{"id":201043,"date":"2018-08-31T12:55:45","date_gmt":"2018-08-31T07:25:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=201043"},"modified":"2018-09-06T11:38:40","modified_gmt":"2018-09-06T06:08:40","slug":"8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

*Curtains up from 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018*<\/p>\n

DAY 1- INAUGURATION, REGISTRATION, DRAW OF LOTS, EXCHANGE OF MEMORIALS & RESEARCHERS’ TEST<\/h4>\n

Fasten your seat belts and brace yourselves, you can\u2019t afford to miss a single update.<\/p>\n

REGISTRATION- Here it begins!<\/strong><\/p>\n

12: 45<\/strong> –\u00a0 The teams have arrived and the registration has begun. Even after traveling for hours, enthusiasm is flashing from all the happy faces. After getting themselves registered the teams are proceeding for lunch.<\/p>\n

14:41<\/strong> – The teams have gathered in the seminar hall. The inaugural ceremony is about to begin.<\/p>\n

14:48<\/strong> – On this auspicious occasion we also welcome our beverage partner – RED BULL\"\"<\/p>\n

INAUGURAL CEREMONY<\/strong><\/p>\n

14 : 54<\/strong> – The inaugural ceremony has commenced with full swing. The ceremony started with the welcome address by the competition convener – Mr. Biswa K. Dash. This was followed by the address of the Moot Court Organizing Secretary – Mr. Aayush Kothari who announced 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition open.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

15:17<\/strong> – The gathering is now being addressed by Mr. Chetan Singh Shergill who is a representative from SCC, our media and knowledge partner.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

16:47<\/strong> – The teams have proceeded for the group photograph.<\/p>\n

17:24<\/strong> –\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>It’s time for the draw of lots and the memorial exchange. The first chance to read what other team has written in their memos and scrutinize the opponents. The excitement of the competition is palpable in the air.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

RESEARCHERS’ TEST<\/strong><\/p>\n

17:42<\/strong> – The researchers’ test has begun. The researchers are busy brainstorming over the tricky test paper!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

18: 40\u00a0<\/strong>– With the end of the researchers’ test, the teams proceed for the dinner.\u00a0 As the sun sets, Day 1 of 8th ILNU NMCC ends. Stay tuned for the updates sharp from 9AM tomorrow.<\/p>\n

DAY 2<\/strong><\/p>\n

BRIEFING, PRELIMS AND QUARTERS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Good Morning !!<\/p>\n

10:43<\/strong> – The second day of the 8th ILNU, NMCC kick starts with an extensive briefing session for the judges.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

10:58 – <\/strong>As the briefing session ends with an intense questioning of the moot points by the judges, the court rooms are now all set to witness the real action.<\/p>\n

PRELIMS 01<\/strong><\/p>\n

COURT ROOM<\/strong> 6\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

IL 18 v. IL 06<\/strong><\/p>\n

PETITIONERS-<\/p>\n

11:10 – The first speaker has approached the dias.<\/p>\n

11: 13 – As the speaker starts the judges starts throwing a trail of queries. While the counsel makes the submission the judge appreciates the factual arguments but asks for the legal backing of the same.<\/p>\n

11: 16 – The judges inquire about an old judgement and throws an contrary argument, but the speaker dodges and moves further swiftly.<\/p>\n

11:19 – The judges then questions the second speaker. The counsels starts very confidently and lays down the structure of the arguments. Counsel relies on a recent judgement, however the judge further goes deep into the facts of that very case, states that the mentioned judgement is not binding.<\/p>\n

11:28- The Counsel states an arguendo in order to satisfy the judges. The counsel then continues with further submissions.<\/p>\n

11: 48- The judges asks the counsel to move to the prayer and conclude the arguments. The judges then asks queries regarding the prayer and if the petitioners want to continue the investigation or directly declare the pricing illegal.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENTS-<\/p>\n

11: 57 – Counsel 1 starts with confidence and starts arguing law points relating to his case. The judges question the applicability of the said law.<\/p>\n

12 : 04 – The judges asks the counsel to differentiate between two principles, the counsel draws a witty analogy and makes the judges laugh. The judges looked impressed, however asks the counsel to pick the analogies carefully.<\/p>\n

12 : 09 – The counsels argues the facts tactfully, however Judges rebut by stating the the Counsel’s arguments are based on assumptions, the counsel surrenders and moves to the next argument.<\/p>\n

12 : 10 – The bench throws multiple questions at the Counsel, the counsel looks fluttered.<\/p>\n

12: 14 – As Counsel 2 starts to argue judges asks the counsel to justify the previous arguments.<\/p>\n

12: 17 – The Counsel dodges questions on law and tries to defend his case with facts. The counsel is polite and courteous.<\/p>\n

12: 22- The judges do not tend to slow down, eventually counsel argues confidently in the end and concludes the case.<\/p>\n

COURT ROOM 11<\/strong><\/p>\n

IL 15 v. IL 02<\/strong><\/p>\n

PETITIONERS<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:15 <\/span><\/span>-The judges listen vigilantly to the arguments advanced.\u00a0\u00a0The counsel is subjected to some fundamental questions on law by the bench however, he stands calmly.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 28 – The speaker is well mannered. The judges gave him the time to speak and complete his arguments. However, he is being grilled by the judges and is unable to wrap up his arguments.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:30 –\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The speaker looks nervous when she approaches the dais. However, she is able to put her arguments confidently. The judges grill her on her first argument and the speaker is composed and can answer properly. The speaker seems well mannered.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:40-\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The judges ask the speaker to apply the laws instead of just reading them out. The speaker is questioned about the authorities cited. The speaker seems confident and courteous.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:45 –\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The speaker is asked to wrap up her arguments and come to the prayer.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
RESPONDENTS –<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:47 –\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The speaker seems confident. Although, she speaks in haste. She starts her arguments confidently and is well mannered. The judges give her the time to complete her first argument.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:54 –\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The speaker flutters her court mannerisms and seems a but informal in the court. The judges grill her but she doesn’t lose her calm.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:03 –\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The second\u00a0 speaker starts in a haste and lays the structure of the arguments. The judges question the speaker as soon as he starts his first argument. The judges grill the speaker saying that his argument is premature.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:08 –\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The speaker is asked to justify his argument with law and questions about its basic aspects. However, the speaker is unable to give satisfying answers. The speakers looks a bit perplexed however, wraps up eventually.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Rebuttals from both sides were fierce however judges questions each of the rebuttals eventually.<\/div>\n
\n

COURT ROOM 01<\/strong><\/p>\n

IL 04 v. IL 05<\/b><\/p>\n

PETITIONER-\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

11: 05- The first speaker on the behalf of the petitioner, approaches the dais with the permission of the bench, and started the arguments the bench asked the counsel to state the facts and counsel obliges the request. As soon as the speech started the counsel was questioned by the bench over the basic laws.<\/p>\n

11: 18 – the bench directed the counsel to proceed with the second issue. In her next argument the counsel relied to a famous doctrine. In consequence of the same the judges asked the relevant questions regarding the jurisdiction, facts of the case and the statutory provision delineated in the case. The counsel successfully explained the questions, but attracted another question with regard to applicability of such doctrine to the current jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

11: 22- The second counsel proceeded with the arguments and asked the permission of the bench to address 3 issues. But in a fury of moment the bench asked the counsel to describe a basic principle of the statute, which she tried to answer in best of her capability. Due to a lot of passing of materials the bench chided the counsels presenting the applicants.<\/p>\n

11: 25- The counsel was asked to proceed with the next issue. The counsel substantiated the argument by referring to a precedent. In a while counsel was questioned by the bench as to which law is being violated.<\/p>\n

11 : 28- Then the counsel proceeds with the sub-issue under the different legislation. With a constant questioning over the source of arguments and the nature of provision the bench asked to substantiate the arguments first and then referring to the precedents. The counsel further referred to the fact sheet in order to draw the attention of the bench as in regard to their question.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENTS –\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

11 : 36- With the shuffle in the order of the counsels, the co-counsel had to address the subsequent issues in their submission. The bench inquired about the purpose of the said statute. And in order to address the issues raised by the petitioners, the counsel was asked to refer to a provision which relates to the various power of the authorities. While drawing the parallel analogy to the previous acts in force the bench asked a few questions. Then bench referred to old question regarding the purpose of the statute.<\/p>\n

11 : 47- The speaker failed to answer a series of questions after which the bench had to call upon the dais the co-counsel.<\/p>\n

11: 52- With the vague and casual style of arguing the first counsel started her arguments. The bench had to assert the facts before the counsel and therefore, the counsel agreed to the contentions as and when stated by the bench. There came a stage where the respondents agreed to the contentions of petitioners.<\/p>\n

11: 58 -Then after further course of arguments the judges asked the respondents to conclude with the arguments.<\/p>\n

12: 05- The counsel had no more contentions to argue and therefore judges asked both the parties if they have any rebuttals or is there any further submission to make.<\/p>\n

Responding to the same neither of parties wanted to make any submission. And the court proceedings were concluded.<\/p>\n

COURT ROOM – 04<\/strong><\/div>\n
IL 09 v. IL 21<\/strong><\/div>\n
PETITIONER<\/div>\n
\n

11:10 – The first speaker has approached the dais.\u00a0As the speaker starts the judges starts throwing a trail of queries. While the counsel makes the submission the judge appreciates the factual arguments but asks for the legal backing of the same.<\/p>\n

11: 16 – The speaker looks confident and courteous and moves swiftly<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

11: 23- The second speaker looks a bit nervous. Difficulty level of Questions asked are moderate, speaker is addressing the questions and looks confident.<\/div>\n
11: 29- Judges are not very strict but there are series of questions continuously asked to the speaker.<\/div>\n
Speaker couldn’t complete the arguments and ran out of time.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
RESPONDENT –<\/div>\n
11 : 34- The speaker has begun\u00a0 well and looks confident.<\/div>\n
With the series of questions continuously asked by judges the speaker is gradually losing his confidence.<\/div>\n
Speaker is unable the streak of question however manages well.\u00a0 Judges look strict.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11 : 47-\u00a0\u00a0Speaker looks a bit fluttered. Series of questions continue from the side of judges, speaker unable to answer a few of them. The speakers tries to maintain the composure and moves to prayer.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Court Room 02\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
IL 12 v.\u00a0IL 20<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:10<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The petitioners have started off fluently and seems very confident<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:15<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel has been interuppted by judges and the counsel has handled it beautifully.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:18<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: Too many question being put to the counsel but the counsel stands composed and handles them with utmost ease.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:22<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel is \u00a0bit stuck to judges’ query and further moves ahead with the submissions but the grilling continues.<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
11:30<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The second counsel is subjected to grilling from the very start. Questions been thrown at counsel.\u00a0The counsel has managed to break through the grilling and has answered all the questions with calmness and composition.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
11 :46 : The judges have been handed over bulky case laws as the petitioner tries to defend its stand.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:50<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: \u00a0The counsel has not been allowed to move to its final submission and hence concludes its arguments due to paucity of time.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
RESPONDENTS<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:55<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel for respondent has started off and has not shown a sign of nervousness when subject to heavy grilling.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:02<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel seems a bit shaky while facing some tough questions.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:06<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel no. 1 completes the submissions<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:08<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: An aggressive and a loud start from the counsel has made the court room more lively.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:13<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: Case laws and authorities been cited one after another by he counsel. \u00a0Reference being made to the moot proposition by the counsel in order to clarify the doubts but is subjected to grilling again.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:18<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The judges seem impressed with regular citation of authorities and case laws.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:20<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsels for respondent rest their case.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
COURT ROOM 10<\/strong><\/div>\n
IL 11 v. IL 01<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
PETITIONERS<\/div>\n
11:30<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Speaker from petitioner side is arguing and looks confident with his preparation. The questions put forward by judges are quite straightforward and they are looking for precise answers.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:40<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: Speaker number 2 from petitioner side seeks permission to start his arguments and looks a bit nervous. The judge starts questioning him straight away.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:00 :<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Judges asks the petitioner\u00a0 to conclude their arguments and present their Prayers.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
RESPONDENTS<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:05:<\/span><\/span>\u00a0The speaker 1 now take the podium and starts the arguments and looks quite nervous and as the arguments goes she is confident enough to answer to the queries.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:15<\/span><\/span>\u00a0:The Judges continue to question the speaker. This time questions on the facts .<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:24:<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Speaker 2 seeks permission to start her arguments and looks very confident.<\/div>\n
\n
12:30:<\/span><\/span>\u00a0As the arguments are moving forward she is becoming more confident and clear .<\/div>\n
12:40<\/span><\/span>\u00a0:Judges are getting little bit of confused and want to wind up as soon as possible.<\/div>\n
12:45<\/span><\/span>\u00a0:Judges are not giving much time for rebuttals because according to them they have already given lot of time to both the teams.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 COURT ROOM O5<\/strong><\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0\u00a0 IL 23 v. IL 22<\/strong><\/div>\n
PETITIONER<\/div>\n
\n

11: 07- Speaker 1 starts confidently and courteously. Counsel tactfully answers all the queries and move forward rather swiftly. Arguments are well structured and impressive.<\/p>\n

11: 24 -Speaker 2 seemed confident in starting.\u00a0The speaker is well-mannered but seems to have gotten stuck on a particularly\u00a0tricky question posed by the judges. The judges are partially satisfied with the argument and ask him for the next argument.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
RESPONDENTS –<\/div>\n
11: 42 -Speaker 1 starts with the first issue and her style of presenting arguments was well spoken and nicely framed. The judge asked the counsel to clarify about the case. Further, they asked questions from the respondents for clarification about the prepackaged commodity.<\/div>\n
11: 52 -They question the very existence of the petitioner under which they approached the Honorable bench. Bench seems to know about the act, which defines the maximum and minimum retail price for product. In the last, judge seems partially satisfied from the first speaker.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11.57- Speaker 2 approached the dais confidently.\u00a0She is well mannered and gets done with formalities with ease.<\/div>\n
Judge asked the counsel for respondent about the kind of agreement whether it is necessary that the agreement should be written or not.<\/div>\n
12: 04 – Eventually, counsel seems confused regarding issues\u00a0and\u00a0 faces her a lot of questions.\u00a0She answers questions but seems to get a little flustered. Speaker tried to satisfied judges by giving reasoning about the overpricing goods at airport. Judges gave only 1 minute to counsel for second and third issue in last. Judge asks from counsel, series of questions and counsel seems to hesitate a little bit in answering questions. Judge asked the counsel\u00a0 for the prayer.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Rebuttals were extensive and fierce. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Court Room 03 <\/strong><\/div>\n
IL 24 v. IL 08<\/strong><\/div>\n
\n
\n
PETITIONERS –<\/div>\n
11: 03 -The first speaker is very hastily speaking. The questions on law are very difficult to answer leaving a very little scope for the counsel to handle the situation. The series of furious questions has stunned the entire courtroom.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 16- Next speaker starts confidently, explaining a lot with the gestures.<\/div>\n
The first argument goes rejected leaving a sense of astonishment for the team and the bench. The questions posed in the last leg seem to be answered quite satisfactorily.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 20 -The speaker is gaining confidence gradually and carrying on with a smile till the next question is asked. The time is extended by 3 minutes. The judges did not completely understand forcing counsel to drink water.<\/div>\n
The counsel is asked about the prayer and is completely quashed by judges, looks like the last chance to prove her case\u00a0 but the wit of judges did not allow that. The case is rested.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
RESPONDENTS –<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 32- The speaker seems a little confused initially as the bench is questioning the basics of laws. Unconvinced the judges tells her to proceed with the arguments to which she requests for a follow up.<\/div>\n
With three minutes left the speaker is unable to comprehend the questions indicating a sense of nervousness.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 46- The second speaker approaches the dais, to face an unexpected request from the bench. The bench confirms that they are not satisfied with previous arguments to which the speaker continues with a sarcastic smile. The judges seem a little satisfied with initial answers, helping the speaker to keep his composure. With this the round comes to an end.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
As the bench rises, the teams disperse for the High Tea.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

COURT 12<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

IL-03v. IL-04<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

PETITIONER<\/p>\n

13:45- The 1st<\/sup> Speaker came to address the 1st<\/sup> two issues, and started her pleadings with a mannerism packed speech and gave a brief of the facts. The statement of jurisdiction was accepted by the judges without much questions. Judges were impressed by the answers of the speaker and various analogies presented for justifying the arguments.<\/p>\n

14:00 – The 2nd<\/sup> speaker came to address the 3rd<\/sup> issue. The arguments reflected good research work however due to but due to some ambiguity in the language of speaker they weren\u2019t effective. A 2-minute extension granted to the speaker to complete its last issue, however the last-minute straight questions bombarded by the judges astounded the speaker.<\/p>\n

Judges were impressed by the research reflected in the heavy compendium presented by the team and also the confidence and clarity in arguments by 1st<\/sup> Speaker.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n

14:12 – Avoiding the default mannerism furnished structure of pleading, Judges asked the speaker to directly to come the issues. Judges were at times trying to suppress their smirk on the direct statements by the speaker which were totally contrary to his case.<\/p>\n

14: 22- The judges interrupted the second speaker at several instances on different points of law. However, the speaker was confident and handled the situation tactfully.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe judges were very considerate in giving their feedback to the teams, they praised the plus points of both the teams and made them understand their flaws in such a manner that none of them gets demotivated.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
PRELIMS 02<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n
\n

Court Room-01<\/strong><\/p>\n

IL 04 v IL 05<\/strong><\/p>\n

PETITIONER<\/p>\n

Speaker 1:<\/p>\n

The council starts by defining the jurisdiction in the present matter. After the preliminary questions on the jurisdiction, the council proceeds with his first issue. The council seems to be having some difficulty in establishing the next issue.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n

The second speaker displays a good temperament and seems to be addressing the queries of the judges, confidently.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENTS \u2013<\/p>\n

Speaker 1 :<\/p>\n

The first speaker has approached the dais.\u00a0As the speaker starts the judges starts throwing a trail of queries. While the counsel makes the submission the judge appreciates the factual arguments but asks for the legal backing of the same.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2 :<\/p>\n

The second speaker approaches the dais, to face an unexpected request from the bench. The bench confirms that they are not satisfied with previous arguments to which the speaker continues with a sarcastic smile. The judges seem a little satisfied with initial answers, helping the speaker to keep his composure. With this the round comes to an end.<\/p>\n

Court Room 7<\/strong><\/p>\n

IL-06 v. IL-14<\/strong><\/p>\n

PETITIONERS<\/p>\n

Speaker 1<\/p>\n

The speaker seems nervous and is grilled by the judges on the Cause title as soon as he approaches the dais but adheres to the court mannerisms. The speaker is grilled before the completion of his first argument and is unable to satisfy the judges. The judges ask the speaker to summarize all his arguments shortly and decided to not intervene any further. The speaker ends his arguments on a confusing note and is unable to satisfy the judges.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2<\/p>\n

The judges ask the speaker to submit the prayer immediately after asking the jurisdiction and grilling the speaker on the same.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n

Speaker 1<\/p>\n

The speaker seems confident and has good court mannerisms. The judges ask the speaker about the Attorney General. The speaker promises the judges that the Attorney General will be present in the second round.<\/p>\n

The speaker is in a haste to proceed with the issues. The judges grill the speaker before the speaker starts with the issues on a point to which the speaker is unable to answer to the satisfaction of the judges.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2<\/p>\n

The speaker looks confident and is grilled before starting with the issues. The speaker is able to answer confidently and the judges seem satisfied with the answers. However, the speaker is unable to sum up the arguments and is not given any extension of time.<\/p>\n

The speakers don’t have any rebuttals in this round.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

COURT ROOM: 04<\/strong><\/p>\n

TEAMS: IL13 v. IL09<\/strong><\/p>\n

Speaker 01 (petitioners)<\/u><\/p>\n

The first speaker on the behalf of the petitioner, approaches the dais and the bench enquired the counsel about the dress code provide in the Rules.<\/p>\n

Further the counsel was asked to address the facts, and why should they hear the matter in hand. In order to define cause of action which arise before the court, the bench asked the intention of the respondents so as to what is the violating interest on behalf of the petitioners. The counsel further referred to the precedents.<\/p>\n

Further bench asked why counsel has not used other remedies available instead of filing a writ. In order to answer the query counsel diversified the arguments.<\/p>\n

Speaker 02 (petitioners)<\/u><\/p>\n

As soon as counsel approached the dais she faced a question regarding the provisions of law.<\/p>\n

The further grilling regarding the procedural questions in the preposition, the counsel tried to answer. The counsel, in an attempt to answer referred the precedent which was well known to judge. The judge asked very direct and perilous questions to the counsel.<\/p>\n

Speaker 01 (respondents)<\/u><\/p>\n

With all the permissions granted, the counsel proceeded with the arguments by citing 3-4 precedents in order to convince the bench. The bench accepted the contentions regarding the first issue.<\/p>\n

The counsel then moved to the next issue and argued her case. In order to substantiate the arguments counsel was asked to define further terms.<\/p>\n

Bench further asked certain principles from other jurisdictions. In response to the same counsel relied on certain precedents.<\/p>\n

In a trap of questions, the counsel somehow tried to survive the situation. The counsel further failed to define a term under which she was asking for the immunity.<\/p>\n

Speaker 02 (Respondents)<\/u><\/p>\n

As soon as counsel started to argue the bench threw a number of questions pertinent to the case. The counsel took recourse of precedents.<\/p>\n

The questions posed by bench were very subtle. In a failed attempt to answer the question counsel pleaded ignorance as a consequence of which she has proceed with the next issue.<\/p>\n

Then further the counsel moved to the prayer and made further requests which were not asked in their written submissions. The counsels were given 4 chances to revise their prayer instead of directing and merely requesting.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Court Room 05<\/strong><\/p>\n

IL 17 v. IL 23<\/strong><\/p>\n

PETITIONERS<\/p>\n

Speaker 1 \u2013<\/p>\n

The counsel for petitioner has started with the submissions. The counsel is moving on smoothly with her arguments and the bench seems convinced.\u00a0 Few questions being posted to the counsel to which the counsel is responds humbly and calmly.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2 –<\/p>\n

A fluent and uninterrupted start for counsel no. \u00a02 for the petitioners.\u00a0Few queries been put up referring the legal provisions.\u00a0The judges are unsatisfied and further put questions to the counsel. The counsel tries to dodge the bench and moves to the next limb but fails to do so.\u00a0The counsel moves to the relief and rest the case from the side of petitioner<\/p>\n

Respondents<\/p>\n

Speaker 1 –<\/p>\n

Case laws being cited from the very start.\u00a0The judge denies the validity of the case and now the counsel seems shaky and cites another case for his defence.\u00a0A prolonged discussion on a case cited by the counsel in line with the present matter and the judges have been satisfied by the counsel successfully.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2 –<\/p>\n

The counsel starts off with convincing legal interpretations and the judges are satisfied for the submission as early as anything. Surprises the counsel as well!\u00a0Questions come up to respondent’s counsel. The counsel is stuck to judge’s tricky query. The counsel tries to dodge the query and successfully does so. The counsel provides the bench with a case law and convinces the bench with that.\u00a0The counsel for Respondents rest their case.<\/p>\n

Court Room 3<\/strong><\/div>\n
Team IL 01 v. Team IL 24<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
PETITIONERS<\/div>\n
Speaker 1<\/div>\n
Then speaker proceeds with first submission and judges ask to establish the abuse of dominant market. The speaker did not understand the complete question and requests to elaborate. A lot of chits are passed to help the speaker.<\/div>\n
\u00a0The speaker dodges the question of pocket friendly substitutes and then tries to establish abuse done.<\/div>\n
\u00a0The speaker concedes to judges and the speaker rests her case. Judges discussing the issue between themselves for a moment.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Speaker 2<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The bench asks difficult questions on which she is silent and the judges continue to question and the speaker.\u00a0The judges tells her that the track of argument is losing. She is little geared up for the penultimate submissions.<\/div>\n
The last question is about the Parker case and speaker is trying to gain her confidence but is little confused and moves to the prayer.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
RESPONDENTS<\/div>\n
Speaker 1 –<\/div>\n
A good and confident start. The first question is interestingly answered. The witty judges question about the monopoly and the speaker satisfactorily answers.\u00a0\u00a0The speaker is asked to summarise the arguments and calls the co counsel.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Speaker 2<\/div>\n
The speaker is confused in her final arguments.The speaker moves to the prayer and judges are very critical about the writs mentioned in the prayer.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Court Room 02<\/strong><\/div>\n
PETITIONERS<\/div>\n
Speaker 1<\/div>\n
Speaker 1 starts with a calm temperament with a swift paced speech.\u00a0She is quickly interrupted by judge’s queries, but she tackles them effectively and proceeds with her argument.\u00a0Judges get involved in very deep questioning about the jurisprudence of the topic, which showcases The Speaker’s effective understanding about it.\u00a0More cross questioning, the judges have started getting more aggressive with their questions.\u00a0The Speaker finally rests after a marathon round. The judges seem impressed with her temperament.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Speaker 2:The Speaker starts with a loud and confident voice. However, the judges catch him quickly off guard with a loose contention.\u00a0The Speaker gathers his temperament quickly and proceeds with the arguments.\u00a0The judges gain an upper hand with their counter questions, questioning the crux of the Speaker’s arguments.\u00a0The Speaker proceeds with the next issue with confidence. Judges trap the speaker in a logical contradiction.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Respondents<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Speaker 1:<\/div>\n
The Speaker lays down the structure of her speech. The judges catch a minor bluff given by the Speaker in her arguments.The judges ask the Speaker to proceed to the next issue. The Speaker starts her next issue with confidence.\u00a0The judges find the structuring of arguments by the Speaker a bit troubling.\u00a0The Speaker concludes her arguments after listing various agreements, to which the judges seem skeptical.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Speaker 2:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Second speaker starts her argument. She seems a little anxious.\u00a0With passage of time, the Speaker gains some confidence. She is proficient with her logical arguments in answering the judges’ queries.Judges seek authority for the arguments of the Speaker.\u00a0Finally, the Speaker concludes her arguments with the Prayer.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
RESULTS ANNOUNCED!<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Prelims results have been announced! IL03, IL05, IL11, IL12, IL13, IL17, IL18, IL22 have qualified for the quarter finals. Congratulations to the quarter finalists!<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
17:17 – The quarter finals have started\u00a0 \u00a0The rounds are in full swing !<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
QUARTER FINALS\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
COURT ROOM 01<\/strong><\/div>\n
IL 22 v. IL 12<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
PETITIONER-<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Speaker 01- The speaker started off with great composure. The judges seemed quite impressed with the arguments being put forth. The speaker stumbled a little while making the second submission however he gradually gained confidence and swiftly concluded his arguments.<\/div>\n
\n

Speaker 2 –<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
The counsel clarifies the errors on behalf of his co-counsel.\u00a0The counsel apologizes failing to answer to the query of the judges.\u00a0The counsel seems unaware of the queries put up by the judges.\u00a0The judges seem unconvinced by the arguments put up by the counsel for Petitioner. \u00a0The counsel addresses the factsheet and convinces the bench with the same.\u00a0The counsel refers to legal provisions and is putting in all the efforts to convince the bench but is being regularly interrupted by the bench subject to grilling.\u00a0An extension is granted by the bench to discuss and sum up the last issue.The counsel is interrupted and further not allowed to move further with submissions.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
RESPONDENTS –<\/div>\n
\n

Speaker 1 –<\/p>\n

The Speaker lays down the structure of her speech. The judges catch a minor bluff given by the Speaker in her arguments.The judges ask the Speaker to proceed to the next issue. The Speaker starts her next issue with confidence.\u00a0The judges find the structuring of arguments by the Speaker a bit troubling.\u00a0The Speaker concludes her arguments after listing various agreements, to which the judges seem skeptical.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Speaker 2 –<\/p>\n

Second speaker starts her argument. She seems a little anxious.\u00a0With passage of time, the Speaker gains some confidence. She is proficient with her logical arguments in answering the judges’ queries. Judges seek authority for the arguments of the Speaker.\u00a0Finally, the Speaker concludes her arguments with the Prayer.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
COURT 02<\/strong><\/div>\n
PETITIONER –<\/div>\n
Speaker 1 –<\/div>\n
\n
The counsel commences briefing the facts of the case to the bench.\u00a0\u00a0The counsel starts with the maintainability and is stuck in his own submission.\u00a0\u00a0The 3 judge bench happily declares the petition to be maintainable.\u00a0The counsel seems confused and again argues maintainability to which court refuses to hear.\u00a0\u00a0The counsel is subjected to heavy grilling and now seems nervous submitting his arguments.\u00a0\u00a0The counsel is requested to move ahead of provisions and contest his main submissions.\u00a0The counsel seeks extension in order to satisfy the bench.\u00a0Seems like the counsel is out of sorts and fails to address the bench.\u00a0The counsel rests his case.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Speaker 2 – The counsel approached the dais and was being questioned regarding the provisions of law.The further grilling regarding the procedural questions in the preposition, the counsel tried to answer. The counsel, in an attempt to answer referred the precedent which was well known to judge. The judge asked very direct and perilous questions to the counsel.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
RESPONDENT –<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Speaker 1 –<\/p>\n

With all the permissions granted, the counsel proceeded with the arguments by citing 3-4 precedents in order to convince the bench. The bench accepted the contentions regarding the first issue. The counsel then moved to the next issue and argued her case. In order to substantiate the arguments counsel was asked to define further terms.Bench further asked certain principles from other jurisdictions. In response to the same counsel relied on certain precedents. In a trap of questions, the counsel somehow tried to survive the situation. The counsel further failed to define a term under which she was asking for the immunity.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2-<\/p>\n

As soon as counsel started to argue the bench threw a number of questions pertinent to the case. The counsel took recourse of precedents. The questions posed by bench were very subtle. In a failed attempt to answer the question counsel pleaded ignorance as a consequence of which she has proceed with the next issue.Then further the counsel moved to the prayer and made further requests which were not asked in their written submissions. The counsels were given 4 chances to revise their prayer instead of directing and merely requesting.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

COURT 03<\/strong><\/div>\n
\n
\n
IL 17 v IL 18<\/strong><\/div>\n
PETITIONER –<\/div>\n
\n

Speaker 1 –<\/p>\n

The first speaker on the behalf of the petitioner, approaches the dais with the permission of the bench, and started the arguments the bench asked the counsel to state the facts and counsel obliges the request. Next argument the counsel relied to a famous doctrine. In consequence of the same the judges asked the relevant questions regarding the jurisdiction, facts of the case and the statutory provision delineated in the case. The counsel successfully explained the questions, but attracted another question with regard to applicability of such doctrine to the current jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2-<\/p>\n

A fluent and uninterrupted start for counsel no. \u00a02 for the petitioners.\u00a0Few queries been put up referring the legal provisions.\u00a0The judges are unsatisfied and further put questions to the counsel. The counsel tries to dodge the bench and moves to the next limb but fails to do so.\u00a0The counsel moves to the relief and rest the case from the side of petitioner<\/p>\n

RESPONDENTS-<\/p>\n

Speaker 1 –<\/p>\n

The bench inquired about the law points. And in order to address the issues raised by the petitioners, the counsel was asked to refer to a provision which relates to the various power of the authorities. While drawing the parallel analogy to the previous acts in force the bench asked a few questions. Then bench referred to old question regarding the purpose of the statute.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2 –\u00a0The speaker looks confident and is grilled before starting with the issues. The speaker is able to answer confidently and the judges seem satisfied with the answers. However, the speaker is unable, to sum up the arguments and is not given an extension of time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
COURTROOM <\/strong><\/div>\n
IL 11 v IL 03<\/strong><\/div>\n
PETITIONER-<\/div>\n
\n

Speaker 1 -The council starts by defining the jurisdiction in the present matter. After the preliminary questions on the jurisdiction, the council proceeds with his first issue. The council seems to be having some difficulty in establishing the next issue.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n

The second speaker displays a good temperament and seems to be addressing the queries of the judges, confidently.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

RESPONDENTS –<\/p>\n

Speaker 1-<\/p>\n

The council starts by defining the jurisdiction in the present matter. After the preliminary questions on the jurisdiction, the council proceeds with his first issue. The council seems to be having some difficulty in establishing the next issue.<\/p>\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n

The second speaker displays a good temperament and seems to be addressing the queries of the judges, confidently.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

This marks the end of the quarterfinals, and the teams proceed to the Socials night. The teams are pumping with excitement for the results. Stay tuned for further updates of the Grand finale and the semi-finals tomorrow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

SEMIFINALS<\/strong><\/p>\n

After a thrilling socials and gala dinner, full of dancing, food, and fun, the qualifying teams are back to business. The semi-finalists are IL 03, IL 05, IL17 and IL12.<\/p>\n

10:15 – The much-awaited semi-finals have started! The judges are briefed and the teams are pumped up to put their best foot forward.<\/p>\n

Courtroom 12<\/strong><\/div>\n
IL 12 v. IL 05<\/strong><\/div>\n
PETITIONERS –<\/div>\n
S1 –<\/div>\n
10:30<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel has started off fluently and seems confident.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:33<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The judges seem confused and the counsel is, therefore, subjected to grilling making the counsel nervous.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:40<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel is stuck at a tricky query but manages to proceed tactfully.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:43<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: Simultaneous queries from judges seems to have bamboozled the petitioner’s counsel.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:46<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel rests her case.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(S2)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:48<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel faces the bench and is interrupted at the very start.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:51<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel is taking up the challenge and is answering to all the queries with ease.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:52<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The bench is asking some really tough questions.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:58<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: Judges are annoyed at the counsel misconduct for interrupting the bench.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:06<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel is trying her best to please the judges with her courtesy and knowledge.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:08<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: Seems there would be an extension considering the interest of the bench.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Respondent<\/div>\n
(S1)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:10<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The request to address the bench as lordships but is denied by the brother judge.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:13<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel is trying the level best to deal with the questions and also present the submissions.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:16<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: Something interesting seems to be happening as the judges discuss something.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:21<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: There seems to be a difference of opinion between the counsel and the judges.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:26<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The bench is convinced by the knowledge of facts of the counsel.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:30<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel is requested to rest his case.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
S(2)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:36<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The grilling by the judges is handled by the counsel humbly and calmly<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:41<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel provides authorities for the submissions made by her.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 44: The respondent’s counsel is stuck but catches up again.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:53<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: A tussle of question-answer goes on and on.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:57<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel is requested to rest her case.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
COURTROOM 01 <\/strong><\/div>\n
IL 03 v. IL 17<\/strong><\/div>\n
PETITIONER –<\/div>\n
S 1 –<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:50<\/span><\/span>: The counsel is asked to brief the facts of the case.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:51<\/span><\/span>: The counsel begins arguing on her first issue.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:53<\/span><\/span>: The judges challenged the arguments on grounds of the facts.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
10:55: Judges throw an array of questions.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10:58: The counsel confidently answers few, also dodges a few.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 03- Counsel concludes her arguments very swiftly and courteously.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
S 2-<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 05- Counsel starts off very confidently<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 08- Judges ask factual queries.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11: 13 – Counsel answers in detail tactfully.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:15 – Counsel uses various case laws to substantiate the arguments.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
RESPONDENTS –<\/div>\n
S1<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:17<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The Counsel appears before the Hon’ble Court and lays down the structure in which she would proceed with her arguments.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:19<\/span><\/span>\u00a0:The counsel seeks permission to directly proceed with her arguments which is granted by the bench.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:21<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The counsel is questioned on her very first sentence & the counsel seems nervous while answering.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:24<\/span><\/span>\u00a0: The judges grilled the counsel on her reasoning and the counsel falls in the trap of her own fallacy.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:28<\/span><\/span>: The counsel is asked to produce an evidence to her claim but she fails to do so.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:30<\/span><\/span>: The counsel proceeds with her next argument.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:33<\/span><\/span>: The judges put forth various questions regarding the sub-arguments and the counsel tries to answer the questions by citing some judgments.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:37<\/span><\/span>: The judges provide the counsel with an extension in time.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:38<\/span><\/span>: The judges grill the counsel on a certain point of law and the counsel pleads ignorance.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:41<\/span><\/span>: The counsel puts forth her other arguments confidently.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:45<\/span><\/span>: The judges again reminds the counsel of the mistake which she earlier made.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:47<\/span><\/span>: The counsel rests her case.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
S2 –<\/div>\n
11:48<\/span><\/span>: The judges grant the counsel’s permission to approach the dias.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:49<\/span><\/span>: The counsel confidently begins with her arguments.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:52<\/span><\/span>: The counsel is questioned by the judges on the assumptions in her arguments and the counsel seems nervous while her answer.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:55<\/span><\/span>: The judges grill the counsel on the criteria that the counsel lays down and the counsel tries to logically answer it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11:59<\/span><\/span>: The counsel’s argument is put to enquiry based on practical aspects by the judges.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:01<\/span><\/span>: The Counsel is allowed to proceed with her next issue.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12: 03: The judges challenge the reasoning but the counsel makes a good effort to provide them with a satisfactory response.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:06<\/span><\/span>: The counsel is questioned on the definition which was the basis of her argument.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:10<\/span><\/span>: The judges grill the counsel on the facts of the case.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:12<\/span><\/span>\u00a0The judges remind the counsel that her time has already exhuasted and allow her an acute extension.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12:16<\/span><\/span>: The counsel rests her case.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
13:05 – The teams proceed for lunch, the results are to be announed during lunch.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
13: 30 – Judges have been briefed for the Grand Finale!<\/div>\n
\n

FINALS<\/strong><\/p>\n

MOOT COURT HALL <\/strong><\/p>\n

IL 03 v. IL 05<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

PETITIONERS <\/strong>\u2013<\/p>\n

S1 \u2013<\/p>\n

14:14 \u2013 Counsel 1 takes the dais, and briefs the Hon\u2019ble bench regarding the facts of the case.<\/p>\n

14:16 \u2013 Counsel starts to argue the first issue confidently and faces some initial queries relating to jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

14:20 \u2013 The counsel faces an array of questions by the bench, and is asked by the bench to proceed to 2nd<\/sup> submission.<\/p>\n

14:23 \u2013 The counsel still tries to establish the 1st<\/sup> submission and the bench enlighten the counsel of laws overlooked by the counsel.<\/p>\n

14:28- The counsel moves to the 2nd<\/sup> submission and explains the structure of the submission. The counsel glides swiftly throughout the submission. Judges look impressed and patiently listen to the counsel.<\/p>\n

14: 35- The counsel faces some poignant questions from the bench. Counsel answers every question assertively.<\/p>\n

14:41 \u2013 The counsel get an extension for wrapping up her arguments.<\/p>\n

S2 \u2013<\/p>\n

14:44 \u2013 The 2nd<\/sup> counsel takes permission to approach the dais, and starts arguing assertively.<\/p>\n

14:48 \u2013The judges challenge the reasoning of the argument presented by the counsel, but the counsel makes a good effort to provide them with a satisfactory response.<\/p>\n

14:52 \u2013 The judges point out the irregularities in the written submission and asks the Counsel to clarify the same.<\/p>\n

14:58 \u2013 Judges again point out logical fallacies in the counsel arguments, the counsel tries to simply the argument for the judges.<\/p>\n

15: 04 : – The judges grill the counsel on a certain law point for a long time. The counsel concedes and says that she stands corrected, eventually changes her line of argument.<\/p>\n

15 : 07 \u2013 The counsel looks a bit confused, the bench tries to help the counsel by hinting towards the correct line of argument.<\/p>\n

15 : 10 \u2013 Counsel fails to answer some of the question however is granted an gracious extension of 4 minutes. Counsel wraps up her argument and rests her case.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENTS \u2013<\/strong><\/p>\n

S1 \u2013 <\/strong><\/p>\n

15: 17- <\/strong>Counsel 1 for the respondents begins her argument confidently and assertively. She is loud and clear, gaining undeterred attention of the judges and the audience.<\/p>\n

15: 21 \u2013 Judges ask the counsel to primarily rebut the arguments pf the petitioners, however she looks confused.<\/p>\n

15: 24 \u2013 The kind bench drops numerous hints to guide the Counsel to the accurate crux of her argument. The counsel tries to satisfy the judges and give the answer the bench is really looking for. The judges yet again try to guide the counsel.<\/p>\n

15: 31 \u2013 There is continuous questioning by the bench, Counsel struggles to establish the 1st<\/sup> issue and thereby moves to the 2nd<\/sup> issue.<\/p>\n

15: 38 \u2013 The counsel apologizes for an incorrect submission and tries to compensate the same by an alternative argument.<\/p>\n

15: 44 \u2013 The counsel is asked to argue legally and not emotionally. She wraps up her arguments and concludes.<\/p>\n

S2 \u2013<\/p>\n

15:53 \u2013 The 2nd<\/sup> counsel for the respondents starts confidently, further is asked multiple questions by the bench.<\/p>\n

15 : 59- The counsel seems confused, however the kind bench helps the counsel by drawing analogies.<\/p>\n

16:00 \u2013 The counsel struggles to establish her initial issue, the judges still try to hint her towards the correct argument.<\/p>\n

16:07 \u2013 Counsel is not able to establish her initial issue and thereby moves to next issue. Counsel tries her best to establish the second issue.<\/p>\n

16: 20 \u2013 The Counsel rests her case before time and recites her prayer.<\/p>\n

16: 52 – The teams have moved to the seminar hall for the valedictory ceremony. Everybody awaits the results.<\/p>\n

\n

17:00 – And the results are here !<\/p>\n

The winner of the 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition is IL 03 (Symbiosis Law School Noida<\/strong>)! Hearty congratulations to the winners.<\/p>\n

The runner-up is\u00a0 IL 05 (Sastra University).<\/p>\n

Best speaker is Deshna Golecha (NMIMS), Best researcher is Arshita Bansal (Faculty of Law, Delhi University) and the Best Memorial is awarded to NUSRL Ranchi.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

*Curtains up from 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018* DAY 1- INAUGURATION, REGISTRATION, DRAW OF LOTS, EXCHANGE OF MEMORIALS & RESEARCHERS’ <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":111,"featured_media":201062,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawschoolnews","category-liveblogging"],"yoast_head":"\n8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"*Curtains up from 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018* DAY 1- INAUGURATION, REGISTRATION, DRAW OF LOTS, EXCHANGE OF MEMORIALS & RESEARCHERS’\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-08-31T07:25:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-06T06:08:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Student Reporter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Student Reporter\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/\",\"name\":\"8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-31T07:25:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-06T06:08:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6e71c94f94eaefd914dd78a93d3bf2a6\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6e71c94f94eaefd914dd78a93d3bf2a6\",\"name\":\"Student Reporter\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f20e0c7074b7aa3385fdfd071c5afbd2044afd6f05cd01813781d8ebb251c056?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f20e0c7074b7aa3385fdfd071c5afbd2044afd6f05cd01813781d8ebb251c056?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Student Reporter\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/student_reporter\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018","og_description":"*Curtains up from 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018* DAY 1- INAUGURATION, REGISTRATION, DRAW OF LOTS, EXCHANGE OF MEMORIALS & RESEARCHERS’","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-08-31T07:25:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-06T06:08:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Student Reporter","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Student Reporter","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","name":"8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg","datePublished":"2018-08-31T07:25:45+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-06T06:08:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6e71c94f94eaefd914dd78a93d3bf2a6"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/31\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6e71c94f94eaefd914dd78a93d3bf2a6","name":"Student Reporter","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f20e0c7074b7aa3385fdfd071c5afbd2044afd6f05cd01813781d8ebb251c056?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f20e0c7074b7aa3385fdfd071c5afbd2044afd6f05cd01813781d8ebb251c056?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Student Reporter"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/student_reporter\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":197866,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/30\/8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-announced\/","url_meta":{"origin":201043,"position":0},"title":"8th\u00a0ILNU National Moot Court Competition announced","author":"Saba","date":"June 30, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Ankit Tripathi","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/8th-NMCC-Poster.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/8th-NMCC-Poster.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/8th-NMCC-Poster.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/8th-NMCC-Poster.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/8th-NMCC-Poster.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":201328,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/05\/team-sls-noida-wins-8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","url_meta":{"origin":201043,"position":1},"title":"Team SLS NOIDA wins 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018","author":"Saba","date":"September 5, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Akanksha Vishnoi","rel":"","context":"In "Achievements"","block_context":{"text":"Achievements","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/achievements\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/SLS-NOIDA_ILNU-MOOT-WINNERS.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/SLS-NOIDA_ILNU-MOOT-WINNERS.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/SLS-NOIDA_ILNU-MOOT-WINNERS.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/SLS-NOIDA_ILNU-MOOT-WINNERS.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/SLS-NOIDA_ILNU-MOOT-WINNERS.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":201607,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/13\/symbiosis-law-school-noida-wins-8th-ilnu-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","url_meta":{"origin":201043,"position":2},"title":"Symbiosis Law School NOIDA wins 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition 2018","author":"Saba","date":"September 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Aastha Srivastava","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/ILNU-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195935,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/10\/ilnu-team-wins-7th-amity-international-moot-court-competition\/","url_meta":{"origin":201043,"position":3},"title":"ILNU Team wins 7th Amity International Moot Court Competition","author":"Saba","date":"May 10, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Ankit Tripathi","rel":"","context":"In "Achievements"","block_context":{"text":"Achievements","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/achievements\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/ILNU-AMITY-MOOT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/ILNU-AMITY-MOOT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/ILNU-AMITY-MOOT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/ILNU-AMITY-MOOT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/ILNU-AMITY-MOOT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":310619,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/03\/xiii-ilnu-antitrust-moot-conference-feb-23-25-2024-register-by-jan-20th-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":201043,"position":4},"title":"XIII ILNU Antitrust Moot & Conference [Feb 23-25, 2024]: Register by Jan 20th, 2024","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The XIII Edition of ILNU Anti-Trust Moot & Conference, 2024 will be hosted and organised by ILNU.","rel":"","context":"In "Conference\/Seminars\/Lectures"","block_context":{"text":"Conference\/Seminars\/Lectures","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/conference_seminars_lectures\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ILNU Antitrust","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/ILNU-Antitrust.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/ILNU-Antitrust.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/ILNU-Antitrust.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/ILNU-Antitrust.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195829,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/05\/team-ilnu-wins-14th-nani-palkhivala-memorial-tax-moot-court-competition\/","url_meta":{"origin":201043,"position":5},"title":"Team ILNU wins 14th Nani Palkhivala Memorial Tax Moot Court Competition","author":"Saba","date":"May 5, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Ankit Tripathi","rel":"","context":"In "Achievements"","block_context":{"text":"Achievements","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/achievements\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/14th-Nani-Palkhivala-Memorial.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/14th-Nani-Palkhivala-Memorial.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/14th-Nani-Palkhivala-Memorial.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/14th-Nani-Palkhivala-Memorial.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/14th-Nani-Palkhivala-Memorial.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201043","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/111"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201043\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201062"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}