![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-07-at-4.21.06-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
The 7th<\/sup>\u00a0NLIU National Corporate Law Moot, hosted by National Law Institute University, Bhopal in association with the Competition Commission of India, commenced with the inaugural ceremony on 7th<\/sup>\u00a0December 2018, which was attended by the judges and participants of the tournament and the students of NLIU, Bhopal.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4.22 PM | Cyber Law Centre<\/strong> The ceremony itself started with the floral welcome of the guests followed by the lighting of the lamp by Hon’ble Justice Renu Sharma (Retired District Judge, Bhopal) who is the Chief Guest for the Inaugural Ceremony followed by Prof (Dr.) V. Vijaya Kumar (Director, NLIU Bhopal), Dr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav (Faculty In-charge, Moot Court Association, NLIU Bhopal) and Mr. Shashank Chaddha (Convenor, Moot Court Association, NLIU Bhopal).<\/p>\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 4.25 PM | Cyber Law Centre\u00a0<\/strong>This was followed by a welcome speech by Prof. (Dr.) Vijaya Kumar<\/strong><\/em>, who\u00a0stressed on the importance of mooting, saying it’s not a co-curricular activity but rather a very crucial part of the curriculum.\u00a0He talked about the positive and increasing role of these competitions in the essential skill development for a lawyer and how the dearth of them earlier used to leave only court visits for the law students to learn about the practical aspects of the field. Gratefully\u00a0acknowledging the collaboration with the CCI, Prof. (Dr.) Kumar hopes that this becomes an exclusive Corporate Law venture between the two institutions.<\/p>\n 4.37 PM | Cyber Law Centre Dr.<\/strong> Sanjay Kumar Yadav (Faculty-In-Charge, NLIU MCA)<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0thanked the director, the alumni and the MCA Convenor for their efforts. He emphasized on how learning is what is important and how the competition is an opportunity to learn. Thanking his crew for making sure everything in organising the moot was in place, he expressed hope in taking the Competition to a whole together new level in the years to come.<\/p>\n 4. 38 PM | Cyber Law Centre\u00a0<\/strong>The Chief Guest for the event Hon’ble Justice Renu Sharma (Retd.)<\/strong><\/em> addressed the gathering and stressed on the importance of mooting as curricular activity and emphasized on the fact that the purpose of law is to give justice. Mooting allows the Students to get insights of how court looks like, unlike some years ago when courts were not less than a scary house. Ending her speech, she urged the students to participate in the competition with aim to learn and know about our own weaknesses. explained how life is a competition, not everytime you win, you must learn something. Bringing us back to the old adage “the grass is always greener on the other side” she reminded students about the frivolity in winning and losing, as one may win in the district Court but may end up losing in the high court. Reminiscing her experience from 1972, where she as a defence counsel, despite getting close to an acquittal for her client\u00a0 failed to do so, was applauded by her colleague Mr. Thakur by pointing out how she had bamboozled the judges.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4.44 PM | Cyber Law Centre\u00a0<\/strong>The Director presented a memento to the Chief Guest Justice Sharma as a token of appreciation for her presence at NLIU, Bhopal. A brief presentation was conducted by Ms. Shreya of the NLIU Gender Justice Cell re-affirming NLIU’s zero tolerance policy towards sexual harassment. She also explained the mechanisms of reporting any incidents of sexual harassment and urged the participants to come forward and report any such incidents.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4.50 PM | Cyber Law Centre\u00a0<\/strong>Taking the ceremony further, Mr. Shashank Chaddha (Convenor, NLIU MCA)<\/strong><\/em>, the superhero who is known for working silently behind the scenes delivered a speech and declared the competition open. Welcoming the teams, he emphasized on how the MCA at NLIU seeks to uphold an erstwhile legacy of this Competition with this edition of NNCLM. He thanked the honorable guests, the alumni and the participants for making it to the city of lakes urged them to take back beautiful memories as they leave NLIU, Bhopal.<\/p>\n With this we come to the end of the Inaugural Ceremony of the 7th NNCLM 2018. We hope to see you tomorrow here again.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n DAY 2<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 10:00 AM | Guest House Basement\u00a0<\/strong>The second day of the event kick started with the judge’s briefing session. Prior to the start of the session, the judges interacted with each other and exchanged pleasantries. The session started with a quick addressal of facts by the Co-convenor of the Moot Court Association of the National Law Institute University, Priyam Jhudele, which was followed by a session of clarification, led by the convenor of the Moot Court Association of the National Law Institute University, Shashank Chadda. The judges were also instructed about the pattern of marking and also were provided with the scoring sheets for the rounds.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11:30 AM | Academic Block -2 | Preliminary Round 1\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 11:30 AM –\u00a0 United world school of law, Karnavati university<\/span>\u00a0v.\u00a0 National Law School of India University<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The rounds are about to begin as the judges have already taken their seats. The environment is full of tension, both sides are flipping through their pages, taking last minute notes. The appellant team, in spite of lacking a researcher, looks very confident, while the respondent team is working silently to find out loopholes in the other sides’ arguments.<\/p>\n 11:40 AM\u00a0 – GNLU v. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The Counsel is addressing the first issue now.\u00a0The judge is grilling the counsel on the legal aspects as to the authority of Directorate General.\u00a0The Counsel asserts that the DG has taken a wrong interpretation of the guidelines of the competition commission by taking a suo Motu action. The judge has called attention to the para 14 11:50 AM –\u00a0Symbiosis law school Hyderabad v. Symbiosis law school Pune<\/strong><\/p>\n Judges ask to brief the facts in 10 points. The speaker being well versed with the facts impresses the judges and gives the clarity regarding the issue. Judge Mr. Shashwat Sharma has many questions to asking the appellant to give specific details of all the sections included. The calm composure of the Judges seem to make appellants feel comfortable. Judge shashwat sharma says “issue 1 is heart of evidence.” The speaker 1\u00a0proceeds with Issue 3. It’s all cold outside, cold inside.\u00a0In this cold the judge hasn’t left any stone upturned to make appellants sweat. The Judge asks about market share of TML which was answered well by the speaker.<\/p>\n 11:51 AM –\u00a0School of Law, Christ University v ILS Law College, Pune<\/strong><\/p>\n Appellants begin to present their arguments.\u00a0 They have stated the facts and the issues involved. Judges\u00a0listen patiently, and ask few questions in between for clarification of a point.\u00a0Counsel 1 pleads for some extra time which has been duly agreed to by the Judge.<\/p>\n 11:52 AM\u00a0GNLU v. School of Excellence in Law<\/strong><\/p>\n The second speaker has now taken the podium, Moving with a threefold argument for the 4th issue, the counsel is facing the no-give-away face of the judges. Drawing attention to relevant product markets the counsel is moving forward with his first argument.\u00a0The Counsel of the appellant argues that one cannot abuse dominance without existence of domination.\u00a0Mr. Jeswant is opposing the counsel on whether the appellant company is in a secondary market.\u00a0Kingfisher Airline v. CCI<\/strong><\/em> case has been called into focus by the judges.<\/p>\n 12:00 PM\u00a0Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Judges try to confuse the appellant over TPL and TML . Appellant finally concludes arguments issue 1 and 2.\u00a0The question and answers aren’t over yet. judges question regarding footnote mentioned in memorial. Ask what does SCC stands for.\u00a0There is a lot of confusion regarding issue 3.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 12:00 PM MNLU, Aurangabad v. TNNLS<\/strong><\/p>\n The arguments of the second speaker rested on the provisions of Section 19(3) and Section 6(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.\u00a0The appellant argued that the joint venture that took place is in accordance of law, and that the joint venture did not promote or involve unfair competition or trade practices.\u00a0The appellant however failed to hit the bulls eye as she did not use Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, which was rightly pointed out by the judges towards the end of the speech.<\/p>\n 12:03 PM School of Law, Christ University v ILS Law College, Pune<\/strong><\/p>\n The judge is grilling the counsel on the first argument presented, however, the counsel answers all questions asked.\u00a0 Moving onto the next issue,\u00a0the counsel presents her argument citing, sec 6- threshold of competition, and argues that the threshold of competition has not been crossed citing\u00a0clarification 11- use of machinery does not regard transfer of assets and that the lessee is required to pay rent to the lessor. With this, the counsel concludes her arguments.<\/p>\n 12:06 PM United world school of law, Karnavati University<\/span>\u00a0v.\u00a0 National Law School of India University, Bengaluru\u00a0<\/span><\/strong> 12: 05 PM\u00a0MNLU, Aurangabad v.\u00a0 TNNLS<\/strong><\/p>\n It was now time for the respondents to come up and present their case. The judges are quizzing the respondents. The respondent raised the concept of appreciable adverse effect, and when the meaning and the scope of the same was questioned by the judges, the respondent responded by saying that the meaning is developing on a case to case basis, which gave the judges a good laugh.<\/p>\n 12:10 PM\u00a0GNLU\u00a0 v. School of Excellence in Law\u00a0<\/strong> 12: 15 PM United World School of Law, Karnavati University<\/span>\u00a0v.\u00a0 National Law School of India University, Bengaluru<\/span><\/strong> 12:17 PM\u00a0Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The second speaker takes over the dice. Judge Shashwat Sharma asks whether there is any report that shows the lubricants used are causing harm. He furhter asks why a particular lubricant “zero” shall be the only lubricant used. The Speaker proceeds with issue 4\u00a0 and argues that there has been “No transfer of asset, only transfer of possession”, To which judges ask what is transfer?\u00a0The issue of transfer continues further.. words like possession, ownership, handing over, transfer cause confusion.\u00a0“Is there a definition of transfer in common law ” asks, Mr. Shashwat Sharma. There seems to be silence in the room right now.<\/p>\n 12:22 PM GNLU v School Of Excellence in Law\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n After a small enquiry about the time duration with the court Clerk, the judges are now calling the second counsel for the respondents.\u00a0With a calm in his voice, a contrast to his co-counsel,the counsel is stressing on how restrictions on online sales affects the consumers and distributors.\u00a0Ms. Kumar is grilling the counsel as to whether “there is a threshold to be called dominant?”, as a 32% share is fairly decent but on what objective grounds can it be called “dominant”?<\/p>\n 12:25 PM MNLU v TNNLS\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It was now time for the co counsel to come forward to present the issues.\u00a0His time started with a punching question from the judges, with regard to his name not being mentioned on one of the agreements, to which the respondent admitted it to be a mistake on their part.\u00a0The respondent further mistook a clarification stating that the restriction of two companies from selling lubricants would be equivalent to restricting all the companies, thus amounting to unfair trade practices, but so was not the case according to law\u00a0\u00a0The Respondent emphasized on (a) Time agreement (b)\u00a0Dominance of company and (c)\u00a0Distinction of products\u00a0for proving his point, and stated that the same can be used while section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 is considered.<\/p>\n 12: 30 PM School of Law, Christ University v ILS Law College, Pune<\/strong><\/p>\n Respondents take over the dice . Judge asks the speaker to state\u00a05 facts in favour of her case. The respondent is able to put in 3 facts.\u00a0Being very confident speaker presents her arguments. Each question being answered very well. Judge Mr. Sharma.<\/p>\n 12:36 PM<\/strong> United World School of Law, Karnavati University<\/span>\u00a0v.\u00a0 National Law School of India University, Bengaluru<\/span><\/strong> 12:40 PM School of Law, Christ University<\/strong>\u00a0v ILS Law College, Pune<\/strong> 12:42 PM\u00a0Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad v. Symbiosis Law School Pune<\/strong><\/p>\n And the Round ends here… However the best thing about Competitions is clearly visible here. With elaborate feedback and friendly banter, the participants get to learn a lot and network even better.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ROUND 2<\/strong><\/p>\n 02:45 PM School of Excellence in Law v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The appellant began his speech quite confidently with a brief summary of the case, cleverly stating the facts of the case in such a way that the facts would seem to be in the favour of the appellants. Quite a show of the gift of gab.\u00a0The appellant moved on with his first argument but was stopped abruptly when he raised the concept of ‘Malice’ in Civil Law. The appellant was speechless when this question was thrown at him, but stated a provision in the Indian Evidence Act and got away with it.<\/p>\n 02:50 PM\u00a0ILS Law college, Pune v. MNLU, Aurangabad\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n All energised after the lunch. The appellants start with briefing of facts to judges.\u00a0After giving a brief of facts speaker 1 proceeds with arguments. She starts with issue 1 regarding search and seizure done by DG being illegal. Being very confident she starts her arguments. Judges point out difference between domestic law and international law.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 02:52 PM\u00a0SLS, Pune v. United World School of Law, Karnavati University<\/strong><\/p>\n The first speaker from the appellant’s side is beginning now. Stressing on the guidelines by the high court concerning the search and seizures, the counsel has the judges flipping through pages with third reference to certain Paras and case laws in the first 5 minutes itself. Text counsel is moving to the second issue with little questioning up til now.\u00a0The judges are impressed with a structured reply by the counsel to deal with a query clause-wise.\u00a0Promptly replying to a question regarding the facts by the judges, the counsel is contending that there was little restriction on Competition in comparison to the pro competitive effects as inter brand Competition was promoted.<\/p>\n 0252 PM Indore Institute of Law v. Christ University, Bangalore<\/strong> 0255 PM\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0SLS, Pune v. United World School of Law, Karnavati University<\/strong> 0257 PM\u00a0Tamil Nadu National Law University v. Gujarat National Law University\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n counsel explains the facts involved and judges ask for counsel to proceed to arguments and to state the issues.\u00a0The counsel cites a case decided in the European court and is being grilled by the judges on how it is relevant in the present court. The counsel addresses the issue of online sale of cars, and states that online sale of cars should not be allowed and is questioned by the judge on whether there is any specific law present in the concerned country regarding the same.<\/p>\n 0300 PM School of Excellence in Law v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University.<\/strong><\/p>\n There was a large amount of misinterpretation of facts by the appellants, and the same was pointed out by the judges through a series of hard-hitting questions.\u00a0There was an attempt made by the appellant to wriggle his way out of the pounding by the judges by lying with regard to a statutory provision and the binding value of a case, but was caught red handed by the judges.The second argument of the appellant rested on the fact with regard to retrospective applicability of the Competition Act, 2002.\u00a0Another point raised by the appellant was adverse effective competition, but he failed to successfully draw lines of similarity between the issues at hand and the points raised, which forced the judges to indulge in yet another round of pounding. The judges however did not look forward to cut short the appellant, and gave him two successive extensions of 7 minutes and 2 minutes respectively.<\/p>\n 0302 PM ILS Law college, Pune v. MNLU, Aurangabad<\/strong><\/p>\n The speaker 1 focuses that the DG based his search from emails. Judge questions how was search illegal.\u00a0The speaker says appelants wanted to know scope of search which DG didn’t disclose post which Speaker 2 takes over the podium.\u00a0Section 19(3) of competition Act, 2002 is being focused by speaker.<\/p>\n 0310 PM SLS, Pune v. United World School of Law, Karnavati University<\/strong><\/p>\n Very promptly referring to the moot problem as an answer to an enquiry by Ms. Chaturvedi, the counsel is proceeding with his argument about cancellation of warranty.\u00a0The judge calls out the counsel on a failing hypothesis, saying it’s only a hypothesis to begin with. Calling the consumers brand conscious for the second time, the appellants are moving forward in their arguments.\u00a0The judges are asking the counsel to apply a principle evolves in a cited case law after grilling him about his knowledge of the same.\u00a0\u00a0With Head nodding among the judges, the counsel was allowed to move to the next issue. the counsel contends that there was no willful disobedience nor a transfer of property.\u00a0Mr. Parashar seems satisfied with the counsel’s answer as to the lack of intention.\u00a0As the counsel proceeds to the prayer the co-counsels stand up.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 0315 PM ILS Law college, Pune v. MNLU, Aurangabad<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaker proceeds with next issue. Talks about legislation having prospective effect and not retrospective effect.\u00a0Says right to life of people is most important. Therefore zero lubricant has been recommended.\u00a0Says the appellant only said zero is best and didn’t say that other lubricants must be not used. Confusion regarding the prayer. The prayer in memo does not match with what the the appellants want.<\/p>\n 0317 PM National Law School Of India University v. SLS Hyderabad<\/strong><\/p>\n The respondents have taken to the floor. The counsel was asked to shed light on the terms used by the counsel in the submissions. The counsel looks fairly composed even after the questions asked by the judges.The grill session continues as the judges continue to question every statement presented by the counsel. By using words like “far fetched” to describe the points given, the judges are going hard on the counsel.<\/p>\n 0320 PM School of Excellence in Law v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University<\/strong><\/p>\n The appellant quite eloquently brought out the ambiguity in the terms of agreement As something that should be taken cognaizance of, and backed his argument with Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002.\u00a0However, the judges felt by a there was a mistake on the part of the appellant in the interpretation of the law and asked for the material that the appellant had referred to\u00a0As the appellant moved on, he was successful in bringing out subsequent conventions, but once again failed in bringing out a successful methodology of calculation of assets. But later, referred to the clarifications provided to eradicate the prevailing ambiguity, and succeeded in doing the same. The main loophole in the argument of the appellant here but later the appellant pointed out by the judges was with regard to the double threshold that the appellant mentioned, and the lack of justification provided for the same.<\/p>\n 0322 PM NUJS v. SLS Hyderabad<\/strong><\/p>\n The judge is discussing the principle of corporate veil. Now the counsel is asked to conclude.\u00a0The counsel was asked to shed light on the fact about abuse of dominant position by the party. The counsel made points around the lubricant circular and also around the fact of 32% market share.<\/p>\n 0326 PM Tamil Nadu National Law University v. Gujarat National Law University<\/strong><\/p>\n The judges begin grilling the counsel within the first minute of the counsel presenting his argument. The judges ask for a record of the complaint cited by the counsel in his argument.\u00a0The counsel is questioned that isn\u2019t it too harsh on a customer to be put under the restriction of using only a specific kind of lubricant, otherwise his warranty would be cancelled. The judge further asks if it is right to impose such harsh conditions just to keep up one\u2019s image in the market. The counsel further argues that the condition is imposed because the use of the any other lubricant than the prescribed lubricant would lead to damage to the engine of the car. The counsel is grilled further on this argument. Judges give an extension of 5 mins to the counsel. Counsel is questioned on a specific citation mentioned in the memorial submitted by the counsel and is in a fix. The counsel is granted extra time of 2 minutes and addresses the last issue.<\/p>\n 0328 PM Indore Institute of Law v. Christ University, Bangalore<\/strong><\/p>\n The counsel for IIL runs out of time and the podium is now taken by the affluent speaker for Christ University, who claims to take the first two issues. The presentation begins as the counsels introduce themselves and straight away progresses towards the issue without temporizing further.\u00a0The counsel was questioned by the bench on a hypothetical situation relating to “per incurium”. “Per incurium judgment might be a bad law for you, but you always have the option to appeal to a higher court” – according to the honourable judge.\u00a0The counsel for SLCU has addressed the second issue articulately and it’s time for the second speaker to add on. The counsel seems equally loquacious and is producing pellucid arguments before the bench. Descanting to address the third issue, the counsel is breaking the issue into several contentions. The counsel in one of the arguments attacked ‘the limited interchangeability for car parts’ to support their case. “If I am using a BMW car, I can’t go for the spare parts of Goodi brand”, submits the counsel.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 0320 PM\u00a0SLS, Pune v. United World School of Law, Karnavati University<\/strong><\/p>\n The counsel on being grilled about any alternative course of action if the prayer is not accepted is falling silent.\u00a0The appellant’s counsel is approaching for the rebuttals now.\u00a0It’s the respondent’s turn for the rebuttals now.\u00a0With a furrowed brow, the judges are patiently listening to the rebuttals.\u00a0The judges are briskly filling the scoresheets as the teams are waiting outside, interacting before the feedback.<\/p>\n 0328 PM Tamil Nadu National Law University v. Gujarat National Law University<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaker 1 of the Respondent side begins to present his arguments.\u00a0\u00a0The judge asks the counsel to state 5 facts that are in favor of his arguments. 1st argument- the counsel submitted that the investigation carried by the office of DG was within the scope of his Office. The judges question the counsel on what is referred to by \u201call materials\u201d in the order passed by the High Court, and is grilled further on the same point. \u00a0Issue 2 regarding the online sale of vehicles. The counsel argued that the online sale of cars was in contravention of sec. 3, clause 4 of the Act.\u00a0Counsel concluded with the last argument which was that Section 3, clause (4) should be imposed on TML.<\/p>\n 0330 PM School of Excellence in Law v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University<\/strong><\/p>\n The respondent tried time and again to back her arguments with cases, but the judges were just not convinced, thus ending the speech of the respondent on a negative note.\u00a0Her co counsel now stepped up and brought out the argument of the dominance of the company and the position of the distributor. His position seemed shaky initially, but he could do justice to his argument by citing relevant statutes and cases.\u00a0The style of presentation of the respondent seemed to be quite charisthmatic and seemed to attract the attention of judges. He substantially pointed out the issue with the market share of 32% and brought out the position of TML in the market in a manner so as to indicate the dominating position they are in. The respondent further moved on with his argument with regard to Section 3 and 4 if The Competition Act, 2002, and once again backed his argument with the dominant position of TML in the market.<\/p>\n 0340-0400 PM National Law School Of India University v SLS Hyderabad\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The counsel is being grilled around the facts of the case. This has evidently baffled the counsel.\u00a0\u00a0With just 1 minute left on the clock, the counsel is not even close to a conclusion.\u00a0Extra time of 4 min has been awarded by the judges.\u00a0With the prayer by the counsel, the grill session comes to an end.<\/p>\n 0351 PM Tamil Nadu National Law University v. Gujarat National Law University<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaker 2 has taken the podium. Intention of the framers of the Act were to be imposed retrospectively, and the Act can be applied retrospectively, clubbed with the judgement of the Supreme Court. It is further argued that TML has abused its dominance over the market. Counsel cited the Shamsher Kataria Case<\/strong><\/em> to support his argument and cites a European Union case as a response to a question put forward by the judges. The counsel cited a notification released in 2011, and is questioned on the relevance of the same and whether the same can be relied upon.<\/p>\n 0355 PM School of Excellence in Law v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University<\/strong><\/p>\n The respondent finally brought out the concept of unified systems market, and drew a line of similarity between the position TML and the former, convincing the judges as to why he brought out the concept of unified system of markets in a scenario where a company is in a dominant position.<\/p>\n 0400 PM<\/strong>\u00a0Tamil Nadu National Law University v. Gujarat National Law University<\/strong><\/p>\n The appellants said that the arguments presented by the Respondents regarding the market shares were incorrect and that the relevant market was a down-stream market and that their understanding about the same was flawed. They further said that the case cited regarding TML was still pending and hence, they could not be labelled as a habitual offender. The respondent then responded with the point that market share was not the only factor that was taken into consideration by them, and that it was never said that TML was a habitual offender in their submissions.<\/p>\n 0407 PM\u00a0ILS Law college, Pune v. MNLU, Aurangabad\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Judge focuses on how industry works.. The way TML acted is a common market practice. Speaker focuses on how TML has dominant position in market. Mentions competition act. Arguing territorial restraints imposed by TML. Also talks about retail price maintenance imposed by TML.\u00a0Judges ask for case law that supports arguments made by speaker. Proceeds with next issue regarding vertical agreements. Judges Questions about SCC, SCR and citation of MANUPATRA is not used rather AIR and SCC are authorized sources.\u00a0Judge Ruchi Sharma asks “what is law?” Judge Shashwat Sharma further asks that if any circular that passes by MCA will be law?\u00a0\u00a0And it doesn’t end here the questions continue.<\/p>\n The judge says how the arguments ignited fire in the appellants and though it’s good but shouldn’t be practiced later. Because may lead to loss of court room marks for etiquette.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n With this, we come to the end of Preliminary Round 2. Stay tuned to this link for the announcement of breaks!\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 0500 PM ANNOUNCEMENT OF BREAKS<\/strong><\/p>\n The teams qualifying for the Quarters are (in order of qualification)<\/p>\n Congratulations to the qualifying teams!<\/p>\n 0530 PM Quarter Final Rounds<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 0535 PM\u00a0Tamil Nadu NLU v. RMNLU, Lucknow<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The pre round preps are on as the teams wait for the judges to arrive. With thick books and colour coded pages, The mood seems to be tense over all.<\/span><\/p>\n 0537 PM\u00a0ILS Law College, Pune v. NLSIU Bangalore<\/strong><\/p>\n The judge Aditya Khandekar questions what\u2019s the difference between appellants first issue and second issue . \u00a0Speaker is a little confused and asks judges to not go with memorial but to focus on arguments. Brings attention of judges to fact 14 regarding conduct of TML . Judge asks when was the search and seizure done ? The question makes the speaker confused regarding retrospective effect of the law.<\/span><\/p>\n 0540 PM School of Law, Christ University v. SLS Pune<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaker 1- Counsel seeks permission to move on to the issues, and proceeds to stating the issues involved. Counsel submits that the search was conducted illegally and was out of the scope of the DG\u2019s Office. The counsel cites Regulation 20 clause (2) of Indian Competition Act. The counsel cites a case, and is questioned about the facts by the judges, but is unaware of the facts. The relevance of the case is further questioned by the judges since the facts of the cited case are not known. The judges are grilling the counsel on the argument that the prescribed time limit to submit the report by the DG was exceeded. <\/span><\/p>\n 0541 PM MNLU, Aurangabad v. GNLU, Gandhinagar<\/strong><\/p>\n The Appellants kick started by introducing themselves and the side they would be representing. The Appellant then started to state the facts of the case very briefly, very cleverly stating them in such a way so as to make it seem like the case was completely in favour. The appellant stated the facts quite flawlessly, giving no scope for ambiguity, or any chance of questioning.<\/span><\/p>\n 0543 PM\u00a0Tamil Nadu NLU v. RMNLU, Lucknow<\/strong><\/p>\n With an unyielding look on their faces, the judges are patiently listening to the counsel\u2019s argument after asking him to substantiate on his assertion about territorial restraints. Mr. Mishra is calling out the counsel on how his elaboration of facts do not substantiate his points. Another error of sorts pointed by the judge was that a simile with India cannot be used as the territory in the problem in question is different.<\/span><\/p>\n 0545 PM\u00a0MNLU, Aurangabad v. GNLU, Gandhinagar<\/strong> The appellant further stated that mere manufacturing of a lubricant of a superior quality, may amount to restriction of trade, which brought a look of shock on the faces of the judges, as the same seemed quite ambiguous, and further paved way for a series of questions and pounding by the judges, which the appellant failed to successfully overcome, after which the she was asked to proceed with the other issues.<\/span><\/p>\n 0547 PM Tamil Nadu NLU v. RMNLU, Lucknow<\/strong><\/p>\n With a perceptibly shaky voice the counsel is answering a string of questions by the judges as to certain presumptions made by him about the facts. Moving on to online sale of cars now the counsel is bringing the judges\u2019 attention to some online scams further asserting that online sale of cars should not be allowed. The judges let the counsel move unquestioned as to this issue on to the issue of Resale Price Maintenance.<\/span><\/p>\n 0550 PM\u00a0ILS Law College, Pune v. NLSIU Bangalore<\/strong><\/p>\n The speaker says she will be dealing with only 1 issue and her co-counsel will be dealing with second issue and all together they will be only dealing with 2 issues out of 4 \u00a0mainly focusing on how search and seizure was illegal.\u00a0<\/span>Speaker 2 \u00a0takes over the dice. She will be dealing issue regarding search and seizure and anti-competitiveness.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 0552 PM School of Law Christ University v. SLS Pune\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The Counsel proceeds to the next submission. The counsel submits that the evidence found by an illegal search is not admissible and cites various cases to support the same.\u00a0<\/span>The counsel and the judges engage in a heated debate regarding the counsel\u2019s argument that the search conducted was illegal and out of the scope of the DG\u2019s Office.<\/span><\/p>\n 0552 PM ILS Law College, Pune v. NLSIU Bangalore<\/strong><\/p>\n Questions are not less than a ball of fire fired back to back on speaker 2 .Speaker is grilled badly by judges when speaker goes against the facts mentioned . Judges question how one can question the finding by an honourable authority like CAT without any basis?<\/span><\/p>\n 0552 PM\u00a0MNLU, Aurangabad v. GNLU, Gandhinagar<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The delegate seemed to lose confidence after the series of questions but however, moved onto the next issue, arguing that the circular issued was a mere circular, therefore the MCA\u2019s contention to file a suit on the basis of the lubricant circular would not succeed as the same would be violative of Section 3 (4) of The Competition Act, 2002. On this note, she ended her speech, and called upon her co-counsel to continue <\/span><\/p>\n 0554 PM Tamil Nadu NLU v. RMNLU, Lucknow<\/strong><\/p>\n Time\u2019s up now. The counsel has been allowed extra 60 seconds to sum up his arguments.\u00a0<\/span>Even as the counsel exceeds his 60 seconds, he is faced with questions by the judges.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 0555 PM\u00a0MNLU, Aurangabad v. GNLU, Gandhinagar<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The co-counsel started her speech on a very confident note, indicating that the very agreement on which an issue was based on was flawed in itself, pointing out the terms of the agreement that are violative of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The same seemed to have satisfied the judges, and the lucid and comprehensive argument, backed by relevant statutory provisions, put forward by the appellant gave no way for questioning.<\/span><\/p>\n 0557 PM Tamil Nadu NLS v. RMLNLU, Lucknow<\/strong><\/p>\n the co-counsel for the appellant is on the dias now. The counsel is advancing his argument on very narrow technical grounds. Mr. Mishra is grilling the counsel about the dominance of the appellant company. Meanwhile, there are some chits being passed among the respondents.<\/span><\/p>\n 0557 PM\u00a0ILS Law College, Pune v. NLSIU Bangalore<\/strong><\/p>\n Judges are disappointed as all the documents required are not ready with appellants and this is consuming a lot of time. \u00a0The speakers and researchers seem all perplexed . The deadly silence captures the room for some seconds . J<\/span>udges are a bit disappointed as the speaker didn\u2019t mention name of case, the authority etc. \u00a0<\/span>Last few minutes left with appellant . With every argument presented by speaker, the judges ask for authorities which \u00a0the appellant doesn\u2019t seem to know. The judge (Mr. Bishen Jeswant ) comments immediately\u00a0<\/span>-\u201d Law is not what you think , law has a authority \u201c.<\/span><\/p>\n 0559 PM<\/strong>\u00a0School of Law Christ University v. SLS Pune\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The counsel is asked to summarise his remaining arguments within 2 minutes due to paucity of time. The counsel submits that the MCA cannot exercise superintendence over the order passed by the High Court.\u00a0<\/span>The judges ask the counsel to explain all his remaining arguments in merely 5 points.\u00a0<\/span>The judge asks the counsel if he is aware of the concept of \u201cdisruptive markets\u201d, and the counsel is unaware of the same. He is then asked to wrap with his submissions.<\/span><\/p>\n 0559 PM\u00a0MNLU, Aurangabad v. GNLU, Gandhinagar<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The appellant however seemed to have misunderstood the distributor\u2019s agreement, which was pointed out by the judges. The appellant however, brought out Section 125 of the compendium that was mentioned, proving that her understanding and interpretation was correct, leaving none of the questions that were raised by the judges, following the pointing out of the error in interpretation, unanswered.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 0601 PM\u00a0MNLU, Aurangabad v. GNLU, Gandhinagar<\/strong><\/p>\n The judges, now started throwing hypothetical questions at the appellants, on the same lines as that of the issue at hand, probably looking forward to confuse the appellant a little, but the appellant kept her calm, and answered every question put forward, backing her statements with relevant statutory provisions.<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-07-at-4.39.55-PM-225x300.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-07-at-4.39.52-PM-225x300.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-07-at-4.41.19-PM-225x300.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/admin-ajax-300x288.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-07-at-4.57.09-PM-225x300.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-11.23.09-AM-e1544249385630-300x169.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-11.00.16-AM-225x300.jpeg\")
\nThe 7 minute Bell has been rung.\u00a0\u00a0The Counsel has been stopped from moving to the third argument by a query from Mr. jeswant. The Counsel is moving to the third issue now with no time left. The judge has allowed the counsel a thirty second window to complete that.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-11.54.10-AM-225x300.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-12.06.40-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\nSilence prevails in the courtroom as the bench has pointed out that the appelants have contradicted themselves in their memorial. However, NLSIU is not ready to accept defeat yet. The counsel is still striving hard to justify their case before the bench.\u00a0The arguments are at an end, the counsel for NLS were questioned upon their prayer about “tribunals”.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-12.07.46-PM-300x170.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe Counsel from the respondent is appearing in front of the judges now with a bold voice.\u00a0Beginning unsteadily, the counsel is falling silent when asked by the judge to rebut the appellant’s arguments when his arguments took a different route.\u00a0Acknowledging a little anxiety in the counsel, the judge is guiding the Counsel to proceed from the law connecting to the facts. Citing the Shamsher Kataria<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Case, the counsel is proceeding with his argument with a palpably steadier voice.\u00a0Going with Mr. Jeswant’s earlier stated opinion, the Counsel states that the appellant company is dominant in the secondary market
\nThe judges are enquiring into the counsel reasons for citing an American doctrine whole commenting on it’s binding power.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-12.02.31-PM-300x169.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe counsel for the respondents have just taken the dias, however there is a confusion going on in the courtroom as the memo submitted by the respondents does not match with the memos as received by the judges.\u00a0The first speaker for Karnavati University would be addressing the first, third and fourth issues. The counsel is arguing to establish that the search and seizure, though illegal, could be justified as the laws of Mocando do not prohibit the use of evidences found during integral search and seizures. The counsel, in this regard, is reffering to Section. 248 of the Companies Act.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-12.40.19-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-12.20.33-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe second speaker for Karnavati University has taken the dias and they have been somewhat successful so far in arguing the second issue, with a tone of confidence and sincerity. The level of research in this team seems unparalleled as every question by the judges is being well addressed by the counsel. If the team continues in this wavelength, the competition is in the bag for them.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-1.13.41-PM-300x170.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\nSpeaker 2 begins. Seeking to address,\u00a0the bench as \u201cLordships\u201d, she cites\u00a0Johnson and Johnson case\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>and\u00a0argues that there is there is transfer of assets. She further argues that penalty should not be imposed; as there is no disruption in competition caused which is why only TNL was penalized.\u00a0 They go on to read out the prayer. There are rebuttals put forth by the appellants.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-12.44.34-PM-225x300.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-12.38.47-PM-1-300x169.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-2.55.22-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-2.45.08-PM-300x169.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe first speaker for IIL has approached the dias and proceeded to the first issue already. The counsel is quite verbose about their case and trying to answer all the questions shot at them. On the other hand, Christ University looks even more confident, taking notes of the arguments and smirking within their selves as they have found the appropriate counter. The speech of the first speaker for IIL comes to an impressive end as the second speaker approaches the dias. Counsel as of now looks a bit tensed which is natural but we are sure we can expect some enlightening arguments from them. The temperature in the room is going hot, probably the reason why the fans had to be turned on.<\/p>\n
\nPromptly replying to a question regarding the facts by the judges, the counsel is contending that there was little restriction on Competition in comparison to the pro competitive effects as inter brand Competition was promoted.\u00a0Judges were amused by the counsel’s hesitant assertion that the residents of the territory in question earn a lot.\u00a0Time’s up. An extension of a minute has been allowed to the counsel. Mr. Parashar is questioning the counsel on her knowledge of Haizel Blat v. Commission case<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0having cited it.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-3.09.13-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-3.05.54-PM-169x300.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-3.52.21-PM-170x300.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-4.28.30-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-5.48.22-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\nArguing the first issue, the appellant brought out the very famous BCCI case, in which there was abuse of dominance, and further, threw light on the facts of the case, as the same was asked by the judges. Section 32(4) of The Indian Penal Code was brought out as an underlying statutory provision by the appellants. Trying to draw lines of similarity between the BCCI case and the issue at hand, the appellant stated that the former bore relevance as even in the present case, there was an abuse of the dominant position, considering the fact that it staked a claim of 32% in the market, and had to render services during the period of warranty.<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-5.59.29-PM-300x169.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2018-12-08-at-5.59.35-PM-300x169.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n