FRIDAY | 12 OCTOBER<\/strong><\/p>\n TIME DETAILS<\/span> SATURDAY | 13 OCTOBER<\/strong><\/p>\n TIME DETAILS<\/span> SUNDAY| 14 OCTOBER<\/strong><\/p>\n TIME DETAILS<\/span> 5:00 p.m. \u2013 Registrations have begun at the Jhunjhunwala Hall for the 32 teams which have made it here to the competition after the memorial elimination.<\/p>\n 5:40 p.m. \u2013 Sushrut Kaplay, the Convenor of Moot Court Committee, NALSAR University of Law, takes the stage to welcome the 32 teams and thank the sponsors \u2013 the Bodh Raj Sawhny Memorial Trust, Eastern Book Company and SCC Online. He extends an invitation to the Vice Chancellor to open the competition and address the participants.<\/p>\n 5:50 p.m. \u2013 Prof. (Dr.) Faizan Mustafa, the Vice Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, officially declares the competition open with a brilliant welcome address. He mentions the recent NAAC accreditation of NALSAR with a score of 3.61, which is higher than all other National Law Schools (NLUs). He talks about the quality of legal education and mooting competitions in India.<\/p>\n He talks about the holistic standards of judging employed here at BR Sawhny, where the practice is to invite individuals with a vast mooting experience or those who have contributed to the field of academia to judge the rounds, instead of calling practicing judges as is the conventional means in most other moots, thereby ensuring that judging is done in a fair and satisfactory manner.<\/p>\n He congratulates the teams for qualifying the memorial elimination round and wishes them a comfortable stay at NALSAR for the duration of the competition.<\/p>\n 6:15 p.m. \u2013 The Inaugural Session has been concluded.<\/p>\n 6:30 p.m. \u2013 The match-ups for the Preliminary Rounds have been announced and the memorial exchange takes place.<\/p>\n 9:30 a.m. – All the judges are being briefed about the moot problem in\u00a0Jhunjhunwala Hall.<\/p>\n 10:20 a.m –\u00a0Preliminary Round-I has begun.<\/p>\n 12:00 p.m. – The Preliminary Round-I was extended and has finally been concluded.<\/p>\n 12:20 p.m. – Preliminary Round-II has commenced.<\/p>\n 1:50 p.m. – Preliminary Round-II has come to an end.<\/p>\n 2:30 p.m. – Preliminary Round-III is in full swing.<\/p>\n 4:10 p.m. – An extended Preliminary Round-III has been concluded.<\/p>\n 4:30 p.m. – Preliminary Round-IV is underway.<\/p>\n 6:10 p.m. – Preliminary Round-IV has come to an end.<\/p>\n 6:30 p.m. – Researchers Test is being conducted.<\/p>\n 7:00 p.m. – All the teams have gathered in the Jhunjhunwala Hall and there is nervous excitement in the room as the participants are waiting for the results of the Preliminary Rounds to be announced.<\/p>\n 7:05 p.m. – The teams which have qualified for the Quarter Final Rounds, in no particular order, are:<\/p>\n 7:45 p.m – The Quarter Final Rounds have begun<\/p>\n Room no. 1 – University of Legal studies, Punjab University v Amity Law school, Noida<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 7.49 pm: Quarter Final rounds have begun in Room 1 after a minor delay.<\/span><\/p>\n 7.52 pm: The judge(s) have begun a line of questioning based on the petitioner\u2019s reference to an authority concerning the parameters of judicial review.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.00 pm: The counsel, seemingly unflustered, attempts to answer the expanding thread of questions, but with little success at impressing the questioning judge. <\/span><\/p>\n 8:04 pm: With three minutes of speaking time left, the petitioner makes an attempt at moving to the next argument but is stopped mid sentence by the bench\u2019s intervention.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.07 pm: The bench allows the petitioner to move on to the next argument based on administrative grounds, effectively extending the speaker\u2019s time.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.17 pm: The petitioner manages to answer a new line of questioning on factual grounds with a limited degree of success, and moves on to another submission.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.22 pm: The petitioner seems confused due to relentless questioning.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.26 pm: The speaker has concluded the arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.27 pm: The second speaker has started the arguments and is confidently fielding the bench\u2019s questions.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.33 pm: The bench seems unimpressed, while more people come in to observe as word of the ongoing slaughter spreads. The petitioner\u2019s initial confidence seems to be fading in face of the relentless questioning.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.45 pm: The petitioner promptly and successfully summarises the case for the petitioners on being asked to do so by the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.48 pm: The first counsel for the respondent has started presenting her case, seemingly prepared and sufficiently bracing herself for the expected onslaught.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.52 pm: The counsel after being duly criticised for her lack of procedural knowledge, moves on to the next submission.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.57 pm: After apologising for a number of other things, the counsel attempts to answer the bench\u2019s questions on the issue of taxation and moves on to responding to the petitioner\u2019s arguments on Article 21, on being prompted by the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n 9.07 pm: The counsel wraps up her arguments and the second speaker for the\u00a0<\/span>Respondents approaches the dais to start arguments.<\/p>\n 9.15 pm: The honorable judges are grilling the speaker and the speaker seems to be fazed by it.<\/span><\/p>\n 9.17 pm: The bench questions the relevance of the counsel\u2019s references which deal with the present questions extremely cursorily, and want authoritative references in support of his \u201cnon justiciable political claims\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n 9.25 pm: Due to paucity of time, the honorable judges have asked the speaker to sum up his arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n 9:30 pm: Both the teams have made their rebuttals which the honorable judges have paid a careful heed to.<\/span><\/p>\n 9:35 p.m: The Quarter Final Round-I has come to an end.<\/p>\n Room no. 2 –\u00a0National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi v Government Law College, Mumbai<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 7:46 pm: Petition speaker 1 is speaking in a very well mannered and organised fashion. The speaker is well versed with the subject matter and has presented very apt answers to the probing questions raised by the honorable judges.<\/span><\/p>\n 7:55 pm: On the question of the \u2018basic structure\u2019 being altered by the proposal, the speaker (petitioner speaker 1) \u00a0had not been able to completely satisfy the honorable judges. However, due to the lack of time, the honorable judges have asked the speaker to move forward to the next argument so as to sum up all the arguments in a timely manner. <\/span><\/p>\n 8:08 pm: Petitioner speaker 2 has started in a fairly confident manner. But on the question of double taxation the judges sought various clarifications on the arguments presented by the speaker, however the honorable judges were eventually satisfied with the clarifications given by the speaker. <\/span><\/p>\n 8:16 pm: Furthermore, the honorable judges have sought further clarity on the various arguments presented to them on the speaker. The objective of the judges has till now not been to grill the speakers, but rather to understand in detail the arguments presented to them along with the soundness of the arguments presented to them.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:23 pm: The honorable judges ask the speaker to sum up her arguments which she does promptly. The judges were satisfied with the prayer placed on record (memo) and hence didn’t see the need for it to be recited.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:26 pm: Respondent speaker 1 has started to present his arguments to the honorable judges, however the judges seem to be not so sure on the authoritative soundness of the arguments presented by the speaker. <\/span><\/p>\n 8:33 pm: The honorable judges are further grilling the speaker on the constitutional appropriateness of the arguments presented. Due to the amount of time taken in explaining a particular argument the honorable judges have asked the speaker to move on to further arguments the speaker might want to present. <\/span><\/p>\n 8:40 pm: The speaker has asked an extra 5 minutes to explain the statutory parameters of the arguments advanced by him. The honorable judges don’t seem to be fairy satisfied with the arguments presented by the speaker but due to the want of time have decided to listen to the second speaker of the respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:44 pm: The Respondent speaker 2 has started in a self-assured manner, but the honorable judges have been fairly active in questioning the speaker.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:50 pm: The honorable judges have been grilling the speaker on the question of jurisdiction of taxation between the centre and the state. However, the speaker seems to be unfazed by the cross questioning. <\/span><\/p>\n 8:55 pm: Through the cross-questioning the honorable judges have been trying to get greater clarity on the arguments advanced to them. The judges seem to be fairly satisfied with the arguments presented.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:58 pm: The speaker has asked for an extension of a minute to summarise her arguments which the honorable judges have granted.<\/span><\/p>\n Rebuttals<\/strong><\/p>\n 9:02 pm: Both the petitioners and respondents have rebutted the others arguments in an apt manner. The judges have paid close attention to both the rebuttals presented.<\/span><\/p>\n 9:05 p.m. – The Quarter Final Round-II has come to an end.<\/p>\n Room no. 3 –\u00a0National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi v Gujarat National Law University (GNLU), Gandhinagar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 19:41 pm:\u00a0 Petitioner\u00a0<\/span>speaker 1 started with bold and confident tone. But as soon as honorable judges on the bench started delving into the details of his argument, the speaker \u00a0seems to falter on the points advanced. Even after multiple call to cite an authority on the argument advanced, the speaker tries to sway away from his first point to the second. Unable to give satisfactory reply to judges\u2019 questions, the judges dismiss his furtherance and request the speaker 2 to take up the dias.<\/p>\n 19:58 pm : Petitioner\u00a0<\/span>speaker 2 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 his calm. The speaker stretches the limit of his argument by contending the operation of externality. The judges, unconvincingly, shoved off the argument, asking him to move to his second argument.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The speaker trying to gain back his ground argued appealing to the larger interest of the nation. The judges taken aback by the argument, dismiss the contention to be against the state\u2019s duty to ensure access to justice. Unable to cite single convincing authority on the second argument, the speaker was made to conclude.<\/span><\/p>\n 20:10 pm : Respondent\u00a0<\/span>speaker 1 moved on to his argument swiftly only to be stumbled by a struck down case he cited. The speaker realising a jittery start hurried to advance the second point on Tadri Formula. The judges halted the swiftness by questioning the validity of the argument on the grounds of necessity of autonomy for an organ.\u00a0The speaker tried to put up his calm gesture but the question on every line of the speaker has caused to be vexed. The judges, despite the earnest request of the speaker, did not allow for extra time for his second submission.<\/span><\/p>\n 20:29 pm: Respondent\u00a0<\/span>speaker 2 taking into account paucity of time tried to push on her first submission. The judges caught her worried expression, is grilling on her advancements on double taxation. The judges posed various hypothetical examples that point out the potholes in the arguments advanced. Expression \u2018breaking one\u2019s neck\u2019 goes very well with expression and position of the speaker. \u00a0After earnest request of the speaker, the judges allowed the speaker to submit her second submission out of formality. The speaker does her utmost in making the submission within one minute.<\/span><\/p>\n 20:46 pm: The round finishes with the well grounded rebuttal by the petitioner and the respondent in 1 minute each.<\/span><\/p>\n 20:50 p.m. – The Quarter Final Round-III has come to an end.<\/p>\n Room no. 4 – Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad v\u00a0Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Petitioners<\/b><\/p>\n Speaker 1<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 7:40 p.m. – The speaker 1 from the petitioner\u2019s side takes the podium to start presenting the arguments from the side.<\/span><\/p>\n 7:42 p.m. – He starts presenting the first leg of the argument on a good note, however, when questioned by the judges, seemed a little flustered. The judges seemed unsatisfied with the answer given by the speaker, and asked the counsel to proceed to the second leg of his argument.<\/span><\/p>\n 7: 48 p.m. – The counsel lays down the next argument in the form of three well structured points.<\/span><\/p>\n 7:52 p.m. – The counsel makes several references to the written submission made by them.<\/span><\/p>\n 7:56 p.m. – The counsel seeks permission from the judges for 30 more seconds so as to complete his submissions, which is granted by them.<\/span><\/p>\n 7:58 p.m. – The counsel ends his speech and calls upon his co-counsel to further the arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 2<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 7:59 p.m. – The Speaker 2 from the side of the petitioners takes the stage, and begins to make his submissions in a calm and steady manner after due permissions from the judges.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:00 p.m. – The judges pose certain questions to the counsel, which he answers, to which the judges seem satisfied and permit him to proceed with his arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:03 p.m. – The counsel makes several references to the fact sheet as well as the written submissions made by them.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:07 p.m – When questioned by the judges regarding the concept of taxing of professionals and the logic behind it, the counsel seems flustered and tries to excuse himself by pointing out the silence of the fact sheet on the particular issue. The judges do not seem satisfied by the counsel\u2019s response, and continue to grill him on the matter.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:15 – After further grilling, where the counsel is not satisfactorily able to respond to the questions posed by both the judges, due to paucity of time, the counsel makes his final argument and concludes his submission with a prayer.<\/span><\/p>\n Respondent<\/b><\/p>\n Speaker 1<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 8:16 p.m. – The 1st speaker starts off his line of argumentation confidently, with ample references to case laws which help him substantiate his submissions.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:19 p.m. – The judges pose a question regarding the irrational means of taxing which the counsel has referred to in his submissions, to which the counsel responds by stating that his co-counsel will be dealing with that issue.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:22 p.m. – The counsel is again faced with a question, when he makes a submission questioning the power of judicial review of the present court., which he attempts to answer, but is stumped once again when asked by the judges to back up his submission with a valid authority.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:26 p.m. – The counsel seems stumped when questioned by the judges as to the nature of the policy in question.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:29 p.m. – The counsel runs out of time and on request, the judges very graciously allot him 30 additional seconds to wrap up his arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 2<\/span><\/p>\n 8:30 p.m. – The speaker 2 on behalf of the respondents, begins to make his arguments in a quick and confident manner.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:33 p.m. – The counsel proceeds with his arguments in a smooth manner, with very little interruption from to the judges, unlike his fellow speakers.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:39 p.m. – The counsel moves on to his next submission, where he tries to establish that the said Act fails the test of reasonable nexus and intelligible differentia laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:40 p.m. – The counsel cites the facts of the Shah Bano case, and upon being questioned by the judges as to the relevance of the facts of that case to the present matter, the counsel seems stumped and starts to fumble for words.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:46 p.m. – With just a minute remaining, the counsel proceeds to conclude his submissions, while trying to satisfactorily answer the questions posed by the judges.<\/span><\/p>\n 8:55 p.m. – The rounds are extended by a few minutes due to relentless questioning by the judges, which also puts the counsel in a difficult position. However, the counsel is finally allowed to conclude the submissions on the respondent\u2019s side with a prayer.<\/span><\/p>\n Rebuttals<\/b><\/p>\n Petitioners<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 9:00 p.m. – The petitioners pointed out certain issues which haven\u2019t been adequately addressed by the respondents, per their judgement. The judges politely ask the counsel to keep his rebuttals within the specified time, and hence the counsel has no other choice but to wrap up his arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n Respondents<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 9:05 p.m. – The respondents make the rebuttals within the specified time and question the authority of the petitioners on a certain issue. The judges seem satisfied with the rebuttals made, thus putting an end to the intense session.<\/span><\/p>\n 9:08 p.m. – The Quarter Final Round-IV has come to an end.<\/p>\n 9:40 p.m. – The Quarter Final rounds have been concluded.<\/p>\n 11:40 p.m. – The teams which have qualified for the Semi Final Rounds, in no particular order, are:<\/p>\n Petitioners<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaker 1<\/span><\/p>\n 10:20 a.m: Even before the speaker begins, the speaker is bombarded with the questions by the judges, Does this court has jurisdiction? what is the right that you are claiming? can you seek a remedy without a right? To which the speaker replied that there is a violation of basic structure of the constitution. The judges ask the speaker to prove how there is a violation of basic structure of the constitution<\/p>\n 10:30 a.m:\u00a0The speaker says that the Tadri formula is a violation of federalism which is a part of basic structure of the constitution. The judges don’t look convinced and questions the speaker how it is violating the federalism. The speaker tries to convince the judges.<\/p>\n 10:40 a.m:\u00a0 The judges ask whether the\u00a0finance commission said it’s autonomy has been affected and the\u00a0speaker uses “the supreme court should” The judges ask the speaker what does the speaker mean by “should”? The speaker uses the promissory estoppel argument to convince the judges but the judges look unconvinced.<\/p>\n 10:45 a.m: Speaker is being grilled by the judges and the speaker is trying all he can do to convince the judges but in vain.<\/p>\n 10:50 a.m: The speaker 1 concludes his submissions.<\/p>\n Speaker 2<\/span><\/p>\n 10:52 a.m: Speaker 2 starts her submissions confidently.<\/p>\n 11:00 a.m: Judges are grilling the speaker and they successfully unsettled the speaker. The judges ask the speaker whether speaker is submitting that practising is a privilege or taxing a professional is a privilege. Back to back questions by all the judges again.<\/p>\n 11:10 a.m: Judges ask whether the speaker is trying to submit – practising once in a state will subject the person to the taxation by the state throughout the person’s life to which the speaker tries to draw a distinction between the question posed by the judged and the moot problem.<\/p>\n 11:15 a.m: Speaker requests for 3 minutes to conclude her submissions but the judges are utilising those 3 minutes to question her again.<\/p>\n 11:20 a.m: Judges ask the speaker to conclude within 2 minutes. The judges look unconvinced with the answers given to the questions posed by the judges.<\/p>\n 11:25 a.m: whatever the extra time has been given to the speaker, is being utilized by the judges to grill the speaker more.<\/p>\n 11:30 a.m: The judges finally let the speaker conclude her submissions.<\/p>\n Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaker 1<\/span><\/p>\n 11:32 a.m: Speaker 1 starts confidently but within no time, the structure of oral submissions was shattered due to the continuous grilling of the judges.<\/p>\n 11:40 a.m: Judges ask how the recommendations by the finance commission is binding and whether the centre has applied its mind while accepting the recommendations. The speaker tries to convince judges but they look unconvinced.<\/p>\n 11:45 a.m: The Judges continue to grill the speaker.<\/p>\n 11:50 a.m: The Judges are not convinced with the replies given by the speaker.<\/p>\n 12:00 p.m: The speaker try to convince the judges but the grilling hasn’t stopped. The speaker has not lost his calm and the Judges ask the speaker to conclude the submissions.<\/p>\n 12:05 p.m: Speaker 1 concludes his submissions.<\/p>\n Speaker 2<\/span><\/p>\n 12:08 p.m: Speaker 2 starts his submissions confidently but the judges starts grilling within no time. It seems that judges intend to utilize the time to full extent by grilling the speaker.<\/p>\n 12:15 p.m: Judges tell the speaker that they accept the centre has the power but they want the speaker to show how they used their power. Irrespective of continuous grilling, the speaker is trying to answer every question and has not lost his calm.<\/p>\n 12:20 p.m: Speaker 2 successfully ensures that he sticks to the structure of his oral submissions irrespective of the continuous grilling.<\/p>\n 12:30 p.m: Judges give 5 more minutes to the speaker to conclude his submissions.<\/p>\n 12:35 p.m: The Judges are not convinced with the submissions by the speaker. Speaker 2 has concluded his submissions.<\/p>\n 12:40 p.m: The Semi Final Round-I has come to an end.<\/p>\n Petitioner<\/b><\/p>\n Speaker 1<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 11:45 a.m. – Speaker 1 from the side of the Petitioners confidently takes the dias to begin making the submissions on their side. However, a line of questioning from the judges as to the rule of fact and the rule of law leaves him flustered, and he tries to answer the questions, but the judges do not seem satisfied with the response, and continue to grill him further.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:00 p.m. – The judges continue the incessant questioning which leaves the counsel vexed.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:04 p.m. – The counsel has run out of time and requests the judges for an extra minute to be able to complete his submissions, which is graciously allowed by the judges.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:06 p.m. – The judges pose another question, which the counsel tries to answer, but the judges seem unconvinced. He tries to conclude his arguments, but is dismissed by the judges due to lack of time.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 2<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 12:07 p.m. – The Speaker 2 from the petitioner\u2019s side takes the stage after his co-counsel and starts speaking in a calm and confident manner. He presents his submissions in the form of three well-structured points.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:09 p.m – The judges pose a question as to the difference between a professional tax and an income tax, to which the counsel confidently presents an answer while citing an authority on the same. The judges pose another question, but the counsel, having misunderstood the question, tries to answer it, but unsuccessfully.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n1600-1700 Registration
\n1730-1830 Inaugural and Brief Session by SCC Online
\n1830-1900 Orientation and Exchange of Memorials<\/p>\n
\n1000-1100 Preliminary Round-I
\n1130-1230 Preliminary Round-II
\n1400-1500 Preliminary Round-III
\n1530-1630 Preliminary Round-IV
\n1700-1800 Researchers\u2019 Test
\n1715-1730 Result of Preliminary Rounds & Exchange of Memorials
\n1800-1900 Quarter-Final Round
\n2000-2100 Break Night Dinner
\n2100-2115 Result of Quarter Final Round<\/p>\n
\n1000-1100 Semi-Final Round
\n1400-1600 Final Round
\n1630-1730 Valedictory<\/p>\n12th October 2018 – Day 1<\/span><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/IMG_0048-e1539525448649-200x300.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/VC-address-300x200.jpeg\")
13th October 2018 – Day 2<\/span><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Prelim-I-1-300x200.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Prelim-I-2-300x200.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Prelim-II-1-300x200.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Prelim-II-2-300x200.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Prelim-III-1-1-300x200.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Prelim-III-2-1-300x200.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Prelim-IV-1-300x200.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Prelim-IV-2-300x200.jpeg\")
\n
\n
14th October 2018 – Day 3<\/span><\/h3>\n
10:15 a.m: The Semi Final Rounds have begun<\/h4>\n
Room no. 1 :\u00a0 University of Legal Studies, Punjab University v Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/IMG_9846-300x200.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/IMG_9829-300x200.jpg\")
Room no. 2 :\u00a0<\/strong>National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi v National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi<\/span><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/IMG_9869-300x200.jpg\")