asked the Judge to proceed with their opening statement. After speaker made the opening speech the Judge asked the the speaker to state the facts in 5 pin points. The Judge is concerned about the rebuttals and sur rebuttals and explained it to the parties.
12:07- The Speaker 1 of the Claimant put down the argument that the arbitral tribunal has no Jurisdiction. The judge seems to be curious to listen this argument. The Judge asked the difference between may and shall . However, the Judges seems not satisfied with the answer of the Claimant.
12:13- The Claimant put forward the argument for jurisdiction. For this again the judge feels not so satisfied with the arguments and asked for the case laws for which speaker submitted the Cable and wire case. The Judges grilled the Speaker 1 on the applicable law before the bench. The Speaker submitted that the substantive Law will be dealt with English Law and the procedural part will be dealt with the Indian Law.
12:18- The Judges were not at all impressed by the speaker 1 as she interrupts the judge while they ask questions. Also, she is heavily relying on the Black law’s dictionary which the Judge finds to be not appropriate.
12:19- Due to paucity of time the Judges asked the speaker to come to her second issue. The Claimant submits that the master is incompetent. It seems that judge are here to ask a lot of question as they again started to ask the question as to how the master is incompetent. Here, the speaker manager to keep her calm and satisfies the judges by her answer.
12:21 The judges asked to summarise the point as the speaker is running out of time.
12:23 To the surprising, The judges asked the Respondent to address the issue of Jurisdiction as has been submitted by the Claimant also. Before that the judges also ask to state the facts of the case in 5 pin points.
12:24 The speaker started with the issue of Jurisdiction and the judges seem to be interested in the argument. The judges ask the party to explain the applicable laws in this case.
12:26 The speaker cited a case of 1992 where the Judge question that the arbitration law is of 1996 then why we accept the case of 1992. The Speaker has no answer to this.
12:33 The Judges said that we don’t have Jurisdiction as you first have to go to a amicable settlement before coming to this tribunal. For which the speaker for Respondent submitted that the Claimant were not ready for that.
12:37 Time’s up for the speaker 1 Respondent.
12:38 The Speaker 2 of the Respondent made the opening statement by stating the structure of the arguments to be submitted before the Court.
12:42 The Judge asked the speaker 2 to explain the Standard Industry Practice. The speaker answered the question was calmly and the judges also feel satisfied with their research. The speaker also cited a case for this.
12:54: The speaker started with the second issue and it seems that the judge is ready to grill the Respondent on this issue. However, the speaker 2 being very composed and confident about his issues and facts of the case answered every question very politely.
12:59 The speaker 2 of the Claimant started with the opening statement. Speaker 2 explained the structure to the judges and proceeded with the 4th Argument.
1:02 The Judge put down many question to the speaker 2 of the claimant and the judges were very impressed by the advocacy skills of the speaker 2.
1:12 The judge asked the speaker 2 to address the cost issue before the bench. The speaker submitted before the court and judge seems satisfied with the arguments made by speaker 2.
1:20 God save the teams! This was really a hot bench and the judges were so inquisitive. From the under confident 1st speaker of the claimant to the great 2nd speaker of the claimant. From the panicked 1st speaker of the Responded to the highly confident 2nd speaker of the Respondent the round ended here.
Round Ends.
ROUND 2
COURT ROOM 1 (128C v. 105R)
14:53 PM: Claimant started with its arguments after taking permission from the judges. Claimant started with its arguments after taking permission from the judges. And here the judges started with their grilling questions which the claimant are answering confidently. Claimant pleads ignorance on the question asked by judges. Not answering the question, counsel asked to move to other time due to paucity of time. Claimant request the judges to refer page of fact sheet to prove their case
15:02 PM: Claimants cited a case without reading the whole case which bring th judges in fits. Judge asked the claimants to refer to factsheet to clarify their position
Claimants talking among themselves on every questions judges are asking and judges are taking note of that. Judges asked what is contract. Reply to it: IT IS CONTRACT.
15:17 PM Judges asked the speaker 1 to clarify the point of speaker 2
And here the grilling starts.
15:19: Respondents starts. Judges asked another question for grilling asking to clarify the first answer. Respondent states the case which judges asked the facts. The respondent quoted that facts are not ok but the law is relevant. Respondents asked the counsel to refer to memo to win their situation. Respondents stuck in the papers to search for the answer on the question asked by judges. Judges gave one more minute to sum up their arguments.
15:26 PM: Judges said that they were supposed to follow the procedure to claim the damages. Judges gave one solution to the problem but respondent refuse to take that solution. Now the judges asked the same solution. From claimant which claimant agree. Judges gave one more minute to respondent. Respondents asked for few seconds to get the facts. Second grilling with speaker 2 of respondent starts
Claimants are listening very carefully to the arguments of respondent and ready to rebut. Claimants asked for rebut. But respondents refused for sur-rebuttals for exceeding the time.
COURT ROOM 2 (102C v. 114R)
3:05 PM- Claimant’s speaker started slowly with the facts, judges soon asked the speaker to go on with the arguments. Speaker started calm and steady. The speaker cited a struck down case to back his argument which the judges pointed out. The speaker, even when unable to give passable arguments, has not lost her calm. As and when the claimant brought the notice of the arbitrators to the things incorporated in the memo, probably considering the fact that they may help her justify her stance, things actually got worse, as judges started grilling. Now her every argument was being questioned by the bench as the speaker failed to give a satisfactory answer. Judges, asked the claimant to move further with her points. But to her dismay, she seem to have lost the confidence and was stuttering a lot, while the judges kept on questioning.
3:20 PM- Speaker 2 gave a broad structure of his speech, of how he would be proceeding with his arguments. He was quite confident, even when the questioning started. He rushed with his issues so as to cover all the points her partner couldn’t complete due to continuous grilling. The judges probably thought that the speaker can surely not be questioned on his knowledge of the laws or on the facts of the case, as the manner in which he spoke showed them that he knew whatever he was possibly dealing with. Although, he was struck down by a minute long question, which he tried to answer in a systematic manner, but the argument took an unprecedented turn. Judges after getting an unsatisfactory reply, grabbed the opportunity to question the same point. But he found a way to collect himself and successfully faced the further question.
3:45 PM- Before the respondent could start, the court room was dead silent. With judges going through the submissions, respondent tries to recollect whatever he has planned.
3:50 PM- The Speaker 1 from the side of the respondent takes the stage, and begins to make his submissions in a calm and steady manner after due permissions from the judges. The speaker makes several references to the fact sheet as well as the written submissions made by them. Argumentations were quite confidently put, with ample references to case laws which help him substantiate his submissions. The speaker faced all the queries of the judges in a very calm and satisfying manner. He was prepared for such grilling, it seems.
4:10 PM- Speaker 2 respondent started off by stating the facts that correspond to the issues that he was dealing with, after which he justified as to why their stance was better and more justified in nature than that of the claimants. As the day progressed, it was observed that the judges chose not to interrupt the speaker in the beginning, they gave a few minutes to the speaker so as to let them put for the argument. He did a great job and maintained an organised and structural speech all across his allotted time, but he failed to give the authority behind his last issue, which might back lash on the scoring.
4:25 PM- Rebuttal started for the claimants. He again pointed out some scientific facts from the problem and connected it with legal intricacies.
4:27 PM- Before rebuttals for respondent, judge asked a question which they failed to provide a satisfactory answer to.
4:29 PM- It started with a heated argument with speaker looking at the claimants. He pointed out the opposition’s citations and argued about the jurisdiction of the courts.
Round 2 ends.
COURT ROOM 3 (111C v. 121R)
14:58 PM: Speaker one of claimants’ side has started arguing but judges again ask the same question of whether Indian law or English law should be applied. Arbitrator asks the question of why the claimants went for the last resort of arbitration when they had the choice of resolving dispute amicably
15:02 PM: Two minutes of the allotted time is left but speaker one of claimants side is speaking
15:11 PM: Speaker 2 from claimants’ side starts arguing
15:14 PM: There is issue of maintain temperature in voyage but claimants are of the view that it was just because of the product being shipped and they always maintained the required temperature.
15:17 PM: Respondent starts.
15:26 PM: It seems that speaker one of respondent is not aware of the facts mentioned in imam preposition itself. And taking lot of the time to answer the facts.
15:45: Rebuttal for round two starts
15:50: Round two end.
COURT ROOM 4 (117C v 115R)
14:45 PM: 117(C) Speaker 1 Starts. He’s calm and is slow and deliberate in keeping his points. But the Speaker retracts from his submission.
15:01 PM: Speaker 2 from the Claimant side starts with questions being shot at him by the judges. He seems a little nervous. The judges are giving a hard time to the speaker on grounds of Jurisdiction. They stress upon a factual background of the case before entering into the arguments. The Judges ask the Speaker to prove that there was a failed negotiation before they came for arbitration.
15:17 PM: The Speaker 1 from team 115(R) starts with a flow. But the speaker fails to address first things first. The Speaker loses her flow as she confuses the facts thus giving the Judges chance to question.
15:30 PM: Speaker 2 from the Respondent side gives wonderful arguments but it somehow does not apply.
15:52 PM: Rebuttals begin. The judges make it clear that all the Rebuttals would be on the law and not on the facts. After a long argument with the Speaker 2, the judges finally agree to her after she cites authorities.
COURT ROOM 5 (104C v. 107R)
15:00 PM: Round 2 starts
Speaker 1 from claimants started on a good page but has been losing confidence with each question being posed to her. Persistent questions. Stammering, too much blinking, much less eye contact. She is trying hard but has gone shaky. Arbitrators provided a much needed relief to the speaker, just listening to her, questions are stopped.
15:10PM: Time’s up but the arbitrators are still left with one or two questions. Speaker 1 handled the last question quite well. Speaker 2 starts.
15:27 PM: The speaker is being questioned on some technicalities. Judges doesn’t seem to be much moved, but he calmly answered most of the questions. Speaker 2 mentioned a manual to prove his point. Arbitrators wanted to have a look at the same. Speaker 2 was praised a bit by the arbitrators. Now the respondents will start.
15:40 PM: Good start for the respondents, the arbitrators are patiently listening to the speaker. Not much questioning, just a few questions; that too are being comfortably answered by the speaker. Speaker 2 calmly lays out the structure for her arguments.
Debate begins between arbitrators and the speaker regarding obligations of ship owners. Reasonableness of the ship employees was also discussed. The judges are extremely lenient.
16:07 PM: The time has elapsed but the arbitrators still provide few extra minutes for letting the speaker 2 conclude. Rebuttal starts. Speaker from claimants 1 was asked to slow down a bit by the arbitrators so that she can be properly heard. The problem she pointed out was praised by the arbitrator.
16:27 PM: Judges were really impressed, both teams did quite commendable jobs. No need for feedback for teams that were this good. Just appreciation given by the judges.
COURT ROOM 6 (112C v. 109R)
2:52: Welcome to Phase II of the Preliminary Rounds of the Fourth Edition of the Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot, organized by National Law University Odisha. The speaker from side claimants has begun confidently, however, his manners and demeanor for sure leave much to be desired. He will certainly be marked down for it.
3:03: The second speaker for side claimants has begun with her arguments. Meanwhile, the judges have made it explicitly clear that they are not satisfied with the first speaker’s performance.
3:06: The judges have begun grilling the second speaker with only two minutes into her arguments. The speaker has conceded ground and this has not been taken well by the judges.
3:18: Time’s up! In the face of the incessant questioning for the past ten minutes, the speaker has conceded considerable ground. The demeanor of the speaker has suffered severely, and she will be certainly marked down by the judges for it.
3:19: The speaker from side respondents has begun, but has already pleaded ignorance to the questions posed. The judges have rejected most of his arguments, and he seems to be flustered.
3:25: The atmosphere in the courtroom has considerably heated up in spite of the air conditioning running at full blast. The speaker has cited a Swedish case law, however, the judges have rejected it on the ground that the case belonged to a common law jurisdiction. This has not been taken well by the speaker, who tries in vain to convince the judges as to the relevance of the case.
3:26: Two minutes to go, and the speaker has moved on to his second contention. He looks extremely frustrated at the questions and has lost his cool. The judges seem to be in a bad mood as well, and are not ready to accept any of the arguments.
3:35: The first speaker from respondents has completed, albeit on a bad note. The second speaker tries to begin, but is interrupted immediately by the judges. Their dissatisfaction is evident on their face, and one of the judges looks almost bored of the proceedings.
3:42: One of the points put forth by the respondents has generated considerable interest and activity on the claimants. Notes and chits are frantically passed, and they keep referring to their memorials.
3:45: The speaker is definitely frustrated and makes contradictory claims, which is immediately picked upon by the judges. Two minutes to go!
3:47: The speaker tries to begin with the counter-claim, but time’s up! The judges however, ask the speaker to continue.
3:50: The judges have asked the speaker to conclude and summarize her arguments in one minute. The speaker is unable to answer most of the questions posed by the bench, and looks confused and muddled.
3:55: The judges try to test the understanding of the speaker’s understanding by putting forth questions based on hypothetical situations. She pleads ignorance to one of the questions, and moves on to the prayer. Even here, the prayer is ridden with contradictions, and the judges pick on it immediately.
4:03: The round has moved into the rebuttals, and the judges seem to be satisfied with the rebuts made by the claimants. The speaker from side respondents earnestly tries to begin, but is immediately interrupted and is asked to move on to another issue. Must be frustrating indeed.
4:07: Time’s up! The round has ended, and the judges have huddled into a discussion. That is it from Court Room 6, stay tuned for the next phase!
COURT ROOM 7 (110C v. 124R)
The Judges send their regards to their fans on the SCC blog.
15:00 – Amped up from their previous round, Team 110 (Claimant) started very strong and confident, both in terms of presentation and content. Even though the judges started grilling immediately, the speakers were able to keep their calm and answer without fumbling!
15:20– While the speaker was confidently answering the rapid-fire questions, she was unable to manage her time properly and ended up having to summarise an entire issue in 1 min, which she still did admirably even when the judges questioned on that issue further.
15:40 – The speakers of team 124 (Respondent) started off much more calmly and professionally than Team 110. Over the course of the speech of the first speaker of team 124, it was evident that she had the conceptual clarity to answer and satisfy the judges on most of the aspects!
16:00– the second speaker had a similar presentation style as her co-speaker, though a bit more nervous. But she was still able to satisfy the judges on most of the areas of concern. However, Team 124 exceeded their time limits by a greater margin than Team 110.
Overall, the second round was far more engaging and fruitful as both the parties as well as the judges were proactively participating in the rounds. This allowed for a much more comprehensive discussion!
COURT ROOM 8 (123C v 119R)
15:35 PM: The counsel for respondents begins with his arguments on jurisdiction, and is grilled on the same. He fails at convincing the judges with his answers, and thus, has to concede. He is felt baffled as he is asked to skip through most of his arguments, and is asked to come to the conclusion. The co-counsel begins with his arguments, and is flustered for most part of his speech, as the judges shower him with questions that he seems unprepared to answer.
15:40 PM: The counsel for the petitioners begins with his arguments, and is caught up in a plethora of questions on arbitration, but manoeuvres his way through them smoothly. He then yields the floor to his co-counsel. The co-counsel begins arguing on the weight of the cargo and other details, and struggles to answer the questions of the judges convincingly initially, but eventually succeeds in answering the questions successfully.
16:19: He is flustered as the judges grill him on the limitation and their claim in the instant case, and is further grilled on questions of law regarding arbitration and an interesting head to head is observed. He eventually concludes his arguments, and rebuttals are followed by it.
The Rounds End.
ROUND 3
COURT ROOM 1 (103C v 108R)
16:52 PM: Round 3 start directly with grilling questions
Judges asked the claimant about the clause in the fact sheet. They said they are aware about it. Judges ask the speaker 2 from where they came to know whether it is there in Singapore or not. And claimants said that they do not have it.
Claimant ask the judges to clear the questions as they didn’t understand it. And judges are elaborating it. Judges asked the claimants to read the clause loudly to bring them to the point. They asked the claimants to clearly listen to question and then answer. Claimant asked judges to please allow them a moment to clarify themselves.
17:31 PM: Judges asked them to not to give brief of the facts but proceed with arguments
Respondent starts. Judges asked the respondent whether they want to argue that whether the 3rd arbitrator is not neutral? Judges asked the speaker 2 if they want to clarify the point of speaker 1.
17:48 PM: Judges asked the elaborate in standard industry practice and whether they complied with it or not. 2 claim ignorance 2nd time. Respondent didn’t gave the sur-rebuttals.
Round ends.
COURT ROOM 2 (127C v 126R)
5:20- Speaker 1 of the claimants began with her arguments in a quite impressive manner. She gave a thorough briefing of the facts and moved swiftly towards her issues. She seems to have structured her issues very well. It can be understood even by a person who has no interest in this particular case. Speaker has been inclusive of every possible aspect of the issue. With her thorough understanding and eloquent manner of portraying the situation, she tackled the questions of the tribunal in an effective way. Puff!! The speaker starts raising allegations against the respondents according to the facts, that too in an aggressive way. And the time’s up!
5:40- Speaker 2 takes over the duty. She will be substantiating the further arguments, just like her co-counsel, she too, has a persuasive way of speaking. But as soon as the 2nd minute started, judges started the grills. The composed manner of dealing with the questions seems to have made even the judges silent or maybe it’s just been a long day! But the judge 3 keeps on interrupting the co-counsel. Both the speakers are so well versed with the facts, provisions, issues involved, it’s commendable. Speakers got away with only a few questions to face. Although the round was extended for a minute or two, which surely might turn into there favour!
6:06- It can be seen one member from the respondent side is missing. With only 2 people, Speaker 1 from the respondent side initiates his attacks! on the contrary to their claimants, has a sangfroid demeanour. Just when he started, he was asked to give a brief on the facts of the situation, he stumbles to his first issue. First minute into the issue and he pleads counsel’s not aware. It isn’t good for them! Their opposition already have an upper hand with eloquent speakers! But he finds his feet and moves in a fluent manner. He has been quite sure of whatever he is saying, with a few queries from the tribunal, he puts forth his issues.
6:17- Speaker 2 got no time to gather himself and has to go ahead with his arguments. He aims at extending what his co-counsel had just said. The tribunal kept on intervening, it’s not looking good! It’s certainly not going according to what they might’ve planned. As the grilling continues, the claimants seem to enjoy the questioning, but subtly paying attention to what judges are pointing out. As live bloggers we can totally relate to what judges are going through! For a whole day, wearing formals and bombarding questions on the poor participants!
6:40- Claimants rebut in a very short way due to shortage of time. speaker-2 of the claimant, without wasting any second starts raising question. The thoroughness with which they have read the respondents memo, seems to have impressed the judges.
6:42- Respondents have rebutted each an every point during the course of their issues.
COURT ROOM 3 (125C v 120R)
16:35 PM: Round three starts
16:43 PM: Speaker one of claimants’ side starts arguing there are some instance where speaker is left blank and arbitrator suggest them to cope up with time. Judges have told claimant not to use the term imam preposition and to go just with preposition.
17:04 PM: Speaker two of the claimants starts and is not able to answer the tricky questions of judges.
17:12 PM: Speaker one of respondent starts with introducing themselves but judges ask him to jump to the issue.
17:24 PM: Speaker two of respondent argues.
17:33 PM: Nothing much to say but speaker was quiet good and judges are impressed by the respondent performance
17:33 PM: Rebuttal starts.
Round three ends
COURT ROOM 4 (101C v 118R)
16:50 PM: 101(C) Speaker 1 starts. He seems to be very good speaker and takes his time while speaking.
17:08 PM: The judge mentioned that though the Argument advanced by the speaker was good, it couldn’t be held because it was not related to the context of Cargo.
17:30 PM: The Speaker 2 battling hard and trying his level best to convince the judges
17:32 PM: 118(R) Speaker 1 starts.
17:40 PM: The Speaker has a well-structured content and therefore even after being interrupted so many times by the judges, he maintains his flow and doesn’t let anxiety ruin his composure.
17:59 PM: BAM! A confusing question! But the speaker takes a moment and answers. The judges seem satisfied.
18:15 PM: What seemed to be a never ending round finally comes to an end.
The judges were highly impressed with both the teams due to their innovative arguments. The repetitive words during the Feedback session was Brilliant! And Amazing!
The magnitude of the arguments advanced by both the teams was something that even our judges hadn’t anticipated.
COURT ROOM 5 (106C v 128R)
17:15 PM: Round 3 gets under way.
17:26 PM: Counsel hasn’t timed his argument well, first issue took most of the time, he faced a lot of questions, he was able to comfortably answer most of them, but was he able to persuade the judges, can’t say so.
17:30 PM: and time’s up, but the questioning continues, an extra minutes is given. Yet another time it is reminded that time’s up but it seems that the judges are not letting go the speaker without a satisfactory answer.
17:34 PM: Finally the co-counsel gets a chance to speak, she lays put the structure of her arguments. Speaker one is looking troubled, as if he forgot to say something that he only remembers now. He is just blankly looking around. The second speaker is confident in her approach. The speaker is laying out factual arguments. The respondents are keenly interested in the question-answer between the speaker and arbitrators.
17:40 PM: The speaker has facts at her finger tips, questions based on facts were easily answered by her. Speaker 1 intervened to answer a few questions posed by judge. No time left. The judge is lenient regarding time and the argument continues. All three judges are bombarding questions. The speaker remains structured and calmly answers the question, but his every answer is leading to another question by the judges.
17:53 PM: The argument still goes on. Two judges pouncing upon him at the same time. I won’t say they are doing any grilling, they are just looking for satisfactory answers.
6:20 PM: Co-counsel started with an assumption, judges won’t allow that, moreover that assumption was contradictory to the argument put up by his own co-counsel. The judge asked to let go the submission, because it was not helping the respondents.
Poor speaker one, he is rubbing his eyes, shoulder all drooped down, it seems he wasn’t really ready for all this.
6:20 PM: I must say this speaker was grilled, it ended when he was asked to find something in the preposition while the co-counsel gets a chance to speak.
6:30 PM: Respondent counsel starts the argument. Even before the speaker could have said anything, he was asked a question which made him baffled, he was forced to move on to the next issue, he is not getting any chance to get back, another question, and yet another. Judges are much involved in questioning, Court room 5 hasn’t witnessed this frequently questioning since the commencement of first session. Speaker 1 seems to be fighting a lost battle, he finally gave in, asked the judges that he wants to move forward to the third issue. Somehow he still manages to keep his face frown free. It must be really hard for him to even continue.
6:41 PM: I know that maybe the respondents were not well prepared, but still he is playing bold, he is still arguing, during rebuttal time. More questions, more answers, and yet again more questions. Judges are enjoying this, time is up but they still want to hear more. It went on for one more minute.
Finally the slaughter ends.
COURT ROOM 6 (105C v 102R)
5:16: Welcome to the final phase of the preliminary rounds of the 6th Bose & Mitra International Maritime Law Moot organized by National Law University Odisha. While the judges and the claimants look rested and relaxed, the respondents do not, owing to the grueling Phase II round they went through, which lasted close to two hours.
5:16: The first speaker from side claimants goes off to a strong start, and seems to be well prepared. Her demeanor is pleasing, and answers the questions posed by the judges confidently.
5:20: The judges keep grilling the respondent speaker over Section 29 of Indian Arbitration and Negotiation Act, and its application to the facts of the case.
5:30: Time’s up, but the speaker hasn’t lost calm yet. Admirable indeed, considering the barrage of questions she has faced.
5:34: The first speaker has been asked to clarify as to side claimants’ calculations. The judges continue to grill the speaker, but her answers seem to be backed by a strong knowledge of the facts and the law.
5:41: Well, the time’s been up for ten minutes, but not the interrogation, and it does not seem to end anytime soon. The speaker hasn’t lost her calm yet, and that is a good thing for side claimants.
5:45: The speaker has been asked to move on the third issue and she proceeds confidently. Her answers are well substantiated with the facts and keeps quoting the relevant sections of the Acts.
5:50: The first speaker should have finished over twenty minutes ago, but the judges continue with their questioning. This time, it relates to the application of law, whether English or Indian.
5:52: Finally! The second speaker is allowed to begin, and like her co-counsel, she gets off to a good start.
6:00: One of the points made by the speaker from side claimants as to the expertise of the master seem to have put side respondents into a fix, and there is a slight expression of defeat on their faces.
6:09: The air conditioning is working too well, and it is freezing inside the courtroom. But there is a heated debate between the judges and the speaker, and neither side is willing to cede ground.
6:16: Finally! Speaker from side respondents has begun, and starts off with the argument that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the case, due to the use of ‘may’ over ‘shall’. The judges do not seem to be satisfied, but permit the speaker to continue.
6:21: The judges are grilling the speaker over the conflict of laws in the present case, and the speaker keeps referring them to the compendium.
6:40: This has been an exceptionally long round and does not seem to end anytime soon.
6:44: For the first time in the round, the speaker from side respondents looks dumbstruck and flustered.
6:46: The second speaker from side respondents begins with his arguments, and is immediately questioned as to whether they can ask the tribunal to decide over a cautious claim, to which the speaker claims ignorance.
6:50: The respondents claims that the crude oil in question is similar to all other crude oil. Two of the judges look almost shocked at this suggestion, and begin to grill him on this point.
6:54: The judges have begun to exploit the unsubstantiated claims made by the speaker and seem to be amused at his suggestion. The grilling has been so hard that even his co-counsel looks at him with pity.
7:00: The speaker provides an example of a person who opens the hatch of a petroleum tank, which almost everybody in the courtroom, apart from side respondents finds amusing. This provides a much wanted touch of humor, albeit unintended.
7:06: This has been a very, very long round with much grilling. Both the sides look almost relieved. Goodbye, but stay tuned for the quarter finals!
COURT ROOM 7 (114C v 111R)
5.15 PM – The first speaker of Team 114 (Claimant) started with such a flourish (emphasising on the applicable law and party autonomy) that he had sufficient time to finish one argument before the judges could fully process them and ask questions. However, the judges soon got a hang of it and could successfully stop the speaker’s flow of speech! One of the fresh arguments brought in this round by the Claimant is that since the wording of the pre-arbitral tier of amicable settlement is uncertain as to its initiation, duration and at what stage can it be exhausted, it cannot be unenforceable. However, for quite some time, the speaker was unable to grasp and answer some questions that all the three judges kept rephrasing and asking.
5.40 PM – From the beginning, the second speaker of Team 114 (Claimant) was stumped by the questions of the tribunal as the judges kept bringing him back to the terms of the charterparty. Such consternation on part of the speaker was evident by the fact that his volume of speech lowered after being referred to the charterparty. The peculiar part to be noted is that whenever the judges ask a question twice, the speaker immediately becomes apprehensive of his answer and starts consulting his papers again, to the point where he had to check when the voyage itself had started! He even said that “a simple Google search would show-” before the judges picked it up and made a few remarks.
6 PM – The first speaker of Team 110 (Respondent) started as if no storm could quicken his pace. However, with one minute in, the judges resumed their grilling. At one point, the judge asked if the Respondent is willing to try an amicable settlement – the speaker replied ‘if the tribunal so wishes’. The tribunal had to point out that amicable settlement is on the parties and the tribunal has no role it; that slowed the speaker a bit, but he soon resumed his steady pace of speaking.
With two rounds completed, the judges were easily able to zero in on the most confounding issues, like the claim of time bar, easily evident through the escalating fumbling of the speaker. Even so, the speaker had the determination to maintain his pace, which he surprisingly did most of the time.
6.20 PM – the second speaker finally started, amply spacing her statements with nervous fillers. It was almost as if she was still rehearsing to convince herself. The judges were asking a lot fewer questions, as if they had exhausted their reserves on her co-speaker previously. At the same time, they are unwilling to wait for the speaker to gather her bearing as she tries to answer. The last preliminary round is over!
COURT ROOM 8 (121C v 117R)
17:07 PM: The judges begin the rounds by asking if the parties agree on the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the case. The claimants disagree with the same, and both the parties are left baffled as the judges refuse to listen to the claimants pursuant to the same.
17:16 PM: However, the claimants later concede to the fact that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties in the instant case, after which they’re allowed to argue. The counsel begins with his arguments, and is grilled on the issue of demurrage charges.
17:07 PM: The judges begin the rounds by asking if the parties agree on the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the case. The claimants disagree with the same, and both the parties are left baffled as the judges refuse to listen to the claimants pursuant to the same. However, the claimants later concede to the fact that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties in the instant case, after which they’re allowed to argue.
17:24 PM: The co-counsel thereafter takes over, and argues on the facts of the case. The judges continue to grill the co-counsel as well, on multiple occasions.
The respondents then begin with their arguments, and are caught up on one point of law with respect to the jurisdiction, and the judges continue to grill the first counsel on the same for most part of his speech.
17:53: The judges seem flustered as the first counsel argues further on the same issue, still standing firm on his claim and refuses to concede. The co-counsel now takes over, and maneuvers through the questions of the judges successfully, with convincing arguments. The counsel begins with his arguments, and is grilled on the issue of demurrage charges.
The quarter-final match ups are:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Law v. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
Symbiosis Law School, Pune v. National Law University, Jodhpur
Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi v. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
Government Law College, Mumbai v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
Congratulations to all the teams who made it through and we applaud the fantastic effort of every team who fought it out bravely in the prelims.
Court Room 1: Rajiv Gandhi University of Law (Claimant) v. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi (Respondent)
8:35 PM
As the teams have qualified the preliminary rounds, they have a lot of pressure which is visible outside the court rooms. They must be trying to incorporate as much as they can, after all the feedbacks might be useful in this round.
Teams enter into the room, a little chit chat with the judges, then they proceed towards their respective issues.
8:45 PM
The respondent approaches the bench in a very delicate manner, he was very careful as it was evident in the way he spoke. Being well versed with the facts and cases related with the facts, he takes no time in furthering his submissions. Judges observed the speaker very keenly, and then the questioning started, in the 3rd minute. During the course of the speech, the claimants duly noted all the points made by the respondents. He seeks permission and is very careful in the course of his arguments, he spoke with utmost respect towards the bench. The tribunal agreed while pointing out certain issues raised by the respondents. Although, maintaining a calm demeanour throughout the course is difficult, he finds that his time is up! He asked for 30 seconds more, but the bench kept on intervening to his dismay. Judge 1 seemed to be very curious about the knowledge of the respondent and asked details of a case in the last few seconds. Being well versed with the facts, respondent secured the ball in his court. The bench in a way, found it unsatisfactory that the respondent didn’t answer what they had asked and was asking more time to conclude his arguments.
9:01 PM
Speaker-1 of the claimants, started his submissions after having a little chat with the clerk. After all, the time is very crucial. The very moment he started, he was bombarded with the questions by the judges. “The quality of arbitrators is very well in India”, bench shared a light moment as the speaker moved on. The speaker is very clear in his manner of speaking. The council pleads ignorance when the judges ask where ICC is, the International Chamber of Commerce (as submitted by the speaker). The incessant questioning has seemingly unnerved the counsel and comes off as slightly confused, the same being observed by the honourable bench. The judges continued with their queries. This heated questioning went on for about 15 minutes of while the counsel stood his ground despite the questions posed at him.
9.41 PM
Judges are questioning the claimants. Not satisfied with the argument of claimant, judges asked to move to next submission.
10.09 PM
Judges asked the claimant speaker to open the bare act to clarify their stance on law. Judges questioned them continuously on their arguments. Respondent saying that they are willing to come on an amicable settlement with claimant.
10:16 PM
Respondent asked that he wants to move on second issue but it seems like judges are not willing to give up on issue 1.
COURT ROOM 2: Symbiosis Law School Pune (Claimant) v National Law University Jodhpur (Respondent)
8:40: Welcome to the much awaited quarter finals of the 6th edition of the Bose & Mitra International Maritime Arbitration Moot organized by National Law University Odisha. The first speaker from the side of claimants has started off good and seems to be prepared, which is evident from her tone of speaking.
8:44: The judges have, however, started off with their questioning pretty early into the rounds. Their line of questioning has been incessant and they are not ready to accept any argument made by the side of claimants.
8:50: The counsels have been making continuous attempts at convincing the judges with respect to the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and the validity of the invocation of arbitration by the claimants in the instant case, but to no avail.
8:54: The judges have discovered a contradiction as to side claimant’s calculation as to costs, and they do not seem to be convinced with their arguments. However, they have permitted them to move ahead to the other issues and arguments.
9:02: The bench has made it explicitly clear that they are unable to accept their arguments relating to the weight of the cargo, and the liability with respect to the cause of solidification of the cargo.
9:10: The judges have maneuvered their way through the issue on the weight of the cargo, and the liability with respect to the solidification thereof, back to the jurisdiction issue, which the counsel seems to have answered much to the satisfaction of the judges.
9:12: The counsel has begun with the next issue, and is already being thrown questions at. The judges have even made it very, very clear that they do not accept the arguments posed by the side of claimants. The good thing is that the speaker has not lost her calm even in the face of this incessant grilling.
9:25: At this point, the judges have questioned the speaker as to awareness of a fact present in the moot proposition, however, the speaker pleads ignorance.
9:41: The co-counsel for the claimants has now taken over, and has begun with her contentions..
9:48: The incessant grilling has flustered the claimants as notes and chits are frantically passed. The speaker is losing her cool, and this is not a good sign. The questions relate to the nature of the crude oil, and the judges have managed to reveal their lack of research.
9:54: The judges have asked the speaker from side claimants to summarize and conclude in five minutes.
10:00: The respondents have taken over, and have now started with their arguments. They have started with the their first issue, and that is with respect to the difference between arbitration dispute and arbitrability.
10:10: The judges are continually grilling the counsel on the same issue, even after ten minutes of the initiation of the arguments by the respondents. The counsel continues to stand firm on his stance even after all this while and sticks to his argument with respect to amicable mutual discussion.
10:19: The judges are still throwing questions at the counsel in regard with same issue, and the counsel has now asked for some time to gather his thoughts. He has been trying to answer the questions, with little success at convincing the judges with his arguments.
10:35: The judges look unimpressed at the speaker’s arguments and keep interrupting him. The speaker, however seems to be unfazed.
10:42: The speaker for side respondents announces that he would like to yield the floor to his co-counsel. The judges then ask him as to who would be addressing the issue of delimitation, to which the first speaker replies that it would be handled by his co-counsel. However, the next moment, he begins with addressing the issue. This makes the judges visibly upset, who ask him to clarify again as to who would be addressing the issue. He looks shaken and yields the floor to his co-counsel.
10:50: The second speaker is facing a barrage of questions from the judges, who are going ballistic. The demeanor of the speaker is worsening by the moment, and this is not a good sign.
11:00: “What is a prudent standard? If a car is dirty, what does a reasonable man do? Does he take a cloth and clean it, or go to the paint shop and get it painted? Maybe only an expert would do that. And here, only an expert would keep it above 55 degrees!” a judge says. The speaker is now extremely nervous.
11:03: The judges asks the speaker to not to presume any facts, and stick to what has been stated in the moot proposition.
11:05: The speaker concludes the case from side respondents, and the claimants do not opt for rebuttals due to paucity of time. The rounds are over for today, but do come back tomorrow for the semi-finals. Signing off for today.
COURT ROOM 4: Government Law College, Mumbai (Claimant) v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (Respondent)
20:45 PM- Government Law College Speaker 1 starts. She seems to have a good command over her arguments and has a well-structured content.
20:50 PM- The most impressive quality of Speaker 1 has to be her patience. She carefully listens to all the questions the Judges have to ask instead of jumping to answers abruptly. She is articulately able to answer the questions.
21:00 PM- The Judges in the best of their knowledge are trying to halt and confuse the speaker, but little do they know that the speaker is in her best state of calmness and is absolutely confident.
21:22 PM- The Speaker 2 starts. She faces the questioning from the very beginning. She seems to be handling it well.
21:52 PM- Question- Answer… this is the prevailing process for the past few minutes. It seems to be a never ending process.
10 PM – The first speaker of the Respondent team starts off with the arguments. From the very beginning, the Respondent was forced to move to a defensive position. The speaker tried to maintain her speech style and pace, and maintained her composure as the judges sought clarifications and tried to find any loopholes in the speaker’s arguments. She however engaged with the tribunal by ensuring that they keep returning to the case study. As the judges put questions as well as provided the context for the question, time took a distant backseat as compared to the session itself. While the speaker tried to move forward, the tribunal brought her attention to the very facts she referred to initially, such as the issue of amendment of the dispute resolution clause to reflect the parties’ intention.
10.45 PM – The tribunal immediately brought her attention to the case study and were persistent in their questions. Nevertheless, the boisterous speakers were able to hold their ground as well as they could, given the questions hurled at them. The Quarterfinals are finally over.
COURT ROOM 3: Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (Claimants) v National Law School of India University, Bangalore (Respondent)
20:45: And the time starts. Although team have cracked to quarter finals the real battle begins. Speaker one of respondent has started arguing. Although he seems to be calm while arguing the judges in one way or the other are putting more complex questions.
21:07: Speaker one of claimants has started arguing. Confidence is all that matters at last and it can be seen in this speaker. Speaker one seems to be a good speaker and have answer for all questions posed to them.
21:16: Speaker two of claimants start. She has facts on her fingertips and is exuding confidence. It seems claimants have already anticipated the questions which may be asked and they are readily answering them.
21:28: Time is always a problem and it can be reflected in this case too although both the parties are provided with hefty sum of time but there are some instance when parties need to refer in some documents and that is really time consuming. Factual arguments, authorities, composure they have it all.
21:50: Claimants got six extra minutes and judges have decided to same time to respondents too. The co-council for claimants argued really well and for quite a long time. While she was very well versed with the facts, still she wasn’t able to answer a question in the end. This really got her all worried. She addressed the prayer and sunk in her chair, still worried a bit. However, she did her part as well as one can.
22:00: Speaker one of respondent side has started arguing and at the very first instance he started attacking the claims of the claimants. While the arbitrators are putting forward very twisted questions as expected in any maritime law moot, still the respondents are providing exact answers which the judges are looking for. Judges seems pleased.
22:04 In order to compensate the additional time given to the claimants, extra time is also provided to the respondents. Most of the issues are substantiated by valid arguments, only leaving a little scope of questions, still the arbitrators are consistently coming up with questions. It seems the co-council for respondent has caused a factual error, he has been asked to refer to moot preposition, and further questions are being asked regarding the facts now.
22:30 Both teams have submitted their issues. We just witnessed a comprehensive battle despite the questioning from the judges, the counsel was able to answer with utmost composure.
22:35 The Rebuttals have started. Claimants took their time to pose the questions and further strengthen their claims. Respondent was calmly able to answer them.
22:40 The judges didn’t interfere much and thus, a fiery Quarter Final comes to a close.
After the completion of the Quarter Finals we are proud to announce the 4 Semi Finalists. The qualifying teams are:
1. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
3. Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
4. Government Law College, Mumbai
We wish all the teams the very best for the Semi Finals.
Fixtures for Semi Finals scheduled for 31st March, 2019
Semi Final 1: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Semi Final 2: Law Centre 1, Faculty of Delhi, University of Delhi v Government Law College, Mumbai
That’s it for Day 2. The competition resumes tomorrow. Thank You and Good Night.
Welcome back! Day 3 of 6th NLUO IMAM 2019 is about to begin in a few minutes. We wish the teams all the best as they fight for a place in the finals.
The first semi-final will be between Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
The 1st Semi- final proceedings begin.
1:20- The Judges entered the Courtroom. The participants were very enthusiast as they will be arguing before the bench who are an authority in the Maritime arbitration itself.
CLAIMANT:
Claimant- Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
11:22- The speaker 1 of the claimant is speaking in a very well mannered and organised fashion. The speaker is well versed with the subject matter of the case.
11:24: Speaker 1 explained the structurisation to the judges which he is going to argue before the court.
11:27 Speaker 1 put up the issue of amicable settlement before the court and argue that the amicable settlement will go on forever and hence is uncertain. The bench throw the questions on which the speaker very politely and calmly tries to satisfy the Judges and also cite the case laws for the same.
11:29 Speaker 1 also submitted that the charter is liable to the owners and outline two sub-issues. The Judges seems to be interested in the arguments and keenly hearing the arguments of the Claimant.
11:35 The Judge asks about the Notice of protest and questions on the timeline which is before 6 hour or after 6 hour. For which, the claimant reads out the provision from the factsheet and addressed the concern of the Judges.
11:38 Claimant submitted before the bench relating to the owners are awaiting the charters. Speaker 1 starts with the arguments in a very polite and confident manner and by the arguments put forward it is clear that there research in the maritime arbitration is quite wide and have a pretty good knowledge about the subject area.
11:42 The Bench ask the speaker 1 about the Notice of Arrival and Notice of departure and the difference between them. The speaker seems to be successful in answering the question of the Bench.
11:44 Speaker submitted the second issue regarding the defect in Cargo. The claimant submitted that the delay is reasonable in nature. The principal relied was the principle of reasonable conduct. The Judge 1 asked from where the claimant has derived this principle for which the claimant cites the 1990 case. Claimant seems to be successful in addressing all the concern of the Bench and the bench also seems to be satisfied by the arguments made by the claimant.
11:48: Speaker 1 for the claimant concludes his arguments in a very fascinating way.
11:49- The speaker 2 from the claimant’s side takes the stage after his co- counsel and starts speaking in a calm and confident manner. She presented her submissions in the form of two well structured points.
11:50 Speaker 2 submitted the issue before the bench that the charter does not provide sufficient notice. Speaker seems to be so confident and using her compendium in the best way. She is bombarding the bench with the case laws for every question that is being asked by the Judges.
11:55 Judge 2 asked the question about the adequate temperature. Speaker 2 rightfully said that the adequate temperature is 35 degree Celsius. The Judge 1 asked whether the claimant is maintaining the adequate temperature for which the claimant tried to answer the Bench through the fact-sheets.
The tribunal for the Semi Finals
11:58 Claimant submitted other two limbs of her arguments before the bench. Judge 1 asked the claimant to read clause 24 of the charter party agreement. Judge 1 asked the question on that clause for which the claimant submitted that the facts are silent about the fact.
12:03- The claimant addressed the bench on the issue of incessant laws.
12:05 Speaker 2 concluded her arguments in an efficient way.
12:06 The bench asked the claimant to interpret Article 4 Rule 2 (a) of the In-transit laws. Claimant satisfied the concern of the bench by her answer.
RESPONDENTS
Respondent- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
12:07 The Speaker 1 on behalf of the respondents begins by laying down her arguments with a calm and composed demeanour. The speaker 1 begins with the 1st issue regarding whether the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction or not? Respondent submitted that the present tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
12:14 Respondent submitted the second issue regarding whether CACL is liable to charter party. Respondent submitted the arguments in four limbs to substantiate their case.
12:16 The Bench asked the speaker 1 as to whether the free petty a requirement in Europe. The speaker answered in affirmative.
12:21 Respondent submitted the third issue that the pumping logs were not provided to support the laws. Respondent backs her argument by citing the case law for the same. Speaker 1 seems to be so calm and polity while submitting the arguments and judge might also be impressed with her demeanour.
12:27 Speaker 1 submitted her last issue before the court. The judges seem to be satisfied with the arguments submitted by the speaker 1 and did not question her on this issue.
12:28- Speaker 1 concluded her argument in a very good gesture and give the stage now to her co counsel.
12:28- The co- counsel (speaker 2) made the structurisation of her submission before the court and proceeds with her arguments. She also seems to be quite confident on her submissions and facts.
12:31 Speaker 2 submitted her 1st argument before the bench that the obligations (statutory and other obligations) have not been complied by the claimants. Speaker 2, while making her submissions used a lot of the facts of the case and it was quite impressive as it was also easy for a layman to understand the case at hand.
12:42 Speaker 2 is dealing with the issue of temperature. Speaker 2 addressed the concern of the bench in very confident manner and asks for if any other concern the bench has. This shows the confidence of the speaker 2 upon her in depth research.
12:44 The bench asked the respondent what would happen if Bach Ho deviate from standard industry. Respondent addressed the concern of the bench through the standard industrial practice.
12:49- The bench, after hearing this submission made by the Respondent, asked the respondent that their 1st argument should be related to the mitigating factors as the Bach Ho oil is sensitive in nature and has very little knowledge about the nature of the oil.
12:51 Times up! Respondent ask the bench for few minutes to conclude her last issue. The bench graciously granted time to the respondent to summarise their arguments.
REBUTTALS
12:54 Claimant allowed for 1 minute of rebuttals as per the discretion of the judges. The judge clarifies the party to be very specific to the points they are raising.
12:57 The counsel on behalf of Respondent clarifies their position with respect to certain arguments made earlier in rebuttals by the claimants.
Semi Final 1 ends.
Semi Final 2 proceedings begin
The second semi-final is between Law Centre 1, Faculty of Delhi, University of Delhi v. Government Law College, Mumbai
CLAIMANT
2:03 It’s time for Semi Finals! Round 2! It is expected to be a thrilling and exhaustive show for the part of the participants and the judges alike. The Participants gear up for the last minute of preparation. The claimant in very fluent and confident way started to explain the structure of their arguments before the court. The claimant looks to be confident in their submissions and the advocacy skills they have is really impressive.
2:05 The first submission made by the claimant is the seat of the tribunal. The claimant submitted that the tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. The claimant argued that the claim of respondent for damage of cargo does not cover the provision of 49.2. Hence, the Respondent has no Jurisdiction before the court.
2:08 Claimant being confident in their submission tried to negate the contention made by the respondent in their memorial. Claimant submitted that the provision of 49.2 must be read separately and the claimant has the jurisdiction to adjudicate only the claims of the claimant but not the respondent.
2:12 This is very first time that instead of Respondent, the Claimant is negating the arguments of the Respondent through the Respondent memorial they got last night. It seems to me that they did a lot of research yesterday’s night and really in mood to defeat whoever comes in their way.
2:16 The speaker 1 referred to their memorial to substantiate her arguments on arbitration proceeding and that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction. With this, the speaker 1 ends her argument that deals with the procedural part of the case and now her co- counsel will deal with the substantive part of the case.
The issue of time bar- our demurrage claim is prevented within the time period clause 20 of the charter party
2:18: The co-counsel holds the stage and explained the structure of arguments to the bench. Speaker 2 submitted her first issue regarding Time- bar. The claimant submitted that their demurrage claim is prevented within the time period as enumerated in the clause 20 of the charter party. Claimant also submitted that the pumping logs is irrelevant to the demurrage claim. The judges seems to be interested in the arguments and they are eagerly hearing the counsel on behalf of the claimant.
2:25 Claimant submitted her 2nd issue before the bench regarding laytime. Claimant contended that majority of their demurrage claim lies on this issue.
2: 28 Claimant is taking help of the fact-sheet to explain the issues to the judges and it might give a good impression as they are very well versed with the facts. The speaker 2 also seems to be so confident and trying to address each and every concern of the Bench.
2:31 Claimant, now addressed the issue of Notice of readiness and submitted that all claims of demurrage should be allowed.
2:33 The claimant again counters the written submission of the Respondent and submitted that the right temperature was maintained. Claimant conceded that they have the duty to maintain the right temperature and they complied with their duty.
2:37: The Judge asked the claimant about the temperature of the tank. The speaker 2 very amicably answered the concern of the judge and also referred to their compendium to further substantiate her point. However, the Judges were not able to find it in the compendium and it took 2 minute to find it in the compendium.
2:41 Claimant argued that the duty to maintain and inform about the temperature is upon the Respondent as they are the owners of the cargo and the Claimant has no duty as they are not the owners of the cargo.
2:43 Times up! The speaker asked the bench very politely to grant 2 minutes to conclude her arguments. The bench very graciously allowed the Claimant 2 minute time to conclude her arguments.
2:44 Claimant addressed on the point of incessant laws. As soon as she started, the judges started questioning her on that issue. However, she maintained her calm and composure and addresses each and every concern of the Judges.
2:47 Time is up! Claimant concluded the argument and now its time for the Respondent to begin.
RESPONDENT
2:49 Respondent begins with her 1st submission and from her very first word it is clear that the Respondent is clear that they are here to win no matter how good the other team is. Respondent started her arguments in way of negating the arguments made by the Claimant. Respondent submitted that this tribunal has no jurisdiction. Respondent also raises the issue of amicable settlement . The Respondent argued that no such steps for amicable settlement has been made by the Claimant. The counsel on behalf of the Respondent blamed the Claimant that they blatantly lied before the court on the issue of amicable settlement.
2:54 Respondent cited the case of Fiyona Trust v Privalov case to substantiate the issue raised before the court. Respondent tried to interpret the clause and argued that liberal interpretation must be inferred from it. Respondent also cited the exception to the liberal interpretation.
2:59 Respondent cited various cases to made her case in front of the bench regarding the amicable settlement issue and the Speaker 1 seems to be so confident in her voice that judges are so fascinated and hearing to her arguments very silently.
3:01 The claimant argued that the tribunal is empowered to direct the parties to the amicable settlement which the Respondent were denied earlier.
3:04 Speaker 1 of the respondent concluded her arguments and give the floor to her co-counsel.
3:05 Speaker 2 submitted that demurrage claim is time barred. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent substantiate her arguments through case laws and facts of the Moot problem.
2:12 Respondent submitted her 2nd issue regarding whether the lay-time is correctly construed. Claimant argued that whether or not the submission of “NOR” with the letter of protest is valid or not? The Respondent submitted to it that NOR is invalid. Speaker two took a second, maintained her calm and tried to address the concern of the Judge.
3:17 Respondent tried to differentiate between the Notice of arrival and Notice of readiness. The speaker seems to be quite nervous in making her submissions.
3:19 The Respondent moves to the other issue regarding the Cargo operations. The counsel submits that according to HM 40 Guidelines the minimum temperature must be maintained at 55 degree Celsius in any case. The standard industry practice also enumerate that Claimant must maintained that temperature. The Judge interrupted and clarifies that according to Standard Industry Practice it must be at port point. The judge also pointed out that why, at the very first place, the respondent did not supply the claimant regarding the information of the cargo to be maintained.
3:24 The counsel cited the exception of some rule to substantiate the claims before the court. However, the judge seems to be not satisfied with this argument as the respondent failed to inform the Claimant about the temperature that must be maintained.
3:28: Through the factual matrix of the case, the respondent argued that the claimant knew about the sensitivity of Bach Ho oil and the temperature that must be maintained. Respondent argued that they have exercised due diligence in knowing about the Bach Ho oils. However, they have not taken reasonable care.
3:30 The counsel on behalf of the Respondent concludes her arguments. The counsel prayed before the court.
REBUTTALS
3:32 Claimant started with the rebuttals. The bench made it clear to be very specific to the points while making the rebuttals and sur-rebuttals.
3:34 Respondent started with their sur-rebuttals and tried to negate the points made by the claimants.
With this ends the Semi-Final Rounds.
Now it’s time for the Finals of the 6th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition. This is the time we’ve all been waiting for, where the top two teams shall be fighting for the pinnacle – the Winner’s Trophy.
The Finals shall be between Symbiosis Law School, Pune and Government Law College, Mumbai.
The proceeding is being streamed live on the official NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition Facebook page. Follow it in real time as the battle between the teams begins!
The judges forming the part of the tribunal are:
Mr. Amitava Majumdar
Mr. Joy Thattil Itoop
Mr. Hari Narayan
The teams are here. In the finals, we have –
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
and,
Government Law College, Mumbai
There is some meticulous questioning underway as the judges carefully sift through the arguments.
Speaker 1 from the claimant presents her arguments
Speaker 2 from Claimant argues
After an extensive round of questioning and counter-questioning, the claimant rests their case.
Now, Speaker 1 from Respondent begins
Speaker 2 of the Respondent presents her arguments
After rebuttals, the round has finally ended. It’s been a grueling final and the judges have thoroughly tested the participants on every aspect. The participants can take heart from the way they dealt with the barrage of questions, no matter the outcome.
We now begin with the valedictory ceremony of the 6th NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition 2019. Among those present are the Chancellor of the University Hon’ble Justice K.S. Jhaveri, Vice Chancellor of the University Dr. Srikrishna Deva Rao, Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Joy Thattil Itoop, Mr. Hari Narayan, Registrar of the University Registrar Mr. Yogesh Singh and Hon’ble Judges from the Odisha High Court.
The Citation for the Best Memorial goes to:
Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University Lucknow
The Best Speaker Award goes to:
Priyanshu Jain, National Law School Bangalore
And the Winners of the 6th Edition of the NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition are
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Hearty congratulations to the team!
We also congratulate the runners -up team from Government Law College, Mumbai for their valiant efforts.
We further congratulate all the teams for their efforts throughout the competition.
With this, we come to an end to this Edition of the NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition. We thank all the blogging volunteers who made this blog a success with their constant updates and we thank the viewers for following the blog. We hope to see you again, next year. Till then, we bid adieu!
The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019 has been inaugurated in the honorable presence of Dean Dr. I.P. Massey and the Registrar. The registrations and exchange of memorials between the teams is underway in the auditorium, while the Researchers have begun with the Researcher’s Test!
4.30 PM – Preliminary Round 1 Begins
The judges have been briefed and they are really excited to witness the competition this time. The first Preliminary Rounds are about to begin and we wish all the participants good luck!
6 PM – Preliminary Round 1 ends
The first set of preliminary rounds have ended. The participants are tired after passionately arguing their sides, yet are enthusiastic for the next set. The second set of preliminary rounds will start soon, which will be followed by the reverse prelims.
8 PM – Preliminary Round 2 ends
The two sets of reverse prelims will begin soon, followed by declaration of the teams advancing to the Octa-finals, to be held tomorrow.
9 PM – Reverse Prelims begin
The the reverse prelims have begun. This is to ensure each team has an equal chance to argue both sides, and thus maintain a balance in scores. The participants are tired, yet are positive as ever!
11.30 PM– Reverse prelims end, results announced
The reverse prelims have been concluded, and due to the brilliant organizers in the tabulation team, we were able to receive the results quickly. Following are the teams qualifying to the Octa-Finals (in no particular order) :
Institute of Law, Nirma University.
Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
Gujarat National Law University.
National Law University, Odisha.
ILS Law College, Pune.
Amity Law School, IP.
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.
Hidayatullah National Law University.
Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Government Law College, Mumbai.
School of Law, Christ University.
Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University.
SVKM’S NMIMS KIRIT P Mehta School of Law.
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.
Chanakya National Law University.
Memorials have been exchanged according to the match-ups, and the days events have come to an end. We congratulate the Octa-Finalists!
Day 2 – Octa Finals, Panel Discussion and Quarter Finals
The second day of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition is successfully underway!
9.30 AM – Octa Finals commence
The judges have been briefed and the Octa Finals have commenced in the respective courtrooms. The participants look fresh and well rested even though they might have been ripping apart their opponent’s memorials all through the night! Wishing them all the best!
Judges scrutinizing the arguments.
1 PM – 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion on Competition Law’s Interface with IBC commences
With the first set of Octa Final rounds over, preparations are in full swing for the reverse Octa Final Rounds. Meanwhile, participants attended the 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion, 2019. The topic for this year’s panel discussion pertains to Interface of Competition Law with the Indian Bankruptcy Code.Our esteemed panelists for this discussion are:
Ms. Anubhuti Mishra – An alumnus of King’s College, London and Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, she is currently working with the Competition Law team at P&A Law Offices, New Delhi. She has advised on several antitrust enforcement as well as merger review matters.
Mr. Shashank Sharma – Graduated from National Law School of India University in 2013. Thereafter, he went on to complete his European Master in Law and Economics in 2017. Since then he has been working with AZB & Partners, where his primary focus is Competition Law, with specific focus on Behavioural & Merger Control.
Mr. Toshit Shandilya – Graduated from National Law University, Delhi in 2013, he is currently an associate in the Competition Law team of Talwar Thakore & Associates. He has been involved in various critical enforcement and merger control cases before the CCI, as well as the COMPAT. He has been a law clerk with Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, former chairman, COMPAT where he assisted on a number of important cartel and Abuse of Dominance cases.
Our esteemed Panelists engaging with the participants.
The participants of the panel discussion posed certain interesting questions to our Panelists. The questions ranged from procedural to policy issues, arising from the requirement of taking CCI’s approval for insolvency resolution plans that include combinations. The participants and the Panelists engaged on concepts, such as, the failing firm defence, composite combination transactions, inter-connected transactions, and so on, to name a few. The Panelists also threw some light on their practical experience as Competition Lawyers while dealing with complicated transactions that fall within the regime of the IBC. The interactive session provided the participants an insight into the complex interface between the IBC and Competition Law.
5 PM – Octa’s concluded, results announced
The Octa Finals and the Reverse Octa Finals have been concluded. While the participants argued commendably, our Judges had a tough time reaching consensus. The following are the teams progressing towards the Quater Finals (in no particular order):
National Law University, Odisha.
ILS Law College, Pune.
Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Institute of Law, Nirma University.
National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law.
Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.
Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
We congratulate the qualifying teams. The exchange of memorials for the Quarter Finals shall be taking place soon at the Registration desk.
A glance into the Quarter Finals.
Participant engrossed in the opponent’s arguments.
The Quarter Finals of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition have come to an end. Here are the teams that have qualified to the Semi Finals.
Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Gujarat National Law University.
National Law University, Odisha.
National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
A hearty congratulations to all the Semi Finalists!
8 PM – Semi Finals Underway
The Semi Finals are currently underway. The teams are engaged in fierce argumentation before an eminent panel of judges in both court rooms. Here, take a glimpse at the rounds.
Judge Anand Vikas Mishra testing the participant’s understanding of the law.
Judges Anand Kumar Singh (Assistant Professor, National Law University Jodhpur, specialising in Competition Law), Rahul Satyan (Senior Partner, Competition and Antitrust team at AZB & Partners) and Toshit Chandilya (Associate, Competition Law team at Talwar Thakore & Associates) in Court Room 2.
Participants observing the arguments of their opponent team.
10.15 PM – Semi Finals concluded
After establishing their ‘dominant position’ in this relevant mooting market, the following two teams will battle it out in the Finale of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019:
Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Gujarat National Law University.
The Memorials will be exchanged between the finalists soon. May the best market player win the battle.
Day 3 – Finals and Valedictory Ceremony
9.30 AM–The audience and judges are seated in the auditorium and the Final rounds of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition will begin shortly.
9.40 AM – The first speaker from the Applicant’s side, begins his speech. He is calm and is responding well to the judges, who waste no opportunity in grilling him on the law and facts. The bench is fairly active, and all the three judges are participating equally.
Dr. K.D.Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) and Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.), having a look at the proposition.
Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) indulgent in the oral rounds during the Finals.
10.20 AM –Speaker 2 from the Applicant’s side has now taken over. She begins her submission by trying to prove that DOPE is not an enterprise, as per the statutory definition under Sections 2(h) read with Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002. She relies on the lack of an economic function, to prove so. However, the judges seem unconvinced, and asks the counsel to clarify the origin of this requirement. Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) questions the counsel on the intricacies involved while relying on Section 3(3) along with Section 2(h). The counsel further cites the Coordination Committee case, to prove her point.
Respondent’s gearing up for their turn.
10.35 AM –The judges inquire about the ratio of the LPG Gas Cylinder case, and its relevance to the current argument. With only 2 mins left on the clock, the counsel moves to her second issue, regarding cartelisation. She seeks an extension of time, which is granted. Towards the end of her submissions, one of the judges pose a question regarding the lack of any arguments on mitigation of penalty. The counsel confidently replies that her party is not in violation of any competition or antitrust rules, and thereby need not argue on penalty. This creates a good impression upon the judges.
10.46 AM – The first speaker from the Respondent side, takes the podium. He appears immensely composed, and requests 30 seconds to arrange his documents on the podium. His speech is structured and brief, and the judges seem to be nodding in appreciation. He begins his first submission, on the maintainability of Jeevan Pharma’s admission. Mr. Rahul Singh and Dr K.D Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) question the counsel on the distinction between the ability of the bench to hear the petition, and their power to grant compensation. The Counsel calmly tries to clarify his position, with reliance on the facts and clarifications, citing the relevant paragraphs, perfectly.
The Appellants discussing their strategy during the Finals.
11.00 AM – The counsel then moves to his second submission, regarding Jeevan Pharma’s abuse of its dominant position, and lays down the three tests required to show the same. The judges don’t seem satisfied with increased reliance on foreign cases, in light of extensive Indian jurisprudence in the area, but the counsel responds adequately. He then seeks an extension, which is happily granted by the judges. As the counsel ends his submissions and thanks the bench, the panel of judges apologise for their repeated probe into every submission of his. This lightens the atmosphere. The judges appeared quite pleased with his set of submissions.
11.24 AM – Speaker 2 now arrives at the podium, to continue her fellow counsel’s submissions. She begins her submission by laying out a roadmap, upon the judges seeking a clarification. Her issues pertain to the ability of the DG and CCR to proceed against DOPE, and DOPE’s violation of Section 3(3). The rain of questions continue, as was the case for the previous speakers. The judges question the line of argument, that the cryptic order of DG can be used against anyone. The counsel tries to clarify her position and does not lose hope.
11.35 AM –The counsel moves to her second submission and focuses on the agreement between the manufacturers, as well as between the manufacturers and the DOPE. She informally quotes Lord Denning and then the statutory definition. There is a good level of engagement between the counsel and the judges. After this speech, the judges decide against rebuttals and surrebuttals, However, they give into the finalists’ request. Speaker 1 from the respondent gives a brilliant rebuttal which leaves the audience as well as the judges in awe.
11.40 AM – The rounds have been concluded, and the finalists wait for the results.
12.15 – Valedictory ceremony commenced
Vice Chancellor, Ms. Poonam Pradhan Saxena and the Dean, Dr. I.P. Massey, with other esteemed faculty members and the judges have taken their seats in the auditorium. Senior Member of the Moot Court Committee opened the ceremony with a heart warming speech and addressed the participants waiting eagerly for the results.
12.30 –Vice Chancellor felicitates the gathering
The Vice Chancellor thanked Khaitan & Co. for their valuable partnership in organising this year’s Competition. She further stressed upon the importance of Competition Law as an emerging field. She also encouraged the participants to take part in more moot court competitions, as it helps to further one’s advocacy skills and analytical abilities.
12.35 – Dr. K.D. Singh addressed the crowd and informed the audience about CCI’s endeavours and how CCI has been happy to host the moot in association with NLU Jodhpur, for the past 10 years, and expressed his desire to continue the same for the coming years.
12.37 – Vice Chancellor presents the token of appreciation to Dr. K.D. Singh
12.38 –Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co) thanked Ms. Poonam Saxena and shared his experience as a corporate lawyer and left a very interesting question for the participants sitting in the audience, whether they are administering “justice” by being the extended arm
12.40 –Declaration of results
Mr. Rohan C. Thomas, Faculty Advisor of the Moot Court Committee, announces the results :
Second Best Student Advocate– Anshika Jain (Gujarat National Law University)
Best Student Advocate – Juhi Hirani (Institute of Law, Nirma University) and Darshan H. Patankar (Gujarat National Law University)
Best Researcher – Eesha H. Sheth (SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law)
Best Memorial – Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.
Best Student Advocate for the Finals – Darshan H. Patankar (GNLU)
RUNNERS UP TEAM – Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
WINNING TEAM – Gujarat National Law University.
Winning Team of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Gujarat National Law University
Runners Up Team of Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Symbiosis Law School, Pune
12.45 –Closing Speech by the Co-Convener of the Moot Court Committee
Ms. Mansi Srivastava (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) shared her experience of being part of the organising committee for the past five years and how it feels surreal to be a part of it for one last time. She thanked the administration, the support staff, the volunteers and all the other Moot Court Committee Members for their support and contribution. She specially thanked Ms. Abhilasha Gupta and Ms. Subarna Saha (Advisors, Moot Court Committee) and Mr. Rahul Mantri (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) for being her pillars of strength throughout the competition and providing all the answers when she herself couldn’t find them. Lastly, she thanked Khaitan & Co. for their partnership and the Knowledge partner, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company (EBC) for providing the students with access to SCC Online that helped them in the preparation for their rounds.
12.48 – Certificate of participation given out to the participants.
The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition has thus been concluded.
